Replies

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?

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.

Yes.

Also, you would not say that he couldn't have seen a brontosaurus and been so terrified that he dropped dead. And I couldn't say that he hadn't been abducted and replaced by an amazingly lifelike mannequin. Just because many things are all possible does not mean that they are all equally likely. In the interests of time and sanity, most people choose to limit themselves to things which are both possible and probable.

Why do you think the coroner said nothing about checking for that potential piece of evidence?

Because if the coroner decided to list all of the things he didn't find instead of just the things he found, he would have died of old age before he finished writing and then you'd have had another coincidence.

When someone asks what you did yesterday, do you tell them the things you did or the things you didn't do?

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?

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.