Posted on 01/26/2014 11:20:25 AM PST by Zakeet
he punched a hole in the wall
_____________________________________
didn’t know he said that...
did he say why he did that ???
I thought he was suppose to be too busy doing CPR to do anything else..
I wonder just when that hole was punched in the wall...
Earlier in the evening when he was abusing his wife ???
Star-Telegram interview on January 6.. can I post a link here?
Then there is the question of which parts of her brain were affected. Which part of the electro-mechanism, so to speak, were affected. The brains functions as a single entity, of course, but the blockage of a pathway forces the need for an alternate route. The brain is pretty plastic, but there is a limit. If decay sets in, then the whole system eventually breaks down.
yes you can post a link..
Erick Munoz found his wife unconscious on November 26, around 2 a.m. He performed CPR on her and then called 911, WFAA reported. (link)
He could have just as easily found her a couple of hours earlier too..
But the point is, if he found her later, she never would have been placed on life support in the first place (because her heart would not have been able to be rescuscitated to the point where they could even place her on life support). If, as you so viciously assert, he wanted to kill his wife, why wouldn't he just have waited until the morning, "found" her then, when no rescusitation attempts would have even been made?
“she wasn’t at first..
then the hospital discovered she was pregnant so they had to due to the law..”
What is your source for that? Everything I’ve read said that she was placed on the machines to try to save her. Then it was determined that she was brain-dead. Then the issue became what do to with her, considering the pregnancy. Where have you read that she was initially placed on life support because of the pregnancy?
“she would never have been placed on life support to begin with.
________________________________________
why not ???”
Rigor mortis sets in after ~3-4 hours. So, if instead of finding her at 2am, as he did, he instead “found” her at 7am, rigor mortis would have (most likely) already begun to set in. At that point, there’s not a hospital in the world who would have put her on any sort of life support. In fact, there’s not an ambulance in the world who would have transported her to the hospital.
My point is, if he intended to kill her (and particularly if he had the medical expertise necessary to attempt to kill her by causing a pulmonary embolism), he would have had no reason to delay the murder by leaving her in a state to be rescuscitated/placed on life support. It’s just an allegation that doesn’t make any sense (not to mention that there is NO evidence to support it).
Cavalierly accusing someone of murdering their spouse, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, is disgraceful.
What’s rigor mortis got to do with it...
“hero husband” never claimed to have found her dead...
he just claims she was unconscious due to he didn’t know what and he tried CPR on her until the ambulance came...
“hero husband” never claimed to have found her dead...
Are you dense? That's my whole point. You have suggested that the husband intentionally caused her pulmonary embolism, and was trying to kill her. My question is, if he really did that, why didn't he just wait until the morning (when rigor mortis had set in) and just say that he "found her dead"?
To sum it all up, it is reasonable to believe that the brainwave distortions and blockages you noted are the root cause of the organ failure/disruption and chemical dysfunction I mentioned.
Because the baby was crying...
how was he going to get around the fact that the baby cried and he had to get up to see about the baby since she was not able to and she supposedly was dead and unfound for several hours ???
maybe they had neighbors who would have reported that the baby was left crying for hours...
wouldn’t you wonder where your wife was if the baby was crying and woke you up (his words) and shes not there beside you but the baby is still unattended ???
so in his words he then went to look for her and found her in the living room, no wait her found her in the kitchen...
Ah... the “I’m just sayin’” reply. In your “facts”, you also said that “This would not result in a normal existence.” Now... did you mean this to be a completely inane, utterly bland comment of the painfully obvious (e.g. “you, as a woman, will have a life that’s not quite the same as that of a man”), or were you trying to make some sort of implication (i.e. that “not having a normal existence” was somehow a bad thing, and that this makes withdrawal of life-support for the baby somehow “less bad” and “more excusable”... as it certainly seems that you were)?
Take an abortion-tolerant position, if you wish; but if you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you could be a bit less disingenuous than to say “I didn’t say this! I didn’t say that! Just the facts, here... no implications meant, at all! Check with my lawyer! How dare you suggest that any of my comments have implications!” (*sigh*)
I'll ask again - what evidence do you have that he caused the embolism? Hell, what is your theory as to how he would have gone about causing an embolism?
And I'll say again - to baselessly accuse someone of murder, without a shred of evidence, is just plain disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself.
1/2 way
what is your theory as to how he would have gone about causing an embolism?
_______________________________________
apparently its very easy ...
and as several have said he’s the expert paramedic...
But Im not ashamed of myself...
meanwhile theres nothing more shameful than wanting the death of unborn babies...
Meanwhile what name did Erick Munoz give to his baby ???
What name will be upon the tombstone ???
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
Soylent Green
Worm food
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.