Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: softwarecreator
"So is the autopsy report, which in my opinion would be more non-biased, and therefore more powerful, than a compensated lawyer."

Why do you believe the autopsy report would be "more non-biased" than statements from a lawyer? Does the autopsy report even cover the same subjects that the lawyer covered in the interview I reference? (Generally it doesn't.)

137 posted on 06/23/2005 1:38:20 PM PDT by carl in alaska (Hey John Kerry...we don't do this just for "entertainment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]


To: carl in alaska
Does the autopsy report even cover the same subjects that the lawyer covered in the interview

No, it doesn't.  It also doesn't speculate or slant it to represent one side or the other.  It only gives medical FACTS and the report does not back up the 'claims' of abuse.

You can believe whatever you want.  Me?  I would tend to believe the examiner's report before I would the 'claims' of a lawyer.  The thing is, on almost every other subject most people would agree with that assessment, except on this one one.  Funny how subjective our distrust can be, huh?

286 posted on 06/24/2005 9:05:38 AM PDT by softwarecreator (Facts are to liberals as holy water is to vampires)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson