Evidently you didn't get the context of the CNN article. Parcells did teach two one-off classes to incoming nurses at that university without pay, then he turns around and suddenly claims to be a great pathologist based on what he taught those nurses?
Where is his claim to be a great pathologist? I didn't see that in the CNN article. At least you now admit his adjunct professorship, something that you earlier tried to deny;
"Professor" Shawn Parcells, who aided famed pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, and presented the theory that Mike Brown was shot from the front to the press, is not an actual professor, nor is he licensed to practice pathology, according to CNN.
So now he is, that's good. Incidentally I still only see you and CNN calling him a famed pathologist.
I'm sorry, but I'm batting 1.000 in picking the right target here. I have my own issues with Dr. Baden's past work, but in this case, he all but handed control of the autopsy to Parcells.
I don't get the batting reference but I imagine you're saying it's a "safe bet" - apologies if that's incorrect.
Do you have a source to show that Dr. Baden (whose credentials we can presumably place beyond doubt?) did such a thing?
so much so that a third autopsy was performed on Michael Brown with my tax dollars, and it fell more in line with the first autopsy which was performed by the state of Missouri.
Given the gravity of- and overwhelming public interest in the case it seems perfectly sensible that a defence autopsy, a prosecution autopsy and an independent autopsy were allowed. Your source showing that Baden handed control over will presumably also show that the same decision directly precipitated the third autopsy (if #2 disagreed with #1 then that's not the same thing, remember).
That a third autopsy fell closer to one of two differing outcomes than the other... that seems logically likely in any case, no?
This brings up the case of Andrew Forrester, who was mentioned in the CNN article, from Missouri. In Missouri, all autopsies must be signed by an actual medical doctor before cause of death can be officially determined. Since Parcells, who was brought in by the police to conduct the autopsy, isn't a medical doctor, he didn't sign the death certificate as doing so would have brought trouble on him (for practicing medicine without a license). Since the cert wasn't signed, the Police couldn't bring charges against his suspected killer, 23 year old Bobby Forrester, and had to let him go. He is now currently serving four years for assaulting his grandmother.
I'm well aware of that case although the deceased was Robert Forrester of Andrew County. However, you can't draw a line between the two and say that because Parcell might have acted illegally that he's done so in this. Remember that he's under the supervision of a fully qualified pathologist, whatever your separate issues with Baden.
Then of course you have to consider the legality; there's a legal question over the sherriff's quick embalming of the body before it was made available. You also have to consider the actions of Dr Friedlander in this case, it's not as easy as it looks at first sight.
Parcell's actions have been "condemned by pathologists", I wonder who exactly by? Ah, yes, the
St Louis Medical Examiner. I wonder if she has any skin in the game, so to speak?
And here's the other thing... Missouri only requires that an MD
supervise a pathologist - there's some legal question about the exact meaning of that term. But you knew that too, obviously. Parcells clearly states he isn't an MD (see
St Louis Medical Examiner link, same CNN source).
Not as black and white as CNN are trying to make out, is it?
Oh, and if you think that this monkey business is isolated in Missouri, Parcells is also facing a lawsuit by the widow of Michael Doris in Kansas. She paid Parcells $1,250 to have his brain examined to determine the cause of his dementia in 2011. She waited three years for a report from New York, and that was only after she filed suit.
As before, where's the relevance? I'm still not sure if you're against Parcell, Baden or both. You seem determined to completely accept the CNN line without any outside research.
I think you're going to struggle to show that Parcell or Baden acted illegally, I think you should be more concerned about Missouri's leaky lawbook than anything.
