| Home │ Political
Copyright © 2016 by Wayne Stegall
Is Scalia a Martyr?
A logical case for the autopsy of Antonin Scalia
Like many I considered Antonin Scalia to be one of the heroes of conservatism. So, I was shocked greatly to hear he had died and more that there would be no autopsy.
The common sense expectation that I and others hold that his body would be autopsied is backed by considerable logic. Consider the elements that are required to prove any crime: means, motive, and opportunity. Alone these can prosecute a circumstantial case and are also the foundation of the prosecution of cases with hard evidence as well. How could someone then argue that these circumstantial elements would fail to meet the criterion for probable cause. Generally it would be irregular to forgo an autopsy of someone who died in a position of high political or legal significance. All the players at a high level have the means to commit any crime. Many have the motive. Thus an only an opportunity is needed. In Scalia's case having company with 35 other people not vetted for his protection, without the protection of the U. S. Marshals, and far away at a remote ranch could fit the background of a murder mystery whodunit.
Some will argue that his advanced age justifies ignoring the expected probable cause to do an autopsy. However, I have found a paradox in this thinking: that any cover that might suggest a reasonable explanation for a desired crime increases the boldness of the perpetrator to commit it.
Having deduced that autopsies should always be performed as matter of policy in these cases, then particulars can be argued as well.
After the body was discovered at 11am it seems that that John Poindexter, the ranch owner, did not directly fetch help. Instead, he proceeded in a careful way like someone who had to contain a situation. He was reluctant to divulge specific information when he made contacts. In this way, he first got medical advice anonymously to determine the next course of direction.1 Then his 911 call asked for information to contact U.S. Marshals without disclosing Scalia's identity.2 In the interim, U.S. Marshals flew in by helicopter with orders to secure the ranch. Later Poindexter's outreach to get a death certificate took a circuitous route, resulting in a death pronouncement over the phone which omitted to do an autopsy. It is then odd that other judges who were called first but did not come rushed to the presumed funeral home when they discovered that it was Scalia.3 Another passed over judge said she would have ordered the autopsy. It is also worthy of note that Poindexter already had his excuses to argue against an autopsy prepared and ready. How convenient it was to have obtained some kind of statement about Scalia's doctor's opinion of his condition ready in advance. The effect of Poindexter's careful, measured communications was to forgo an expected and proper autopsy.
Was Poindexter protecting a secret? In any case, if he were a liberal, the suspicion that any murder revealed by an autopsy would likely harm liberal and not conservative politics would require proceeding carefully so that other actors drawn in would act with similar motives. Then, instead of an unwanted controversy, his side could capitalize on the misfortune to benefit of ongoing abuse of power by those in charge.
Since some point of argument requires knowing of Mr. Poindexter was liberal in his politics, I went on the Federal Election Commission's website to search for any contributions he may have made. It was not enough that pictures of him with Barack Obama circulated on the web. These are the results:
John Poindexter contributed to these Democratic recipients
With this information only, it can not be proven that the judge died of anything other than the asserted natural causes. However, the will to evade the proper and expected autopsy raises questions and suspicions that require answers. Furthermore, the Senate should not ratify any replacement for the vacant Supreme Court seat until the matter is resolved.
Some objective power needs to look into this matter!
Writing this article, like many others was a spiritual battle.
Often I have been contended by invisible powers advocating the
interests of any number of actors who have victimized me at some point
in the past. In particular, Clinton or Democratic party interests
have fought me since writing the article Clinton's Obsession. At
the point where I had made enough deductions to begin to write, I moved
quickly to my computer to do so. When, I had written logical
deductions sufficient to offend opposing powers, it seemed that I had
stirred the full wrath of the devil as it were. So when I came
back with Poindexter's contribution record to write the summary and
finish, I now feel I may have softened my summary under the spiritual
conflict of that moment and the desire to get something out before the
body was buried. Instead, I think the first sentence of the
summary should have been: