Scalia Death Suspicious "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head."

Nvm.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: hellobruce

Hell, I hate having to do this, but it looks like it's crow for me:

From the link:

Art. 49.10. AUTOPSIES AND TESTS. (a) At his discretion, a justice of the peace may obtain the opinion of a county health officer or a physician concerning the necessity of obtaining an autopsy in order to determine or confirm the nature and cause of a death.

So you are correct in stating that an autopsy is not mandated in this particular circumstance.

And the telephone conversations JP Guevara is reported to have engaged in would qualify as an 'inquest' thus leading to her decision to not order an autopsy.

All that being said, people on this website are not the only ones who think that an autopsy should have been performed. Many of those who do are in various law enforcement or investigative agencies.

In many states an autopsy would be automatic. Texas just happens to be one of those states where a corrupt justice of the peace could easily facilitate an assassin.

For example, in my state, an autopsy is required for "famous people and public figures." Kentucky just seems to care more about the public's interest than Texas. No big shock there, to be honest.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
Has it been stated yet that the guy that originally said he found Scalia with a pillow over his head (Poindexter) has now clarified saying it was, "over his head, not over his face", between the top of his head and the headboard?

Yes, all along he meant propped against the headboard and not over his head. He is apparently completely stupid.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
For example, in my state, an autopsy is required for "famous people and public figures."

Care to show us exactly where that is stated in Kentucky law?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

KRS 72.025 covers cases requiring autopsy. It doesn't say anything about famous people.

a reply to: Zaphod58
a reply to: hellobruce

No, but you will find that the policies enacted pursuant to the law do require it though:

Link to Coroner's Policies

KRS 72.025 lists 19 situations where a Coroner is required to perform a Post-Mortem Examination, but it is not helpful in guiding a Coroner in determining when an autopsy is required. While not complete, the following list is a guideline designed to assist a coroner or deputy coroner in making that determination.
Autopsy is recommended in the following situations:

12. Death in any case the coroner determines necessary to ascertain cause and manner 
of death, or to collect evidence: Examples:

J. Deaths of famous people or public figures 


As far as I am concerned, whether we're dealing with the word "inquest" or "autopsy," Judge Guevara royally screwed up.

I did a little digging into the CCP Section 49, and in subsection 25 it goes into detail as to what a medical examiner can and is expected to do. However, Presidio County does not have a medical examiner from what I can tell. I went to their website and couldn't find an ME listed.

So, it looks like Guevara was able to get away with this....at least for now.

Does anyone out there know specifics about Texas law - meaning that if one county does not have a coroner/ME, then the nearest one has to be consulted?

And, on a related note, here is a video of a very short interview by David Knight at Infowars with Judge Guevara. She, quite frankly, did not act like a professional:



One more thought, can someone in the Congress or Senate order an investigation if Texas refuses to do so? Or can the Governor order one?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Zaphod58
a reply to: hellobruce

No, but you will find that the policies enacted pursuant to the law do require it though:

So it is not a law, like was claimed, just a guideline...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's recommended in that case. It's not required. Huge difference between the two.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Zaphod58
a reply to: hellobruce

No, but you will find that the policies enacted pursuant to the law do require it though:

So it is not a law, like was claimed, just a guideline...

No, the agency charged with regulating that law enacted these policies pursuant to the law. Much like the HDOH enacted policies regulating the release of birth certificates. As I've seen you cling to those policies, I'm sure you will agree these policies are legally enforceable.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But how does that make Presidio County - especially that judge - look, especially given the fact that she's made similar and very flawed rulings in the past?

She needs to be investigated by Federal authorities imo. Someone has to have the guts to do this. I hope.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's recommended in that case. It's not required. Huge difference between the two.

Yes, these are the coroner's policies. To do anything contrary would be in violation of the policies enacted by the agency charged with overseeing and regulating that law.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I'm sure you will agree these policies are legally enforceable.

If you had actually read it you would have seen the words

the following list is a guideline designed to assist a coroner or deputy coroner in making that determination. Autopsy is recommended in the following situations:

So it is NOT legally enforceable!

The issue isn't about whether or not Cinderella could or didn't have to order an autopsy.

The issue is why she didn't.

I wonder if she even knew who Scalia was ?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I'm sure you will agree these policies are legally enforceable.

If you had actually read it you would have seen the words

the following list is a guideline designed to assist a coroner or deputy coroner in making that determination. Autopsy is recommended in the following situations:

So it is NOT legally enforceable!

Their policy is to do an autopsy on famous people and public figures. As that agency is charged with specifying the law, then to not do one would be a violation of established policy written based on the law.

a reply to: dianajune

Oh that video tells a lot about what's going on !!!!

WOW.

You would think these people would eager to tell their famous stories !!!!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not in that case it wouldn't. That's only a recommendation. If the cause of death is obvious, and doesn't fall under one of the 19 that require an autopsy, then they could not do an autopsy without any violation.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And policy is different from law. Just because something is policy doesn't give it the same weight as a law.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Their policy is to do an autopsy on famous people and public figures.

Try reading what they write, instead of making up your own interpretation!
The guideline states it is a recommendation, not it must be done.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not in that case it wouldn't. That's only a recommendation. If the cause of death is obvious, and doesn't fall under one of the 19 that require an autopsy, then they could not do an autopsy without any violation.

No, the list is a guideline for determining when an autopsy is REQUIRED.

KRS 72.025 lists 19 situations where a Coroner is required to perform a Post-Mortem Examination, but it is not helpful in guiding a Coroner in determining when an autopsy is required. While not complete, the following list is a guideline designed to assist a coroner or deputy coroner in making that determination.