Posted on 01/26/2002 7:17:36 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
If you would actually check things out instead of trying to make something out of nothing, you would know that the Harris County medical examiner did the autopsy.
By ERIC HANSON Jan. 27, 2002, 1:04AM
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
SUGAR LAND -- The death of former Enron executive John Clifford Baxter was officially ruled a suicide Saturday by the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office.
Nice strawman attempt too, but no dice...;-)
Do you like to intentionally make yourself look foolish, or does it come naturally? I will admit I thought SL was in Harris County, but I did remember who did the autopsy. Further, there were several other points on my post that you simply ignored. You speak without knowing the facts, then you accuse ME of making a strawman argument? Sheesh. Stick with the conspiracy theories.
Is it normal policy to not do an autopsy when the death does not occur at a hospital or when the decedent is under a doctor's care?
This seems odd to me too. In Ft Bend County we use the 4 JP's when there is an odd death as we do not have a Coroner and use the Medical Examiner in Harris County. The PCT 4 JP had duty that night and I can't ask him since he doesn't like the fact that I keep calling him a damn fool. I will however see the PCT 3 JP tonight and ask her about the way this was handled.
I got to talk with Jim Richards (PCT 4 JP) tonight at a political affair and he was civil to me! He says he is not required by law to call for an autopsy unless something about the case seems odd. He confirms the doors were locked, the gun was there, a note was found, AND A BULLET EXIT WAS PRESENT.
Only when he found out about the Enron connection did he call the Harris County M.E.
I hope this helps.
Buzzzz...wrong answer, I did know who did the autopsy....but that's not what I asked you...
>>Sugar Land is in Fort Bend County. Why would Harris County have any involvement?
I didn't think you would know that Fort Bend County doesn't employ a medical examiner, the JP's are the coroner for their precincts, and they decide where to have an autopsy done.(From their web page...As coroner, the Justice of the Peace must accurately, and with efficiency and consideration to all parties, determine cause of death and decide what outside agencies to employ to assist in this responsibility.)
Now, as for that Strawman. Here was your setup:
Will you stop with the reasoned argument. This post is for those that want to believe in anything but reason. For some reason, way too many people on this forum have relieved themselves of their intellect on this issue, and without a shred of even a hint at an allegation (never mind any evidence) they are willing to engage in the absurd.
And here was your knockdown:
Would someone please explain the following to me. How can all of the following take place: since the media has all but ignored the Clinton angle on this story, and Clinton firmly believes he is untouchable under any circumstances (thus he has nothing to fear from an investigation), and Clinton no longer has the FBI obstructing justice and running interference, and this hit requires the Sugar Land police and probably the State Troopers to be covering up a murder without any reason or incentive, and the Harris County authorities to falsely rule this a suicide, again without any reason or authority, and probably one or two other things...
It was a nice attempt, but as we have seen time after time, for a successful coverup, all that is needed is the right M.E. to do the autopsy. (Nothing to see here...move along.)
Of course, I could be totally wrong and you just have a problem making your points clear. But the question, "Why would Harris County have any involvement," in the context of a response to my post would need to be added to for a reasonable person to think you meant what you NOW say you did. So, if I'm wrong about the above and you are simply incoherent, I can hardly be faulted for my response.
Now, as for that Strawman. Here was your setup: Will you stop with the reasoned argument. This post is for those that want to believe in anything but reason. For some reason, way too many people on this forum have relieved themselves of their intellect on this issue, and without a shred of even a hint at an allegation (never mind any evidence) they are willing to engage in the absurd.
I'm truly not following you here. This was an absurd illustration (i.e., the Limbaugh tactic of using the absurd to illustrate absurdity) -- at least with the first sentence. The third sentence is what I truly think.
It was a nice attempt, but as we have seen time after time, for a successful coverup, all that is needed is the right M.E. to do the autopsy. (Nothing to see here...move along.)
Well, first of all, you come no where near proving your point about the strawman argument. But your response here, while arguable, isn't supported by anything in this case. Do you have any evidence that any officials involved in this case (from the traffic cop that found him, up to anyone that signed anything) has any history of corruption? Have you come up with any reason why they would risk their career and freedom on a coverup without any real incentive?
For the life of me, I truly can't believe you are sticking by this nonsense.
Do you have any evidence that any officials involved in this case (from the traffic cop that found him, up to anyone that signed anything) has any history of corruption?Have you come up with any reason why they would risk their career and freedom on a coverup without any real incentive?
How about looking into the background of the M.E. that did the autopsy, Dr. Joye Carter. It seems that controversy follows Dr. Carter.
D.C. late 1980's to mid-1996
Houston-mid-1996 to current
Dr. Johnson-$325,000 judgement
The only real controversy from these articles stem from Carter having an unlicensed pathologist do autopsies. That may be bad from a legal standpoint, but it doesn't appear to be corrupt -- or to be done for ill motives.
However, stop ducking the issue: I don't care if you can come up with one person in the scenario who is less than honorable. It would take at least a dozen or more. Start with the street cop, work up through the police department, include the possiblity of Texas State Troopers, the FB JP, and the entire Harris medical examiners office.
Please tell me, and all of us here that you are a dimocrat posing as a Conservative, because you are straining the limits of even remote believability.
For now I will adjudge, based on the assininity you have provided, that 1L, stands for 1Liberal.
No, you gave me three links that talked about the same damn thing. And what I returned to is reasoned argument that you can't seem to deal with, so you call it nonsense. Do you really think that if the investigators found any evidence of murder they would keep quiet when an unknown medical examiner calls the murder a suicide?
Please tell me, and all of us here that you are a dimocrat posing as a Conservative, because you are straining the limits of even remote believability.
This is just stupid. It is not me, but YOU that is straining believability. You see, it is YOU that has the burden to prove this was anything but a suicide. As far as being a democrat, that's equally as stupid. I've never voted anything but Republican and I am just about the most conservative person on this forum. Before making totally stupid statements, research my posts.
For now I will adjudge, based on the assininity you have provided, that 1L, stands for 1Liberal.
Oh, so I won't buy into your assinine conspiratorial theories, so I'm a liberal? Again, this is just stupid.
Please, unless you have something intelligent to post, don't. You are truly making yourself look like a real idiot. If you want to keep it up, be my guest, but unless you can produce ANY, even a shred, of evidence to show this even MAY have been a murder, this is my last post.
That said, I am familiar with PBWY's posts and he makes the more reasonable and informed argument in my opinion. You would likely be taken more seriously if you refrained from calling people foolish and unintelligent. It is remarks like these which, when having no basis in fact, give people the idea that you may have liberal leanings because that tends to be their MO. If you believe that he is mistaken in some of his arguments, or if you question his resources, then point out where he or they are in error and substantiate your arguments. Otherwise I would suggest that you refrain from engaging in a battle of wits when it is evident that you are unarmed.
Can you be specific as to what he said that was more reasoned and informed and how my response didn't measure up.
Otherwise I would suggest that you refrain from engaging in a battle of wits when it is evident that you are unarmed.
Hmmm. This comment, at best, seems to be somewhat inconsistent with your other comment, I would take that a step furthur and say that the one who first resorts to name calling and demeaning attacks is likely the one most in the wrong.
.Whatever.
1. Lives in Texas and stays fairly abreast of what goes on there
2. I said I was familiar with his posts, not only here but in other settings as well for well over a year and know that he doesn't make uninformed arguments; quite the contrary, he researches the information he posts very well
3. You kept calling his responses stupid and unintelligent, but you pointed out no specific instance in which he was in error
4. He gave sources to substantiate his arguments, and unless I missed something, you did not.
5. As far as my last remark, learn to define your terms. I didn't call names or make a personal attack, and even if you consider it as such, it APPEARS to ME that YOU were the FIRST to make an attack, albeit not against me. That said I ask you to take a look at these two statements:
a) it is EVIDENT that you are unarmed
b) it is OBVIOUS that you are unarmed
See the difference? Let's see if he does his homework. :-)
On to the specifics (which, btw, you never really get to):
1. Lives in Texas and stays fairly abreast of what goes on there
I feel sure you have the skills it takes to click on the mouse. By doing so on my profile, you can find out that I also live in Texas. I have all my life. I won't get into my age for personal reasons, but let's just say I'm several years past college. Speaking of college, I went to Texas A&M, near south Texas and know hundreds of people from the Houston area, including Sugar Land. I have been to the Houston and port areas no less than 200 times (rest assured that's a very conservative estimate), have done work down there, have visited friends down there, know law enforcement officers down there (which is specifically relevant to the discussion here) and know the area and types of people extremely well; probably as well as anyone who hasn't lived there for at least 2 years does. Whatever purported qualifications you see your buddy as having, mine match up well.
But none of this makes any difference. The basis of his conspiratorial arguments have nothing to do with knowing the area and the people there and staying abreast of what is going on. In fact, his crucial point is that a Harris Medical Examiner is corrupt based on past history -- history that includes stints working in the same position in the east. How would his knowledge on what goes on down there give him any better insight on the events than someone who lives in Maine, yet has read the news accounts of this story? I truly don't understand your point here, but rest assured, your ignorance about what I know (and you didn't even bother to ask me) and what I keep abreast of severely hurts your credibility. It's like listening to only one side and then pretending to be objective.
I said I was familiar with his posts
Your familiarity with his posts makes no difference. Are you saying that because YOU are familiar with his posts that makes him right automatically? In other words, did you do any critical examination of the posts on this issue themselves, or did you simply use past history to determine? Did you examine some of my posts as well? Again, as an objective standard, this falls way short. Had you said that I should evaluate his posts more carefully than I did because you believe based on past history that he may have merit, that would have been one thing. But to automatically assume he was correct and I was outmatched in the wit category is absurd.
not only here but in other settings as well for well over a year and know that he doesn't make uninformed arguments
Well, I've already pointed out one uninformed argument: the one where he said that I'm a liberal! That is truly uninformed. I've never voted anything but Republican in partisan elections; I am staunchly pro-life; I think govt. revenue should be by some form of consumption and not income tax; I think Ronald Reagan was one of the 5 best Presidents; I think Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned; I think school prayer is free speech, constitutional, and it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to deny a speaker at a graduation or football game the right to give a prayer; I believe that Vince Foster probably committed suicide, but did not kill himself at Fort Marcy Park and the body moving was covered up. Is this enough for you, or do I need to go on? Truthfully, I am probably one of the most conservative people on FR.
quite the contrary, he researches the information he posts very well
Hopefully, you will forgive me for having a different opinion. I have consistently asked him to tell me how there can be a conspiracy to cover up a murder by peace officers from Fort Bend and possibly the State Troopers. His only response: "then you return to the everyone involved has to be a conspirator nonsense." Now, how can you say that he researched this information at all, much less well? This didn't involve any research; his conspiracy theories don't hold water, he knows it, tried to duck the issue as long as he could, and then called my question nonsense. Truthfully, can you call this answer "compelling?" Because if you can, I am truly wasting my time in posting this; you and I couldn't agree on the color of grass.
You kept calling his responses stupid and unintelligent,
This is an example of what really bothers me about even responding to you: you don't seem to know what you are talking about. You didn't even take the time to skim the posts. Either that, or you don't know the definition of the word, kept. The only point of his (and it wasn't a point) that I called "stupid" was his accusing me of being a liberal. Truthfully, with the points of view I have that I listed above that is stupid. It is one thing (and I have used this tactic before) to say one is arguing like a liberal. I can point to several examples: sports posts, Microsoft posts, etc. where truly conservative individuals on here resort to liberal tactics of argument (i.e. lying about what one has said, being hypocritical, valueing emotion over reason, etc.). There is nothing wrong with that tactic, but that is not what was said. He said, "Please tell me, and all of us here that you are a dimocrat posing as a Conservative," and "1L, stands for 1Liberal." Those are cut and pasted straight from his quotes. They were and are STUPID quotes. Websters defines the adjective of stupid as "given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner." Words mean things and I use them carefully, but I will not hesitate to call someone's posts stupid. If I said, "Rubber chicken, that's why you are wrong," would you really feel obligated to respond? Or would you do the correct thing and call that a stupid argument? If someone said the moon is made of green cheese, would you really respect that point of view? I sure hope not. But either way, I don't.
In terms of "unintelligent", I have not personally used that term in my posts (please check them out first before making these statements). What I said was, "Please, unless you have something intelligent to post, don't." First of all, there is nothing wrong with that statement. Second, even if it does assume that what he posted was unintelligent, I've already proven that one could easily support calling his posts unintelligent -- especially the ones about calling me a dimocrat and being liberal. How is that anything but unintelligent?
but you pointed out no specific instance in which he was in error
Hmmm. I don't guess I will call this point, stupid, but I will call it terribly uninformed. I wish you would go back and actually read my posts: in 112, the same post where you got the buzz words you are harping on, I stated, "You see, it is YOU that has the burden to prove this was anything but a suicide" in response, specifying his error, contrary to your assertion. A sentence later, I stated, in response and to the contrary of his assertion, "I've never voted anything but Republican and I am just about the most conservative person on this forum. Before making totally stupid statements, research my posts." I not only pointed out his error, I suggested a means of him to find out whether I really am a liberal or not. So you assertion that I didn't point out a specific instance where he was in error is, in fact, untrue. Is it stupid, based on the definition above? I won't say so, but I will leave that up to you.
He gave sources to substantiate his arguments
This is also false. What he gave were not sources; they were 5 links. The last three links (which I guess could be called sources) talked about the same thing, an incident that has in no way comes close to proving the Harris Coroner that did the autopsy was corrupt. Just so you will know, the links referred to Joye Carter hiring and letting an unlicensed pathologist do autopsies. Is that smart? No. Is it legal? No. Should she have done it? No. Does it prove that she would cover up a murder? Absolutely not. The other two links are purely anecdotal accounts of someone who apparantly has a disagreement with how a death was ruled upon. In both links, Carter was mentioned once each. These are hardly objective sources that one can base an argument of corruption on. There was no investigation, only someone with a grievance. I'm sorry, but this isn't substantiation. It's not even close. You calling it such means you either didn't read it, or you truly don't know what substantiation is.
and unless I missed something, you did not
Well, I believe I've pointed out much that you missed. But what specifically was I supposed to substantiate? That cops, in general, and Coroners, in general, don't fabricate death findings? Do you honestly believe that I need to substantiate that? Do I really need to substantiate that cops and coroners generally don't risk their careers to corrupt something where they have absolutely nothing to gain? For that matter, do I really need to substantiate the question of what they do gain by falsely calling this a suicide?
As far as my last remark, learn to define your terms. I didn't call names or make a personal attack
There is only needed a one-word response to this: BULLSH*T. But to add to that, you specifically said, "Otherwise I would suggest that you refrain from engaging in a battle of wits when it is evident that you are unarmed." Are you seriously going to suggest that this wasn't a personal attack? If so, please explain how it is discussing the issue and not the person.
In addition to being stupid (yes, stupid) it is hypocritical. You were moralizing about my starting the personal attacks, yet you want to get you one in. Are you truly concerned about personal attacks, or simply ones that are dished out by others and not you?
and even if you consider it as such, it APPEARS to ME that YOU were the FIRST to make an attack
Oh, so what you are saying is that it is wrong to murder, but if I murder your wife, you can turn around and murder mine? I did not post any personal attack: I was not intending to insult him or her. If I had said, "you are an a**hole", then yes, that would have been a personal attack. I did call what he/she wrote stupid, but I was calling the rhetoric, not the person, stupid. Essentially, what I was saying was, "get these ridiculous points off the table and discuss the real issue." If you disagree that there was a distinction here, I ask you again as I did above: are you truly going to debate with someone who insists the moon is made of green cheese?
albeit not against me
Go back and read my first paragraph.
That said I ask you to take a look at these two statements:
a) it is EVIDENT that you are unarmed
b) it is OBVIOUS that you are unarmed
I think I've laid out in sufficient detail that if you think these statements are really true, it is obvious that you are not paying attention.
Two words of advice (for what it's worth): First, don't insult anyone. I can't think of a situation where it will ever do you any good. Here, it made you look foolish. Second, don't jump into an argument to defend someone unless you are prepared to argue the issues yourself. Too often one who does this ends up (like you did here) making silly and unjustified arguments as to why you think so and so is right, yet, you don't even know what the issue being discussed is.
And while you probably won't respond to this, hopefully you will read it and learn from it like I have learned many, many times from errors I've made on this and other boards. I don't back down from a fight, but I pick my fights carefully.
Hmmm. You had plenty of time to make 25 or so posts on February 7th alone. That's a full day (+) after 116. Whether you were out of town or not, it seems you know you got your butt kicked and ran and hid, hoping this whole thing would blow over with no one noticing.
As to a response to #116. I really don't think it deserves one.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe there isn't anything else to say when you have already embarassed yourself.
I find your attitude contentious and condescending.
You insult me and then have the nerve to call me condescending? That's not only hypocritical, it's, well, ____ (yes, the dreaded S word).
I have no need of justifying myself to you.
That's good because you can't justify yourself, at least not on this thread.
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.