Prince autopsy... but not Scalia..

a reply to: peter vlar

Sure it can be explained away why the public's interest didn't weigh in on the decision to not do an autopsy on Scalia. The law didn't require it, so they didn't do one.

But the public's interest could have been a significant factor in deciding to do an autopsy despite his family's wishes.

It was not a factor though, so I am going with the following conclusions: the public's interest didn't matter OR someone influential to the justice of the peace put pressure on her not to order one because they didn't want the public to know the truth about Scalia's death.

That's all the trust I am willing to give government on any level. They've earned no more than that and I don't have to give them more than that.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why not just respect the fact that Scalia's family asked that no autopsy be performed? Isn't the families privacy more important than public curiosity? I realize that in huge current era of the internet, everyone wants what they want when they want it and are used to getting it at the tip of their finger with a quick google search but were talking bat a nearly 80 year old man who's heart was in bad enough shape that doctors refused to perform a surgery he needed for a shoulder injury shortly before he passed away.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why not just respect the fact that Scalia's family asked that no autopsy be performed? Isn't the families privacy more important than public curiosity? I realize that in huge current era of the internet, everyone wants what they want when they want it and are used to getting it at the tip of their finger with a quick google search but were talking bat a nearly 80 year old man who's heart was in bad enough shape that doctors refused to perform a surgery he needed for a shoulder injury shortly before he passed away.

If his family placed themselves above the public, then I think he would never have accepted the nomination for SCOTUS, in the first place.

But he did. Either his family accepted his position and life would be of great public importance or they didn't and he said "screw them, I am doing it anyway." Either way, HE accepted a life under a certain public microscope.

The public's interest outweighs his family's interest and even his own. That is how I feel about his position as a SCOTUS justice. Nothing anyone says will sway me to feel the public has the lesser interest. Sorry.

BTW, I personally had such a great interest in his death that I wrote an open records request for the letter from his physician to JoP Guevara. I wish I had the opportunity to learn direct & substantive facts about his actual death though.

I matter. The public matters. And I will side with the public, every chance I get.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I see where you're coming from and totally understand your point. We'll just have to agree to disagree in this instance.

a reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: peter vlar

Sure it can be explained away why the public's interest

What "public interest"?
A few conspiracy theorists who like to make crap up aabout everything, that see a conspiracy in everything.... is nnot really "publicc interest"!

But the public's interest could have been a significant factor in deciding to do an autopsy despite his family's wishes.

Why?

the public's interest didn't matter

A few conspiracy theorists who like making crap up do not matter - especially when a autopsy would not stop them making crap up!

OR someone influential to the justice of the peace put pressure on her not to order one because they didn't want the public to know the truth about Scalia's death.

Silly conspiracy theory nonsense, not backed by anything factual!

a reply to: hellobruce

You can prove that the "family" actually requested no autopsy right.

All I could ever find was just a bunch of "he said she said" rubbish.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think his family would disagree that your need to have your morbid curiousity satisfied to whatever degree you deem sufficient (if anything really is sufficient, that is) trumps their rights in the death of a family member.

And, bottom line, if the law is on the family's side and not the morbidly curious conspiracy theorist's side, it really doesn't mean diddly spit what you want does it?

a reply to: peter vlar

Yes, the family insisted on no autopsy and then the conspiracies started, which the family said was very 'hurtful.'

I understand the family's wishes but he was a high-profile figure, a conservative-leaning SCOTUS who made some controversial rulings. He died away from home on a hunting ranch in the middle of nowhere. If it were my dad, I'd want an autopsy. Just to rule out any other possible cause.

Now they'll never know for absolute certain. And conspiracies will always surround his death.

Should've just agreed to an autopsy.

a reply to: texasgirl

Personally, I'm all for him being autopsied. He was there on the dime of so,some who had a case coming up before SCOTUS so I would have preferred to have any doubts placed to rest. At the end of the day though, his family requested it not be done and I have to respect their need for privacy in a period of mourning. Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: hellobruce
What "public interest"?

The U.S. public's interest. Given you are from New Zealand, it's understandable why you might not have or appreciate the same interest that U.S. citizens have in the death of a SCOTUS justice.

And many U.S. citizens have expressed an interest in Scalia's death.

Who are you to tell them they are wrong to question how it was handled? The SCOTUS decides on matters that greatly interest U.S. citizens on very personal levels. The SCOTUS does NOT determine whether the U.S. government upholds your Constitutional rights as a New Zealander, so why do you care if anyone in the U.S. has a higher standard for investigating the unattended death of a SCOTUS justice than you do?

a reply to: texasgirl

"Now they'll never know."

Well, one of two things is the case here: either the family doesn't harbor any conspiracy theorist beliefs and doesn't see bogeymen behind every curtain, or somebody leveraged them into not doing an autopsy.

If it's the former, your bias is your bias and not the family's. If it's the latter, we'd never know that was the case regardless.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think his family would disagree that your need to have your morbid curiousity satisfied to whatever degree you deem sufficient (if anything really is sufficient, that is) trumps their rights in the death of a family member.

And, bottom line, if the law is on the family's side and not the morbidly curious conspiracy theorist's side, it really doesn't mean diddly spit what you want does it?

You can call it a morbid curiosity, all you want. But I have clearly expressed a more serious and rational reason for wanting a definitive cause of death that could only come from an autopsy.

Frame my opinion whatever way you want. I don't believe I have demonstrated a 'morbid curiosity,' at any point, on ATS. My interest is in the public's oversight of a federal government that cannot be trusted. I have expressed that opinion over and over, on ATS.

Besides, there is certainly one interest in this that trumps Scalia's 'family wishes': The wishes of the deceased.

Scalia accepted a position of great public interest and a lifetime appointment. I don't believe for a moment that he would expect -- nor want -- his unattended death to go without a post-mortem exam if the American public expressed a great interest in one.

Scalia was a man that relied on evidence in his service for the United States. I don't believe that ignoring or burying evidence would be something he would find palatable.

No good judge will ever claim that proving 'cause of death' without an autopsy is an easy or sensible task. I know this from personal experience.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Frame your opinion however YOU want, guy.

It boils down to nothing more than you believe your curiousity trumps all, even when the law doesn't support your curiousity. Dress it up however makes you feel all puffed up, it doesn't change what it is at its core. You believe your "right to know" trumps all.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It boils down to nothing more than you believe your curiousity trumps all, even when the law doesn't support your curiousity. Dress it up however makes you feel all puffed up, it doesn't change what it is at its core. You believe your "right to know" trumps all.

Actually, the law does allow for an autopsy to have been ordered despite his family's wishes -- based on public interest...based on ANY reason the Justice of the Peace felt was important.

The LAW does not FORBID an autopsy just because his family declined one.

I am "puffed up" for a very good reason: It's my JOB to oversee the government and demand they work for the betterment of all U.S> Citizens. And if they don't, it's my JOB to hold them accountable in accordance with the law.

Whether I exercise my right to write an open records request, vote 'them' out, utilize my first amendment rights....or revolt (in worst case scenario) --- I do actually have rights to oversee the government.

I matter. The American public matters.

'Puffed up?' Please. I am no more puffed up than anyone given an 'official' position in government.

Stop trying to minimize the public in favor of a lazy, self-preserving government who wants to be 'cheap' or 'gosh-darn sympathetic to families' ONLY when it suits an agenda.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Frame your opinion however YOU want, guy.

I did. Then you came along trying to act like I was simply 'morbidly curious.'

No need to act like you are ignorant. You attempted to frame my argument to be about some morbid curiosity. You cannot rewrite history on an internet forum...not usually, anyway...or that quickly.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
I agree with all the very good and logical reasons you have given for wanting to know for certain
what was the cause of Scalia's death, There were some unusual circumstances around his death.

I will always think there was more to his death than what was publically known. You are not alone.

a reply to: justdust

Thanks! I cannot be alone in feeling isolated from what the government does without regard for public interest and behind closed doors.

I truly appreciate your comment.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Frame your opinion however YOU want, guy.

It boils down to nothing more than you believe your curiousity trumps all, even when the law doesn't support your curiousity. Dress it up however makes you feel all puffed up, it doesn't change what it is at its core. You believe your "right to know" trumps all.

Oh, Good God! I am finding it is very important to look at a poster's introductory posts and posting history.

In your introduction you wrote:

"stumbled across this site a couple years ago, lost track of it, then stumbled into it again a few days ago and decided to join. just wanted to say hello and introduce myself. no, i will not tell you where i worked or what i did, but i do have over a decade of experience in military/government fields and can probably help shed a different prospective/light on claims made by other 'government employees' and claims made about the government, and maybe even help clarify a few things here and there. hope to be around for a long time on the site and make some friends and help further the cause. drop me a reply or a u2u and get to know me! "

Link


And now, here you are, telling me that a member of the U.S. public -- many members of the U.S. public -- are 'puffed up' for thinking they should have some say into the investigation of a SCOTUS Justice's unattended death.

You have made my point, now: People involved in the government do not have any regard for the public and dare to mock us for thinking we have any importance whatsoever.

You epitomize the reason I question the government.

a reply to: onequestion

Maybe because Scalia was at that retreat/party in that secure remote area all coked up and having sex with underage little boys when his heart exploded and they couldn't exactly take him in for an autopsy and expose the thing.

Or his underage sex slave actually did choke him out with that pillow either on purpose of part of their sexual escapade and again couldn't risk exposing everyone else who was at the party and what goes on there.

Not that I have proof of either one of those theories but there are plenty of similar stories out there having to deal with powerful people like him doing that kind of thing. So I'm just throwing that out there.