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

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
'They' get away with not releasing standard information to the public.

What makes you think the names of people at a location should be released?

Most people, I would think, still believe that the public's interest matters a great deal.

Most people have no interest, only those wanting to make up a inane conspiracy theory claim to be interested!

BASIC INFO. Who did Scalia go to Marfa with? It should not be a BFD to have given the public BASIC INFORMATION.

Why do you think you should know who travels anywhere with anyone? It has nothing at all to do with you!

Please, you act as if our government should be completely secretive and no one has a right to question any information that we are or are not given.

It has nothing to do with the government, or do you think everything anyone does in their own time should be publicly available? You want Big Brother announcing everything you do?

a reply to: hellobruce

Conspiracy theorists often point to a memorandum written by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach three days after the assassination as a call for a top-level government coverup of a conspiracy. One passage from the memo reads:

The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

Katzenbach explained the memo, and the general thinking among top administration officials in his testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Rather than calling for a coverup, the memo called for a full disclosure of the facts of the case. This is made clear in a passage the conspiracy books seldom quote:

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad all that the facts have been told and a statement to this effect be made now.
. . . and further:
I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination.
. . . and finally:
I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now.

If one assumes, as conspiracists do, that there was clear evidence of a conspiracy, and that Katzenbach knew there was such evidence, then the memo is the recipe for a coverup. The reality, however, is that Katzenbach like most of official Washington was convinced that Oswald had done it alone, but also convinced that theorizing about a conspiracy (especially a Communist conspiracy) harmed the national interest.

Wow. Imagine that. In response to public outcry, for the sake of the public, and in the nation's interest to avoid conspiracy theories -- the public got an investigation into whether or not Oswald was responsible or acted alone.

Not that the Warren Commission allowed for any testimony contrary to the idea that Oswald acted alone. But the public's interest actually MATTERED enough to investigate.

The public matters as much today as it did then.

Before I go off in this direction, does anybody else think the Pope himself had knowledge of this event to be held at the property of the Prior of the International Order of St. Hubertus beginning Feb. 12th thru 17th?

Does anybody else find it strange that he was in the Juarez/El Paso area shortly after Scalia's passing? That area is far removed from Mexico City where most of his visit centered around, but only a couple of hours from Marfa.

Does anybody else wonder what he offered, forgave, promised, said to the businessmen he met with there in El Paso and/or Juarez or even the criminals he spoke to in his prison visit?

a reply to: queenofswords

Yes! I find it interesting enough to explore.

originally posted by: nikkib0421
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I wouldn't be willing to bet my life on it, but it could very well be his lawyer. And you're right, it would be VERY convenient to have him there as a representative for the recently deceased.

This has all the hall marks of an old school mob hit. Your most trusted a d loyal friends ultimately led you to your death. Yet no one daresponse to open their mouth because their true loyalty lies within the upper ranks and the organization as a whole.

And it was reported that it was a lawyer-friend who accompanied him to Marfa.

a reply to: queenofswords

I do find it odd that the pope was so close. I looked up the driving distance once I realized where Marfa is.

What's one more theory? My head is spinning already.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly. Plus, this Poindexter dude was supposedly a friend of Scalia's also. Who said the mafia doesn't exist these days? Maybe it just took on a new form.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The public matters as much today as it did then.

That was a assassination, in this case a unwell old man died from natural causes, no conspiracy.... yet as we see some people just have to make one up!

originally posted by: queenofswords

Before I go off in this direction, does anybody else think the Pope himself had knowledge of this event to be held at the property of the Prior of the International Order of St. Hubertus beginning Feb. 12th thru 17th?

Does anybody else find it strange that he was in the Juarez/El Paso area shortly after Scalia's passing? That area is far removed from Mexico City where most of his visit centered around, but only a couple of hours from Marfa.

Does anybody else wonder what he offered, forgave, promised, said to the businessmen he met with there in El Paso and/or Juarez or even the criminals he spoke to in his prison visit?

Yes to all 3 points.

a reply to: hellobruce

Well, now we will never have conclusive evidence of that without an autopsy.

