Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

[MacCruiskeen]

c2w, I have your MO sussed now. Your war-of-attrition shtick is getting old, and it is no kind of dialogue. It is just relentlessly and stupidly insulting. (I knew you would accuse me of thinking I was Zola. I knew you would claim I claimed to have proof of Dzhokhar T's innocence.

Gish Gallop

Exactly, that's your MO, to a T. "You think you're Zola, ha ha", "You think you've proved Zhokar T.'s innocence, ha ha", selective quotation, deliberate pointmissing, straw-manning, etc., etc, ad nauseam, all at such interminable length that I could not possibly answer every falsehood in real time, especially when trying to reply to at least five other posters.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[Burnt Hill]

I cant assume the coroner was at a loss at all ,


Clearly he was. He can't answer an extremely simple and absolutely routine question, a particularly easy one to answer in this case.

Given all the variables here it may impossible to determine the exact time of death. The coroner may have clearly understood this, and therefore wrote unknown on the form. Whether he was "at a loss" only he can tell us.
Medical staff are trained to not document assumptions.
May I kindly ask why the exact time of death is so important here?

[MacCruiskeen]

I cant assume the coroner was at a loss at all ,

Clearly he was. He can't answer an extremely simple and absolutely routine question, a particularly easy one to answer in this case.

Given all the variables here it may impossible to determine the exact time of death. The coroner may have clearly understood this, and therefore wrote unknown on the form. Whether he was "at a loss" only he can tell us.
Medical staff are trained to not document assumptions.
May I kindly ask why the exact time of death is so important here?

(BH's formatting corrected for clarity)

Dear god, hell must be very like this.

He was not asked to "document assumptions". He was not asked to record "the exact time of death". Do I need to link to the document again? He was expected -- as a simple and absolutely routine part of his job -- to record the approximate time of death. ("Appx" is an abbreviation for "approximate". ) And yet he claims he couldn't do it. Why?

[compared2what?]

c2w, I have your MO sussed now. Your war-of-attrition shtick is getting old, and it is no kind of dialogue. It is just relentlessly and stupidly insulting. (I knew you would accuse me of thinking I was Zola. I knew you would claim I claimed to have proof of Dzhokhar T's innocence.

Gish Gallop

Exactly, that's your MO, to a T. "You think you're Zola, ha ha", "You think you've proved Zhokar T.'s innocence, ha ha", selective quotation, deliberate pointmissing, straw-manning, etc., etc, ad nauseam, all at such interminable length that I could not possibly answer every falsehood in real time, especially when trying to reply to at least five other posters.

Dude --

There are no quotes of me saying those things, because I didn't say them. You do offer their having acted innocent as an argument for innocence. And you do represent yourself as the crusading lone defender of an innocently accused man. So in both cases, my observations to that effect were fair. To say nothing of: Incidental to what I was actually calling bullshit on, which you're totally ignoring due to an inability to respond, as usual.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

Thanks for sharing.

When you've put in the effort to show the class exactly where in my posts that torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments is hiding, laboriously, point-by-point, and I don't address them, get back to me.

Otherwise, let it the fuck go.

[Burnt Hill]

I cant assume the coroner was at a loss at all ,

Clearly he was. He can't answer an extremely simple and absolutely routine question, a particularly easy one to answer in this case.

Given all the variables here it may impossible to determine the exact time of death. The coroner may have clearly understood this, and therefore wrote unknown on the form. Whether he was "at a loss" only he can tell us.
Medical staff are trained to not document assumptions.
May I kindly ask why the exact time of death is so important here?

(BH's formatting corrected for clarity)

Dear god, hell must be very like this.

He was not asked to "document assumptions". He was not asked to record "the exact time of death". Do I need to link to the document again? He was expected -- as a simple and absolutely routine part of his job -- to record the approximate time of death. ("Appx" is an abbreviation for "approximate". ) And yet he claims he couldn't do it. Why?

Because he didnt know and didnt want to assume/guess? General laziness?
I am not sure its as easy to answer as you think. Also, considering he is allowed to approximate, may I ask why the approximate time of death is so important for you to know?

[MacCruiskeen]

IAWIA, sorry for the delay in replying. I was busy and then had to go out.

MAc wrote,

Any (serious) thoughts on why the coroner was so completely at a loss about this? After all, TT was (according to the coroner) DOA, and the cops presumably knew at what exact time he was shot by them and at what exact time he was run over by somebody (if he was run over by anybody). So: he died between receiving those injuries and arriving dead (according to the coroner) at the hospital. Determining the approximate time of death should, then, be easy, to within a very few minutes.

So why does the coroner say: "Appx Time of Death: UNKNOWN"?

It's possible the coroner didn't have access to any of the police who were present where the "shootout" occurred to discuss more specific detail of what transpired and when and therefore he himself had no knowledge of when the doa or then possibly close to doa, now corpse before him, died. An honest answer. (perhaps)

Hard to imagine "the coroner didn't have access to any of the police who were present where the "shootout" occurred". Why should he not? In any case, he certainly had access to the physicians at Beth Israel ER, who recorded the time of death as 01:35. Or at the very least, he had access to whatever standard documents they routinely hand over to coroners, along with the corpse, very shortly after declaring it dead. And then coroners have their own means and methods of recording the process of decay and thereby the exact or approximate time of death. .

And a far different thing from the moment after a physician concludes examination of the assumed once living now corpse and declares it such and announces the time at that moment. That is the time of death reported on death certificates.

No. "[T]he time of death reported on death certificates" is the one recorded by the coroner. QED, obviously. See above. The death certificate was signed and issued by the coroner on May 8, not by the ER physicians on April 19.

If the coroner had issued a statement approximating any time of death would you also find something to question that?

It would depend, again obviously, on what time the coroner had stated.

The bruising and at least one other injury apparent in the photo of the (supposed, imagined) deceased indicates extreme close proximity to blast injuries, of course discounting make-up.

Or burns, say from a blowtorch, for example. Certainly those marks are not obviously explained by being hit and dragged by a car. As those experienced ER medics explicitly agreed.

Certainly a bullet wound in the side of the corpse (?) that left-faced profile view shows the victim was shot.

Certainly.

But speaking of photos, Mac, why is it you so readily accept it as proof of whom it is we're assuming it is? I mean considering your passionate pursuit of the source of the Lanza photo. How come this time the source of the photo of the accused dead guy entirely of no importance?
Seriously wondering.

[/quote]

You are perfectly right to point this out. Very little can be trusted in this case. But no ER medic or police officer has yet denied that that is a photo of TT's corpse. And the visible injuries do match what the ER medics have described. And it certainly looks very like the other photos we have seen of TT.

The source of that photo greatly interests me. I would like to know the motives of the person who took it and released it. Was he (or she) thinking "Yay team, we got that p.o.s. terrist!"? Or "Look at this, do you really think those injuries came from being run over by a car?" It certainly looks as if it was taken in haste. What little can be seen of the hands indicates that they are still intact, which argues against one of his own bombs having exploded in his hands/face.

[Burnt Hill]

As far as the time, it was somewhere between when he suffered trauma at the scene and when the MD promounced.

Precisely. So why doesn't he state it (if not precisely than at least approximately), just as the form requires him to do?

Because all that wouldnt fit in the box and unknown is an acceptable answer?

[Burnt Hill]

In this case time of death would be the MDs call, not the coroner's. At the moment the MD called off resuscitation efforts the nurse(most likely) documenting the rescue procedure would look up at the clock and write it down, the coroner would have access to the chart to transcribe the time of death.

[MacCruiskeen]

As far as the time, it was somewhere between when he suffered trauma at the scene and when the MD promounced.

Precisely. So why doesn't he state it (if not precisely than at least approximately), just as the form requires him to do?

Because all that wouldnt fit in the box[?]

That is just garbage. That is not even a mildly funny joke. It is a waste of everyone's time. Get real.

and unknown is an acceptable answer?

What on earth do you mean "acceptable"? "Acceptable" to whom? How can it be "an acceptable answer" when it is demonstrably untrue??

In this case time of death would be the MDs call, not the coroner's. At the moment the MD called off resuscitation efforts the nurse(most likely) documenting the rescue procedure would look up at the clock and write it down, the coroner would have access to the chart to transcribe the time of death.

Then why didn't he? Why did he pretend it was "UNKNOWN" (sic)?

Jesus wept.

[compared2what?]

I am not sure its as easy to answer as you think.

You're right. Every kind of public record always uses its own language and argot that are distinct to the genre and founded in rules/reasons that are specific to it.

So if you want to know what something that's on one of them means, reading a colloquial meaning into it and then trying to infer intentionality from that is just not a productive way to go about finding out. If you don't have reading fluency, you have to ask someone who does.

Which is actually pretty easy, I guess. My point is more that you can't figure it out by asking yourself.

ON EDIT: "It" in this case being why there's no approximate time of death recorded. At a minimum, you need to know whether it's anomalous or regular not to specify one under equivalent circumstances before you can say whether it means anything. Or nothing. As the case may be.

[MacCruiskeen]

Otherwise, let it the fuck go.

Are you a Dadaist?

Incidental to what I was actually calling bullshit on, which you're totally ignoring due to an inability to respond, as usual.

Which was what, exactly?

[Burnt Hill]

It literally would not fit in the box, and unknown is legally acceptable. And I should have said the when the MD called off the rescue efforts the pronounced time of death is recorded, the APPX. time of death would be inconceivably hard to determine(other than the span of time we have mentioned) and therefore unknown is acceptable to any professional reviewing the document, for instance in a medical malpractice suit. To put anything else in that box could open the door to legal proceedings against the coroner.

[MacCruiskeen]

c2w, I have your MO sussed now. Your war-of-attrition shtick is getting old, and it is no kind of dialogue. It is just relentlessly and stupidly insulting. (I knew you would accuse me of thinking I was Zola. I knew you would claim I claimed to have proof of Dzhokhar T's innocence.

Gish Gallop

Exactly, that's your MO, to a T. "You think you're Zola, ha ha", "You think you've proved Zhokar T.'s innocence, ha ha", selective quotation, deliberate pointmissing, straw-manning, etc., etc, ad nauseam, all at such interminable length that I could not possibly answer every falsehood in real time, especially when trying to reply to at least five other posters.

Dude --

There are no quotes of me saying those things, because I didn't say them.

Yes you did. Not in those exact words but in words very close to them and with an identical intention. But of course you've gone back and edited it all out now. That's your MO: act nasty, and then act nice once you've achieved the desired reaction. (How did you manage that edit without any edit being recorded?)

[MacCruiskeen]

It literally would not fit in the box, and unknown is legally acceptable. And I should have said the when the MD called off the rescue efforts the pronounced time of death is recorded, the APPX. time of death would be inconceivably hard to determine(other than the span of time we have mentioned) and therefore unknown is acceptable to any professional reviewing the document, for instance in a medical malpractice suit. To put anything else in that box could open the door to legal proceedings against the coroner.

This is completely incoherent bollocks. Most of it makes literally no sense whatsoever. What little of it does makes sense is demonstrably and blatantly untrue.

It literally would not fit in the box.

FFS. You are just shameless.

[compared2what?]

Otherwise, let it the fuck go.

Are you a Dadaist?

No. Big fan, though. And that's not even secretly a sniping remark. I really am. .

Incidental to what I was actually calling bullshit on, which you're totally ignoring due to an inability to respond, as usual.

Which was what, exactly?

It's still right there for you to read. So if you're curious, stop wasting my time and everybody else's and go read it.