Posted on 04/13/2013 4:14:02 AM PDT by IbJensen
As far as I can tell, there was no mention of Sherrif Joe’s uncovering of Obama’s identity fraud. That is a crucial bit of information. Are we living behind an iron curtain?
That’s a reasonable espistemology, which I’m sure that law enforcement is using and which I also would use.
Is there any group of people that you would automatically rule out because it might look like you were a conspiracy theorist?
The media (Fox included) has not mentioned that Sherriff Joe has reported on Obama’s identity and ss# fraud.
BTW, you do also realize that shortly after Arpaio announced that the CCP would be investigating Obama’s documentation, Eric Holder initiated an investigation against Sheriff Joe and eliminated his ability to access records he had been previously able to access on law enforcement grounds, right?
It’s not evidence, it’s just another piece of the big puzzle.
All of the media reports spent more time talking about Holder’s investigation of Arpaio and the White House’s reaction to the presser than to ANY piece of evidence presented at the presser. Not hard to do, because NONE of Arpaio’s evidence was mentioned in the press reports. Theyh all intimated that Arpaio’s investigation of Obama’s documentation was in response to Holder’s investigation of him, and none reported the fact that Holder initiated his investigation AFTER Arpaio put the CCP on the Obama case.
Nope.
So long as you’re assuming it is a person who is part of a group and not literally assuming that it is a whole group of people. If you are automatically assuming it’s a conspiracy, then, yes by definition that would kind of make you a conspiracy theorist.
Or, y’know, if you assumed that the Postmaster General is actually a general and has declared war via the mail. That would also put you in the realm of conspiracy theory.
So you would not say that it COULDN’T be a Soros-related attack, just like I would not say it HAD TO BE a Soros-related attack. For both of us, the evidence would be the determining factor.
Presumably you would use the same epistemology for the Breitbart death - wouldn’t rule out a Soros-related assassination just as I wouldn’t assume it had to be a Soros-related assassination. The evidence would be the deciding factor, and following all the evidence.
A critical piece of evidence would be whether there was or wasn’t a small round hole where a dart could have entered the body. Why do you think the coroner said nothing about checking for that potential piece of evidence? If he had, that could have potentially been ruled out as a means of death. That would have been very useful to both of us, no?
They collect the clothes, belongings, etc and keep it in another place where it is all logged and kept track of. The coroner would have had access to the clothes if he had requested it. If he wasn’t allowed access that would be a huge red flag.
If my job was to detail exactly what I checked and what I didn’t, in order to settle any questions of what caused the death of a very prominent person.... I would say what I checked. He said he checked the body for injuries. What does that say to you? Did he look for little holes that could seem like bug bites?
Well, you confirmed that you’re not my godson. My godson would have more sense than to take what I said and make total mash out of it.
The clothes were logged in at the coroner’s office. The job of the technician who transports the body to the coroner’s office (which is one of the things that Cormier did, but apparently not in Breitbart’s case) is to unclothe it, log a report of all the clothes, possessions, etc that were with the body when it was retrieved, and photograph the body before putting it into cold storage to await the actual autopsy.
There was an audit done of this particular coroner’s office, and all the flowcharts, etc were published as part of that audit. I don’t have the link for it off-hand and it may take some time to find it because my computer has crashed multiple times in the last few years and it takes a lot of time digging to find anything these days.
IOW, when the coroner began the autopsy the body was unclothed as it typically is. If he had wanted to see the clothes or possessions he could have asked to see them.
Clothes can explain bruises, etc on the body, so even with the body having been taken to the hospital first, I believe they would have kept the clothes for the coroner.
I find it unlikely that the coroner would write a note that the clothing did not accompany the body on every single autopsy while also knowing that his technician unclothed the body and kept the clothes. Seems vastly simpler to just not mention of the clothes if you’re not going to talk about them.
The thing I find strangest about your theory, to be honest, is that despite the overall size and sophistication of the conspiracy required to actually do it, you seem to think that the coroner would need some strange logical ‘gotcha’ trick in order to hide the truth. Couldn’t he just... lie?
of course he could lie. Like the LAPD did (unless the doctor who saw Cormier really did admit to criminal medical negligence in sending home a patient believed to be in the critical stages of septis following a perforated bowel...)
But I follow the evidence. If the coroner had simply lied there would be nothing for me to point out. It’s the anomalies that cause the questions.
So... instead of lying, which would have been easier or at least less convolution, the conspiracists are intentionally leaving a trail of evidence for you to follow?
Every autopsy makes two findings-- mode of death (there are four choices here: homicide, suicide, natural causes and accident), and cause of death (more specific-- e.g., heart attack, gunshot wound, etc.). The autopsy report here starts with the finding "Mode: Natural." That means the autopsy ruled out homicide. Having ruled out homicide, the report doesn't have to say "I found no gunshot wounds," or "I found no stab wounds," or "I found no puncture wounds." Pathologists don't spend a lot of time listing what they didn't find.
Lying requires a complicit coroner, even before he knew he needed to be complicit. And that’s often what ruins a “perfect crime”. It’s the same thing that ruined Obama’s documentation crimes.
You (or somebody, can’t remember who) talked about it being useless to do anything if a murder can be passed off as a heart attack or something else. But there are give-aways besides the autopsy. Without having even checked the body for the only evidence of an assassination, the coroner can say it was a natural death but the question is really still wide open - unless and until the coroner knows that there was no dart entry hole. There are other deaths that are STILL up in the air because nobody would allow the body to be examined for the telltale evidence.
The quickest way for anybody to end the questions about Breitbart’s death would have been to do the full examination - the check for ALL the potential forms of assassination - with plenty of documentation and explain the abnormal circumstances. Explain why the doctors REALLY let Cormier go when he told them he thought he had been poisoned. Explain why the cops REALLY didn’t investigate an arsenic poisoning when the precise moment and place of the poisoning would have been fairly easy to determine. Explain what blood chemistry REALLY caused the timing of Breitbart’s heart to go bad. Explain what his medical records REALLY said about his condition before this happened.
If this was just a normal heart attack, then it should be fairly easy to clear up these questions. As with Obama’s documentation problem, it is the failure to give adequate reasons and explanations for the stuff that doesn’t pass the smell test.... that leads people to say something stinks about the whole thing.
The coverup and lies of the cops in the Cormier death is one of the most upsetting parts of this, for me. To the very end they were still trying to paint this as a toss-up between just a normal heart attack and a little bit of arsenic poisoning. The guy with a history of heart problems had gone to see a doctor in excruciating pain saying he thought he had been poisoned, had supposedly been released with a perforated bowel (which is fatal if not treated and would have had to be in a critical stage when he was released), and ended up dying 2 days later from massive multiple heart attacks with large volumes of arsenic in his body.... and they can’t quite figure out whether this was just a “normal” heart attack, or if the fatal levels of arsenic in his body might have had something to do with the 3 days of hell he had experienced before finally dying of massive heart attacks.
Sheesh. How stupid do they think we are?
I overestimated your interest in doing earnest analysis. My bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.