Baltimore Prosecutor Fights to Cover Up Freddie Gray Autopsy Report

That is a misnomer.

It is also not by accident. "Jew" being classified as a religion, a race, and geographical entitlement is unique in the language. I am against it, which is why I distinguish between the three with the appropriate terms. You took the statement "Jewish isn't a race" and ran with "Semites most certainly are" as if to continue this trend of indelibly tying the language falsely. I don't like it. I will always distinguish.

 

Recidivism. Juries need to know about people who repeat their stupid decisions over and over again.

 

Jewish isn't a language. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Yiddish are. Being anti-Semitic is being against Jews, even though Semites are Arab and there are tons of muslim Semites. I am fine with someone talking about Jews as if they were a race. I know what they mean. And if I say "Semite is a race", that's because it is. By any definition of the word "race". And to say anti-Semitism is a misnomer is rather meaningless - there are 7 billion souls on this planet that associate anti-Semitism with Jew hating; even if it is a misnomer.

 

I am sure you are fine with it. It provides unique legal protections. As I said it was not by accident or ignorance that the language was morphed. For instance disparraging the religion can be considered a hate crime misappropriating it to the race, and specifically why I hate exactly what you are doing and made the distinction you intend to blur.

The best way to overthrow a people without firing a shot is to change the meaning of their words. I reject the practice on its face in all cases.

 

No they are not,there is no such thing as "Semite" dna...they are an ethnicity unless you are a nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_antisemitism

http://www.livescience.com/33903-difference-race-ethnicity.html

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-semites/4/

 

You made the claim that she is trying to block evidence.

Nothing in your reply supports that claim.

She is trying to block court records from the newspapers pre trial. There is nothing wrong with that.

Since this case is between the state and six individuals, whether she gives the autopsy to the police is irrelevant. They will see it in due course. I'm quite sure that attorneys for the accused already have it.

This is a dog whistle to the bigots out there. A smoke screen.

 

You guys are really doubling down on ridiculous, now.

First of all, you have no idea what the "evidence" shows. You're making it up.

Second, whether the press sees the autopsy or not has no bearing on whether it will be presented at trial.

Attempts by far right wings to portray her desire to keep this document out of the newspapers is not supression of evidence in a trial, no matter how hard or how loud you try and work the false equivelancy,

 

I supported my claim. You just dont like it and can never admit you are wrong.

I guess Yahoo and Huffington post write for bigots then.. /rolls eyes... Again with the one trick pony posts you can do so much better.

 

There WOULD be nothing wrong with that, though highly unusual, if she had not gone on national television and given several interviews where she made her case against these officers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/baltimo...ter-assault-charges-in-death-of-freddie-gray/

You don't get to make your case to the public, discuss evidence (that you then refuse to turn over) esp with such ties to the families lawyer... and then say you will not release evidence to the defence for fear of poisoning the well. That's some bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Right. I'm not making anything up but basing my view purely on Mosby's refusal to discuss the autopsy, after loudly and prematurely claiming police wrongdoing and Freddie Gray's injuries. Now she is blocking release of the autopsy in court.

She didn't mind discussing Gray's injuries in public before. Now she does.

Right. The autopsy must be and will be presented at the trial.

I've never called it suppression of evidence. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...gray-autopsy-release-report-article-1.2245698
It is a curious about face by an attorney for the city who tried the case in public when announcing charges against six officers and now she wants a gag order placed on those accused.

If one is at all fair minded the maneuverings of Mosby seem to reveal a state of mind that realizes she really stepped into a pile of doo in Baltimore.

 

I think you will find that she can. She is under no obligation to feed the media.

- - - Updated - - -

That may be the case. However the fact that she won't give an autopsy to the newspapers is not evidence of that argument.

 

The only claim you were able to support was the fact that people outside the right wing bubble reported the fact that Mosby is asking that the evidence be sealed before trial. I was wrong about the fact that only right wing media bothered with it.

I was not wrong about the fact that this is an obsession with right wing media, and that the story has been ginned up by the ususal suspect.

Nor was I wrong about the fact that the meme they are pushing is to try and suggest that evidence is being witheld, when there is no evidence that is the case.

All of the right wing blogs cited in this thread dog whistle in that direction. All of them editorialize openly while pretending to be reporting news.

 

She is going to court to block the autopsy release. Why in the world would she do that if it (the report) certified everything Mosby claimed when she first publicly announced her handling of the case?
Want to venture a guess?

 

She has an obligation to be impartial. Going to the media to wage allegations and going to court to block evidence that does not support her theory is NOT impartial. And it is not the media seeking the autopsy, but the defence. The people whose lives hang in the balance.

Imagine for a moment that these weren't cops... but a group of "youths" that the prosecution was refusing to release the autopsy of someone they are accused of murdering to. Going to the very unusual measure of attempting to block by court order, their receipt of... how would you feel then?

 

Well I still think she should not have been going around giving all these interviews and then after she got the evidence tried to stop any future publicity. But also I am willing to let this go through the legal system, that is why we have it so that people cannot just assume guilt and punish these officers without a trial. It is just sad that if they are found innocent that their lives are ruined anyway.

 

It's a public record.

 

No,

I'll wait for a trial. You may feel free to continue making stuff up, though!

 

Actually, Maryland law is silent on whether autopsies are public record.


In most states, they are not public record, and in the few states that do allow autopsies as public record, there are significant restrictions.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm