Replies

. . .

Did you really just raise a 30 month old thread from the dead so that you could reply to me? Okay, well then:

You seem to be having some difficulty differentiating between evidence and coincidence. Would you like help?

Evidence:
The fact that this girl died of hypothermia outside her house is evidence.

The fact that she lost 30 pounds is evidence.

Coincidence:
The fact that she was found dead on 12 May, the same day that Charles Lindberg, Jr., was found dead, is a coincidence. It does not mean that the killer of the Lindberg baby struck again 79 years later.

The fact that she was found outside, which is where squirrels live, does not mean that a squirrel killed her.

I hope I've been helpful.

At what point are there enough “coincidences” that it warrants further investigation?

I mentioned some “coincidences”:

Breitbart dropped dead less than 5 hours after affirming Sheriff Joe’s evidence.

Less than 12 hours before Arpaio was going to make that evidence public.

On a subject that the media had already been threatened with their lives. Mike Zullo has confirmed that at least one media person fled the country in fear for her life and that of her child.

The same day as Rush Limbaugh got a package referring to 2 famous assassinations.

The stories about Breitbart’s health changed over time (I didn’t say this but will add here that the coroner confirmed immediately - before there was any talk about this being related to Arpaio - that Breitbart hadn’t seen a doctor for at least a year, and there was no prescription or street drug in his system at time of death. His father-in-law was initially reported to say he knew of no heart problems for Andrew. Once the questions arose over the timing of this death, the stories changed).

The technician at the coroner’s office was violently ill with arsenic poisoning a couple days before Breitbart’s autopsy was due to come out. Doctors supposedly sent him home even after he said he thought he had poisoned, because they supposedly concluded that he might have a PERFORATED BOWEL - a fatal condition if left untreated as they supposedly deliberately did. All this according to the LAPD, which could have easily traced the poisoner because those levels of arsenic create symptoms about 30 minutes after being ingested. They could have traced his steps and found out who did it. But they wouldn’t. Instead they tried initially denying anything suspect with the technician’s death by saying that doctors admitted to criminal medical negligence by releasing a guy they thought had a fatal but treatable condition that was already at a critical stage.

The coroner put out an autopsy which gave no clue of ever having looked for the only clinical sign of an assassination of the type that had been discussed as potentially being used on Breitbart: a small red entry hole.

And the media STILL hasn’t reported the actual evidence that Arpaio presented at that press conference that was buried by the story of Breitbart’s death.

What more needs to be added to all that, before you would consider it worthy of investigation?

I’ll reply here where the topic is real-world epistemology and clues that are legitimate in an investigation.

In the case of this child who died, it was determined that the cause of death was a tropical disease. Yet you considered the other suspicious “coincidences” to be enough for a deeper investigation.

In the Breitbart case, there were a heckuva lot more bizarre/unusual circumstances - including in the coroner’s office, the doctor’s office, and the LAPD. In the end, the coroner said that he had checked the body for injuries and noted none. What he should have been looking for if he wanted to dispel the suspicions was a little red entry hole like a bug bite. If he looked for that, why in the world wouldn’t he report it, since the purpose of the autopsy was to find the real cause of death and put to bed any suspicions of wrong-doing? If this guy really checked for that and found nothing, but didn’t document and report those findings, then he is too incompetent to have the job he has.

Just to make sure you’re not my godson, could you tell me whether your wife’s name is Dana and whether she is expecting a baby next month?

Also significant is that the coroner had the clothes Breitbart was wearing at the time he died. If he had found a little round hole that could have been mistaken for a bug bite, he could have checked the location of the hole with the cloth of the clothes that covered that area, and could have seen whether there was a similar hole in the cloth.

Why wouldn’t he check for any of that, given the rumors that were swirling? Why check for circumcision but not for something vital to the question at hand? Is the guy incompetent?

60-80% blockage doesn’t usually cause a heart attack, from the stuff I’ve heard from my husband being a pastor and dealing with folks with health issues. I could be wrong, but it seems like it would have to be a sizeable clot to cause a heart attack under those circumstances. And IIRC the report, as anaylzed by a doctor here, seemed more consistent with an attack caused by blood chemistry affecting the timing of the heart than by a blot clot. Somebody can correct me if I’m mistaken.

In any event, this coroner was either incompetent, or something else screwy was going on. Like there was screwy stuff going on with the doctors and the LAPD. And - oh - did I mention that the coroner’s colleague had been poisoned by arsenic in a way very visible to those at the coroner’s office just a couple days before the autopsy came out?