Posted on 04/13/2013 4:14:02 AM PDT by IbJensen
Note to self: “needle tracks” (mentioned in Breitbart’s autopsy at http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/breitbart,%20andrew_report.pdf ) refer to scars from IV drug use. Can be puncture marks on the veins, bruising, scars, etc.
See http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/455682-Help!-Trying-to-get-rid-of-old-needle-tracks-any-advices
The quote from the autopsy is:
“The extremities show no edema, joint deformity, abnormal mobility, or needle tracks.”
The coroner is saying he checked the arm and leg veins for signs of drug use and found none.
That is the only reference made with regards to marks on the body. He is clearly looking for ABNORMALITIES, not for bug bites.
I also noticed that there were no other witnesses to the autopsy.
OK, I take it back. The autopsy report (at http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/breitbart,%20andrew_report.pdf ) says that Lucia Montoya transported the body from the hospital to the coroner’s office and there were not clothes or any other evidence transported with him. Those clothes should have been important evidence if there was a serious investigation for an assassination.
So I was wrong. The coroner was NOT given access to the clothes. I wonder if the police took the clothes as evidence, or what happened to them. The fact that they did not keep the clothes (as, for instance, Trayvon Martin’s clothes were kept and became part of the evidence file...) suggests to me that nobody ever intended to really check for evidence of an assassination. I wonder who took the clothes.
What did the coroner decide as the mode of death for Michael Cormier, who experienced acute symptoms (indicative of a large amount of arsenic ingested about a half-hour earlier) and went to the dr’s office saying he thought he had been poisoned, was released (supposedly with a fatal-if-not-treated perforated bowel) and died of massive heart attacks with critical levels of arsenic in his body 2 days later?
Homicide, suicide, natural causes, or accident?
No idea. I’ve never seen Cormier’s autopsy report.
That is not the only reference. Look at the bottom of the first page-- noting a contusion on the forehead, and reporting that "[n]o other trauma was noted."
What was the coroner supposed to say: "no other trauma was noted, not even the mark of an invisible assassination dart"?
By saying “No other trauma was noted” he’s making clear that it’s trauma that he’s looking for and noting. He didn’t note every bug bite (or apparent bug bite) on the guy’s body, because this was a guy who was reported as having heart problems and the investigator had said that foul play was not suspected. The only reason they were doing an autopsy was because it’s required by law if the patient hasn’t seen a doctor within the last year before dying. This was supposedly a routine heart attack. He did a glance for obvious external injuries and then got to the job of confirming that it was a heart attack.
At least that is how the report looks. Unless Breitbart had flawless skin, the coroner didn’t note the non-trauma “blemishes”. If he had looked closely at any of them to analyze what they were he would have to report that, and he didn’t.
And whoever didn’t send along the clothes with the body should have been aware that until the autopsy was done, throwing away the clothes would be tampering with evidence.
I’m not saying these people did this stuff deliberately. It was a heart attack. In a normal world you don’t have to worry about the CIA or political operatives committing a medical assassination. That’s why this would be such an effective method - which is why this method was developed. By the time the autopsy itself came out, though, the coroner surely must have heard the questions about what all methods of assassination could have been used. He may have heard the eyewitness talking about Breitbart’s skin being bright red. Those are all clues that should have been dealt with - but weren’t because everybody assumed this was just a “normal” heart attack. Which is how these assassinations are effective. The evidence-gathering that the cops should have done didn’t get done.
And then they didn’t get done on Cormier either. In fact, the cops lied publicly in order to try to get rid of the idea that Cormier’s death could have been associated with the Breitbart autopsy. I’ve not seen Cormier’s autopsy but the last I had read was the cop saying yeah it was arsenic that killed him but it could have been an accident so who cares. I would think if there were those levels of arsenic at the place that Cormier had eaten, or at the coroner’s office, the cops would have immediately had those places scoured for the source so that nobody else would be accidentally killed also. I wonder what the cops would say if they were asked how many other people were killed by exposure to the same arsenic that “accidentally” killed Cormier... Or if they were asked what they did to make sure that killer levels of arsenic were not left in places for the public to be killed by...
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.