First off, how do you know why Taitz’ request has not been fulfilled? Do you work for the Maui County Police Department? Cite your sources.
I posted here at FR some of the observations indicating that the “video” sequence in the KITV funeral report was photoshopped. Your suggestion that the evidence be a direct confession from the person who did the edit tells me that you’re a troll. You guys really need to be more careful about how you expose yourselves. Sheesh.
The coroner is supposed to have the real skinny from the first-person sources. The report from the people who found Fuddy. Why would he say, the next day, that Fuddy’s body had been retrieved from the wreckage?
Andrew Breitbart died around midnight, and by news time the next morning the coroner reported the fact that Breitbart hadn’t seen a doctor within the past year. Why did he report that? Because the protocol is that all the pertinent records and evidence were to be given to the coroner immediately. The coroner needs that in order to know what the autopsy should zoom in on. We’re not talking “fog of war”. We’re talking about the eyewitness testimony at its freshest point. That’s what the coroner was supposed to have. Why did he say that her body was retrieved from the wreckage?
First off, how do you know why Taitz’ request has not been fulfilled?Because if you go look at her website and look at her requests, she contacted the Maui Police Department and sent a request to the Medical Examiner. And in the comments, Taitz pointed out that she didn't bother to pay. And the Maui Police Department blew her off because she wasn't a relative or had a relative's written permission, as they are supposed to do by their own regulations. And then she began badgering the reporter to give her the report...which would be blatantly illegal in any state of the union and would result in the reporter facing jail time.
I posted here at FR some of the observations indicating that the “video” sequence in the KITV funeral report was photoshopped.Are these observations or is it proof? Put plainly, would your proof satisfy a court of law?
Your suggestion that the evidence be a direct confession from the person who did the edit tells me that you’re a troll.Nope, not a troll. You have observations, hints, suppositions, circumstantials - I want proof. Ironclad proof. The type that holds up in court.
The coroner is supposed to have the real skinny from the first-person sources. The report from the people who found Fuddy. Why would he say, the next day, that Fuddy’s body had been retrieved from the wreckage?I repeat, the news had not been gathered at that point. All data had not been collated. It doesn't occur instantly.
Andrew Breitbart died around midnight, and by news time the next morning the coroner reported the fact that Breitbart hadn’t seen a doctor within the past year. Why did he report that?
We’re talking about the eyewitness testimony at its freshest point. That’s what the coroner was supposed to have. Why did he say that her body was retrieved from the wreckage?Because he's operating off of eyewitness testimony, the most unreliable testimony that ever existed. Never trust eyewitness testimony. It's crap. Guy should have waited till he got the videos and the black box and so on.