Scalia Death Suspicious "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head."

a reply to: 123143

Aww insults already?

Civics doesn't involve autopsy's, so again apples to oranges.
Notice you didn't answer my question, but I guess in your opinion that if the people want it, the gov gets to tell you how to live your life!

By all means show some actual sources to how the public gets decide when an autopsy is needed. The one previous was about georgia and still even then said that when the cause can be clearly seen as a natural cause, one is not needed.

originally posted by: Signals

originally posted by: 123143
a reply to: Kapriti

Yeah, not much left for tox. The body should have been examined. There are many places you can slip a needle.

Needles?

They were way passed that, 40 years ago-

If you say so. I don't do wet work. Do you?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, the notion is based on the public's interest which is always weighed most heavily with regard to law.

As pointed out, the public's "interest" is not relevant when it comes to law.

I'd be fine with an autopsy being carried out. However, I'm also aware that it would do nothing to stifle the conspiracy theories. I've been here long enough to know that.

a reply to: Phage

Give it a rest Phage, this ain't no Nibiru thread!

Assassination is imbedded in our nation's history. One should remain skeptical of any official story coming out of this administration, even you can see that.

a reply to: Signals

It was mentioned in Xuenchen's thread. What are your thoughts on it?

a reply to: Signals

Yes. I know that many people won't believe anything from the government. Even autopsy results. So as far as the public "interest" goes. It really doesn't matter, does it?

originally posted by: alienmma
LOL! The Obama hate is so real you are now accusing him and his administration of murdering a Supreme Court justice?

Really? Me? Surely you jest...
"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

"Ever since the election, and for the foreseeable future, the Republicans only have one thing on their mind, screw Obama." He said nothing else matters to them, not voters, and certainly not getting anything done. While the daily dance of special interest continues, he said that everyone is continually distracted by the inside war between Republicans and Democrats... and the smart lobbyists are the ones approaching Republicans with strategies and plans to undermine the Democrats and especially Obama. His concern was (and this was in late May, before the worst of it began), that the "get Obama" climate was in danger of getting out of control and irreparably damaging the entire country.

I'm focused on the facts as presented. And you? Jerk your knee much?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
By all means show some actual sources to how the public gets decide when an autopsy is needed. The one previous was about georgia and still even then said that when the cause can be clearly seen as a natural cause, one is not needed.

Please google '"public interest" AND autopsy.' You will find a dearth of information on why the public's interest is very important in determining whether to conduct an autopsy and whether or not to make the results public.

The public actually does matter.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Signals

Yes. I know that many people won't believe anything from the government. Even autopsy results. So as far as the public "interest" goes. It really doesn't matter, does it?

When the mantra on every day of the week on ATS is. The mainstream news LIES.

One day that same media says a supreme court justice died of 'natural causes'.

So what way is it ?

Either the mainstream LIES or they don't ?

a reply to: Signals

Poindexter now goes from a local small time Democrat donor to a higher ranking national operative with praise from Obama himself.

He also had some problems with buying land from the Texas State Park that his "ranch" in inside of.

And, that whole area is well known as a smuggling route.

Very suspicious all the way around.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: 123143

Aww insults already?

Civics doesn't involve autopsy's, so again apples to oranges.
Notice you didn't answer my question, but I guess in your opinion that if the people want it, the gov gets to tell you how to live your life!

By all means show some actual sources to how the public gets decide when an autopsy is needed. The one previous was about georgia and still even then said that when the cause can be clearly seen as a natural cause, one is not needed.

Well, I first learned how the government works in grade school, then in college, then in my career in government. But I guess that's apples and oranges, right?

This is a high profile figure. Government has a responsibility to The People. The People have a right to know. An autopsy should have been performed, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The fact that one was not performed is, to me, suspicious.

The only explanation for honoring a request that no autopsy be performed would be a Jackie Kennedy-type scenario, but even then John Kennedy was still autopsied, albeit not very thoroughly.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, the notion is based on the public's interest which is always weighed most heavily with regard to law.

As pointed out, the public's "interest" is not relevant when it comes to law.

Oh, yes it is. Have you never heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

I think you should also google '"public interest" AND autopsy.' You will be shocked at just how important the public's interest is with regard to autopsies.

a reply to: texasgirl

My thoughts are the obvious.

1. Found by millionaire Democrat donor with a pillow on his head.

2. Constitutional crisis just around the corner.

a reply to: 123143

JFK was murdered, a clear case of one being needed.

Well, I first learned how the government works in grade school, then in college, then in my career in government. But I guess that's apples and oranges, right?

Cool, then you should be able to easily show me where the public has the right to force an autopsy.
The statue of when and why they are done in texas is all over this thread.

The People have a right to know. An autopsy should have been performed, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Have a right to know what? That he is in fact dead and it was a heart attack? The guy had chronic heart problems according to his own doc and the agents on the scene saw absolutely no signs of foul play. You think they wouldn't be able to see where a needle was injected?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Na, I have already seen what texas says about it in this very thread.
I don't need to google what I have already seen, by all means tho make your own point. I am not going to do your leg work.

a reply to: Sremmos80

On-scene examination is NOT autopsy. Apples and oranges, as you say.

Re: JFK's autopsy, ask yourself why the whole shebang is sealed until later this century.

a reply to: Sremmos80


Would they be able to see a needle injection if it was between the toes? (I suppose, if they were actually looking for needle injections)

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Have you never heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, I have. It doesn't seem to require that autopsies be performed on public demand.

I think you should also google '"public interest" AND autopsy.'

Ok...
Can't really find anything about autopsies being performed because of public interest. Maybe you can help.

a reply to: Signals

I didn't see your post above the article saying it stinks. Well noted.

a reply to: texasgirl

Sure they would, and I would bet they did look. Again we are talking about federal marshal's and a dead justice. I doubt they just gave a quick once over before deciding there was no signs of foul play.
Why wouldn't they be able to see it between the toes?