Moving on.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: hellobruce

Well, now we will never have conclusive evidence of that without an autopsy.

Well, an autopsy was not required so why have one?

a reply to: hellobruce

In the case of JFK, it was already concluded that Oswald killed JFK and acted alone. No Warren Commission required -- no Warren Commission even in existence before then. Yet, the public had doubts and questions and were NOT expected to just take the word of those officials who initially investigated and arrested Oswald.

The public got another investigation...and even ANOTHER one in 1979!

Not because it was legally required, but because the public's interest mattered.

You have no conclusive evidence to show Scalia died from natural causes. You have no evidence to support your opinion and you are just taking the opinion of a Justice of the Peace who made the decision not to do an autopsy based on what Scalia's physician allegedly told her. You don't even know what the physician actually said, you simply have to take this one person at their word. You don't even have the opinion of a medical professional who may have glanced at the body, let alone examined it.

You are at as much a loss to prove he died of natural causes as anyone who may claim to believe otherwise.

You have nothing. No evidence.

Can I please have a clarification?

Is the Pope the instigator of Scalia's misfortune or is the Pope getting help from his cohorts in order to keep the Pope's contribution to the team maximal?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The public matters as much today as it did then.

That was a assassination, in this case a unwell old man died from natural causes, no conspiracy.... yet as we see some people just have to make one up!

Skepticism is good...what you appear to be doing is trolling?

Provide or question substance...Shouting "no conspiracy" is just as useless a contribution as shouting "conspiracy"

Maybe provide substance to back up your position or substance to contradict the evidence being discussed.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Provide or question substance...

Maybe provide substance to back up your position or substance to contradict the evidence being discussed.

That is something those making up this inane conspiracy should do....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
You'd think it would just be the most standard detail to make public.

What has it got to do with the public? Apart from those who want to make up inane conspiracy theories about a everyday event!

It's really unbelievable what 'they' get away with.

What exactly do you think anyone is getting away with?

There's nothing wrong with insisting on a proper investigation, given who Scalia was and all the irregularities that have been mentioned here, including the position of that pillow, possible photographs taken of his body and the room after Scalia was removed from it. An inquest by telephone, numerous criticisms from law enforcement personnel around the country as to how this was handled, etc.

Scalia's death was unattended. He should have been given a complete autopsy regardless of the family's wishes. My mother's death many years ago was unattended and the State of Florida ordered an autopsy. No one in the family was consulted. That was just fine by me. If they hadn't ordered one I would have demanded it.

Then I ordered a copy of the autopsy results for peace of mind because I still had many questions about the circumstances surrounding her death. And the copy was given me.

She wasn't a Supreme Court Justice, but it just seems odd to me that Scalia didn't even merit an autopsy. If the powers-that-be want all these so-called "conspiracy theories" to be put to rest, why not do a post mortem? How good it would be since he was embalmed, I have no idea, but it would be better than nothing. And they should conduct a Federal investigation of that ranch, the people who were there, etc while they're at it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
You have no conclusive evidence to show Scalia died from natural causes.

There is zero evidence he did not, the family also agreed with the cause of death, as they did not ask for a autopsy.

Only those wanting to make a death a conspiracy theory demanded a autopsy!

You don't even know what the physician actually said, you simply have to take this one person at their word.

Whose word should have been taken then? They would know his medical condition, certainly someone wanting to make up a conspiracy theory would have no clue at all.

You have nothing. No evidence.

I am not the one making up nonsense, the people pushing a silly made up story are the ones with nothing!

a reply to: queenofswords

You made some good points. The timing seems to be perfect, if you know what I mean.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Indigo5
Provide or question substance...

Maybe provide substance to back up your position or substance to contradict the evidence being discussed.

That is something those making up this inane conspiracy should do....

No, that is what the Justice of the Peace should have done before signing off on his death certificate without any conclusive evidence as to cause of death.

Substance, not mere speculation. That Justice of the Peace acted on speculation alone.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The public matters as much today as it did then.

That was a assassination, in this case a unwell old man died from natural causes, no conspiracy.... yet as we see some people just have to make one up!

His state of health is not proof of cause of death. Period.