Skip to main content

View Diary: New Information Emerges on Pope John Paul II (308 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The point was that YOU have not read any of the (28+ / 0-)

    material and therefore, are not competent to judge whether or not this is CT or not.

    •  So I gotta read every book that (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, liberte, Anak, TimmyB, caul

      comes out on every CT imaginable, so that I am qualified to say whether I believe them? Do you read every 911 Truther book that comes out, or read all of Orly Taitz's court briefings, so that you can have an educated view as to the merits of their claims? Are you serious that we should all read books on various conspiracy theories, that this is a good use of our time?

    •  What Evidence of Murder Do You Have Other Than (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollwatcher, native, TomP, caul

      No autopsey and no testing of his medicine for poison?

      Simply put there are hundreds of millions of people who die each year on this planet who neither have autopsies conducted nor are their medicines tested for poison.  Are we to conclude they too were all murdered?  

      •  I wrote there was only "circumstantial evidence" (10+ / 0-)

        available. But since the Vatican is not subject to any law and has immunity from all civil law enforcement, that's as good as it's going to get. The rest has to be a presumption that since Calvi, Sindona, 2 bank employees, a reporter, a lawyer and two Italian law enforcement officials were also killed to cover up the scandal, the possible then becomes probable.

        •  Not "Circumstantial Evidence" (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          native, Hugin, TomP, caul

          "Circumstantial evidence" would be if the Pope JP's medicine container was found, tested  and the test showed there was poison present inside the container.  Instead, what we have here is no medicine container located and no autopsey showing that the Pope was poisoned.  

          That isn't circumstantial evidence of poison.  That's zero evidence supporting the conclusion the Pope was poisoned.  

          The deaths of the others?  I don't know how they died.  However, let's take a great leap on logic and assume they were killed to cover-up Vatican corruption.  That fact that the Vatican is corrupt would not prove the Pope were poisoned.  The Vatican can be corrupt and the Pope still could have died from something other than poison.

          •  No, his medicine testing positive would be (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee, Ginny in CO, The Walrus, WB Reeves

            physical evidence.  I think you need to go review what different types of evidence mean.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 09:40:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where Did You Get Your Law Degree? (0+ / 0-)

              The place where I got mine taught me in a class entitled "Evidence" that there are two types of evidence, direct and circumstatial.  Direct evidence is when someone testifies that they either performed an act or witnesses an event.    

              Circumstantial evidence is all other types of evidence.  Thus, physical evidence is circumstantial evidence.  

              To use an example from law school, in a case where  cookies were stolen from a cookie jar, if I saw you take a cookie from my cookie jar and eat it, that would be direct evidence you stole cookies.  If I heard a crash, entered my kitchen and saw you there, with cookie crumbs around your mouth and my cookie jar broken on the floor, that would be circumstantial evidencen you stole cookies.


              •  Um, we aren't talking about a court case (0+ / 0-)

                To use the cookie jar example.  If there are cookies missing from the jar then we know, because of physical evidence, that someone has taken a cookie.  If someone destroyed the jar and there were people who would benefit from destroying the jar then there would be a small bit of circumstantial evidence that one of them destroyed the jar.

                There has never been a court case about whether someone has been murdered, only over whether a specific person murdered them.  If you were going to have a court case over whether someone was murdered then I'd say poison in their medicine jar would be pretty damning physical evidence.

                Not that they found that.  They didn't find anything. That's why there is circumstantial evidence of murder.

                There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:35:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right---You Claimed I was Wrong When I Stated (0+ / 0-)

                  that a medicine bottle would be circumstantial evidence.  

                  However, I was actually correct.  Now that I have politely pointed out your error, in an old diary that no one will be reading, you continue to repeat the same error.

                  Let me be clear, most all physical evidence is circumstantial evidence.  (Note that I say most because, as an experienced lawyer, I know that there may be some exceptions that I am not aware of.)  

                  Circumstantial evidence is evidence that we must draw inferences from.  Missing bottle--the inference you seek to draw from that fact is that the bottle was intentionally destroyed because it contained poison which was used to murder the pope.  

                  If the bottle were located and found to contain poison that would produce symptoms consistent with the pope's death---the inference to be drawn is that the pope was mudrered by the poison contained in the bottle.  

                  So actually the bottle, if never found, or if found and proven to have contained poison, would be circumstantial evidence.  

                  What we are really discussing is whether the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence are weak or strong.  I think we would both agree that the inference would be very strong if the pope's medicine bottle were located and shown to contain poison.  Here, we have no dispute.

                  However, I do have a dispute with those who claim that a missing medicine creates an inference that the pope was poisoned.  Nor do I think that the fact the medicine bottle is missing, even when combined with the fact there was no autopsey performed, allows one to infer that the pope was poisoned.

                  Missing medicine bottle combined with no autopsey does not allow reasonable, rational people to infer murder via poisoning.  To the extent that some people are making this claim, they are simply being unreasonable and irrational.  There are many reasons that a medicine bottle might go missing after its owner dies that don't include murder by poisoning.  There are also reasons why a religious leader like a Pope would not have an autopsey performed on his corpse, that don't point to poisoning. And that a religious leader may also have enemies isn't a suprise either.  

                  Let's look at how weak or how strong the inferences are that we can draw from the fact that the Pope's medicine bottle went missing.  To me, the strongest inference is that it was thrown away after the Pope died.  Medicine isn't recycled. Instead, people are told to discard old medicine.  If you were told to clean the Pope's quarters after he died and the body was removed, what would you have done with the bottle?  Me, I most likely would have thrown it in the trash.

                  The inference you seek to draw--that the murderer or murderers came back after the pope was dead and took the bottle to dispose of it, hoping that it would not be missed, is very weak.  Can we say this every time a bottle of medicine is missing and the someone who was taking the medicine dies?  Objects that are lost, misplaced or , inadvertaintly throw away are common occurances, while those stolen by poisoners to cover up their tracks, I think we can both agree, are very unlikely.    

                  What I think happened is that the author of the poison medicine bottle theory picked the bottle as the method of administration because it was missing.  If it were not missing, then a water glass would have been picked, or the prior day's meal, or any of thousand ways poison could be administered.  However, there still would be any evidence supporting the inference that poisoning killed the pope.    

      •  Penny Lernoux (15+ / 0-)

        in her 1990 book People of God, the late Penny Lernoux also went into considerable detail about why she believed the evidence pointed to murder. Lernoux was the longtime Latin American correspondent for The Nation.

        Reasonable people may come to different conclusions, but the death was very suspicious and it is far less than reasonable to assert otherwise.

        •  What "Evidence" Did She Have of Murder? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Other than none?  Because that's exactly what no autopsey and no medicine container leaves you with, no evidence.  No evidence of murder, and certainly no evidence of poison.  

          •  Pehaps you should read her book (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, DvCM, SeaTurtle, native, G2geek, KenBee

            and judge for yourself. I knew the author a bit, and trust her journalism, but it has been 20 years since I read it so you will have to forgive me for not remembering the details and choosing not to debate them here.

            I wonder what knowledge, evidence and sources you bring to the conversation?

            •  No Evidence Required by Anyone (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              native, Hugin, caul

              You have no evidence and you can't recall any inside the book you recommend,.

              Sorry, but why should I read it if you can't recall anything in addition to no autopsey and no medicine container?  

              I'll tell you what I bring to the conversation, too.  I am a rational, open-minded reader of this diary.  I have reached the conclusion that the diary claims the pope was poisoned based on zero evidence.  As a rational, logical person, I can point out the simple fact that all the supposed "evidence" of poisoning presented, no autopsey conducted and no test for poison, does not come close to proving poisoning.

              If the author of a diary makes a claim, that author is obligated to present evidence supporting his or her claim.  Here, the author has failed to meet this burden.  And I and anyone else can point this out.  

              •  thank you (7+ / 0-)

                for acknowledging that all you bring to the table is a persistent argumentative style and absolutely no knowledge of this or any related matter whatsoever.  

                I don't recall what Penny Lernoux said that she believed was the cause of death but she is a reputable source. If you actually cared about the matter, you would say thanks, maybe I'll check that out.

                I carry no brief for the diarist. But I have read Yallop and Lernoux, and for that matter historian Garry Wills (See his book Papal Sins), who thinks that the Curia at the time was a gang of liars, but does not believe that Pope John Paul I was murdered.  You, however, don't even know enough to be able to say that there are highly reputable scholars who have looked into it and not found murder.  

                •  I'm Sorry--I Guess I Should Accept as Fact Every (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  absurd thing I read on the internet, without question.  Oh wait a minute, no I won't.  I'm not so stupid I'll ever do that.  

                  However, you unintentionally make a very good point.  

                  If the author wished to make the argument the the Vatican is a cesspool of rightwingers, corrupt bankers, and pedophiles, there is actually plenty of evidence supporting those claims.  However, she wastes her time, my time, and your time by making the unsupported claim the Pope was poisoned.  

                  So we all waste time discussing her unsupported claim, instead of focusing on what is actually supported by the facts, and what we should do about them.    

                  It's the same thing with the "9/11 Truthers."  The facts show Bush was warned of a terrorist attack, did nothing, and then used 9/11 for propaganda to march for war against Iraq.  Also, the attack was masterminded by Ossama bin Ladin, a CIA asset who we previously used to organise a international Moslem religious insurgency in Afganistan.    

                  Instead of discussing these facts and what to do about them, we discuss how whether or not explosives were planted in the buildings.  Just another distraction and   waste of time.  

                  •  that you waste your time (8+ / 0-)

                    on these things is your business. When you become obnoxious in a comment thread, that is the community's business.

                    The diarist made clear that her main source Yallop only has circumstantial evidence regarding the poison issue, so your demand for "evidence" from the diarist suggests that you did not actually read the diary before objecting to it.

                    The authors who have written about the matter demonstrate that a number of people had motive, means and opportunity to kill the pope, even if there is, and may always be, insufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  

                    That you object so mightily to something about which you know nothing says a great deal more about you than it does about anything the diarist has written.

                    •  Making Up Stuff is WRONG (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      There isn't any "evidence," direct or circumstantial, that Pope JP was poisoned to death.  That's the point.  

                      Motive, means, and opportunity to kill someone, when you have zero evidence that person was murdered, means nothing.  For example, many people had the motive, means and opportunity to kill Queen Elizabeth I of England, but we have no evidence she was poisoned to death, nevermind murdered.  

                      Many people had the motive means and opportunity to kill our first president, George Washington, but that doesn't show he was poisoned to death, nevermind murdered.

                      You see, I do know quite a bit about logic, evidence, critical thinking and reasoning.  That's why I object to this nonsense.  Here, the claim the Pope was posioned to death is unsupported by any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.          

                      •  You opine vociferously (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SeaTurtle, G2geek, KenBee, Ginny in CO

                        on matters about which you know nothing, apparently less than nothing.

                        Nuff said.

                        •  Same as You, Concerning the Pope's Death (0+ / 1-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Hidden by:

                          However, unlike you, I can tell shit from Shinola.  

                          •  no, you can't: you just stepped in it. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ginny in CO

                            You just succeeded in making yourself out to be aggressively ignorant on the subject matter.

                            If I were you I'd at least scrub the poo off my shoes before going back inside.

                            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                            by G2geek on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:39:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It isn't always about what is known or specific (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Frederick Clarkson

                            memories of significant ideas or information from all authors. Usually it started with wondering, a question, some knowledge that raised more questions. Because the answers are not readily available does not automatically disqualify the questions. Waiting for new information, often from documents obtained thru FOIA or declassification, may be the only option.

                            Making people aware of what is known  and questionable may be useful for some, not others. The overwhelming reality of forensic, intel and other investigative work is it can involve sifting through mounds of useless stuff before you find the useful.

                            You will never convince the questioners to quit. If you don't care to join, fine. Trying to get a small determined group of people not to pursue knowledge that may reveal important actions to take is quite useless.

                            Please do find something else you are informed on to apply your knowledge of logic, evidence, critical thinking and reasoning.

                            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                            by Ginny in CO on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:02:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  I agree, making stuff up is wrong (0+ / 0-)

                        so kindly point out where the diarist made a positive claim that John Paul I was poisoned. While you're at it, how about pointing to where the diarist "made up" anything, as opposed to simply reporting on actual events and what others have written about them.

                        Nothing human is alien to me.

                        by WB Reeves on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 12:48:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Persons close to the Vatican (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ginny in CO, lotlizard, SeaTurtle

                  have written me and stated that most definitely Luciani was murdered. Infact, it is a settled matter for Italians and other Europeans.  The enduring problem with Vatican affairs is that, other than the source for Nuzzi's book, "Vatican SpA", all negative information comes from anonymous sources.

        •  thanks for the ref to Lernoux's book, FC, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Frederick Clarkson, G2geek, KenBee

          this is it?
          People of God

          I have not run across her before, so thank you for introducing me to her and her work.

          I belong to the “US” of America, not the “ME,$,ME,$,ME,$,ME,$” of America!

          by SeaTurtle on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 03:40:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's the one (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SeaTurtle, G2geek, KenBee

            He book Cry of the People is also a must read.

            •  thanks, I think! :-) (4+ / 0-)

              today I was tidying my bedroom and the several piles of books on one side table was really high ..... I was wondering if it was going to fall over!  A lot relate to these topics and although read are still there for reference!  Oi Vey!  

              Anyway, you now have given me some new resources to add to the pile! tx.

              I belong to the “US” of America, not the “ME,$,ME,$,ME,$,ME,$” of America!

              by SeaTurtle on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 04:28:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've had that pile in the bedroom, plus (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                bigger ones in the living room and study...Those are just the ones I'm trying to read. The ones I've read and keep for reference are usually on the book shelves. In April they all got packed for the move and are waiting patiently to be unpacked.  ; )

                Excuse the rant here, just have to observe that I learned from my very intelligent father not to trust people who won't read books.  He does read a lot of weekly magazines and the paper. Since the internet became available, he doesn't even check out any foreign papers or magazines.

                Mostly, he doesn't read or trust books. I often have read 2 or 3 carefully selected books (I love Amazon's features and reviews - gives me an idea of what my knowledge gaps are and if the book/s can fill them) that are always noted for the amount and quality of sources, references, etc. while he has read none and just scoffs at the information. PhD who did Corp R & D not Ivory Tower. When he said just because a person had a PhD in the field didn't mean much, I looked at the doctor of physical chemistry, nodded and changed the subject from financial history going back 2000 years to the lunch menu.

                IMHO, the real proof of obstinate ignorance, despite intelligence, is when you are asked to condense the knowledge gleaned from several complex, lengthy and well resourced books into a blog comment. One of these days I'm going to make a doc with all the search engines :)

                 I remember a comment in some article about an editor for a NY publication who had earned a year sabbatical. Caribbean? Rockies? Pacific? Nope, the NY public library main branch. I still fantasize. Although today, with Kindle and other download options you could have the books and the beach :)

                Ok, I feel better, hope you don't mind the venting.

                "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                by Ginny in CO on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:39:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Frederick is one of the most knowledgeable people (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee, SeaTurtle

          .... in America on the subject of the religious right.

          He's a careful scholar who does not jump to conclusions.  His books and articles are foundational for anyone studying the religious right, and his analyses are a core part of the overall analysis of the religious right.

          So, word to the wise:  If you want to argue with him about this stuff, "good luck," and be sure to take out "look like a fool insurance" because you'll need it.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:36:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Vatican and Catholic affairs have a distinct (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ginny in CO, Frederick Clarkson

            set of journalists with access to high Church officials. Frederick Clarkson, although knowledgeable about the Religious Right, is not one of them.

            •  i'm sure the Vatican screens journalists... (0+ / 0-)

              .... pretty closely before granting them access to high Catholic officials.   In which case I would not expect that someone who is a ferociously capable critic of the religious right, would get access.  

              Not having access to powerful people does not disqualify someone from analyzing their behaviors.  

              "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:04:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  If the person is a person of power, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TimmyB, caul

        with natural enemies, then yes, each of those deaths spawns a CT following.

        •  All You Need is a Well Known Person (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          caul, doc2

          When a well known person dies, you can make some cash by claiming they had one or more enemies who murdered them in an undetected way.  

          On the other hand, you can also make money by claiming they faked their deaths and are still alive and roaming the Earth.  

          No evidence of either claim is required.

      •  At least in most states, an autopsy is required .. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TimmyB, G2geek

        when an apparently healthy person dies unexpectedly.  I would imagine that the same is probably true in most developed countries.  That certainly doesn't prove that he was murdered, but it seems somewhat curious that the Vatican refused to have an autopsy, or even a toxicology screen, performed, since that would have prevented the controversy.

        Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

        by leevank on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:32:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Healthy' Person Who Takes Medicine? (0+ / 0-)

          The missing evidence is claimed to be a medicine bottle.  The fact that there is a medicine bottle suggests the person wasn't healthy, but was sick instead.    

          •  Oh, come on! (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SeaTurtle, Nowhere Man, G2geek, lotlizard

            Lots of healthy people take medicine.  Believe me, the fact that you take one or two pills doesn't mean there won't be an autopsy if you die in your sleep some night.  I expect that most 65 year olds take some kind of medication for something or other, but that doesn't mean that if they die in bed, there won't be an autopsy.

            Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

            by leevank on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 04:02:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  If it was the Vatican's practise to autopsey Popes (0+ / 0-)

          then I would agree with you that not doing an autopsey would be suspicious.  However, we don't know that.

          Instead, as the Catholic Church believes the Pope is God's chosen representative on Earth, I'm willing to bet the Church has never had an autopsey for a pope, and most likely never will.  The pope is the most God like person on Earth and having a doctor mutilate him after death would not be part of the long established religious rituals.

          These guys are guided by religion, not by what Western countries do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site