When the police arrived at the scene , did the charidim know that the police would remove the corpse ? Police came at the scene of a murder , as is normal [ They also come when there is no violent death , i think ] So why had they to throw stones ? How do you know that this corpse would be autopsied ? He was stabbed , they need to know exactly how many times and where . Some years ago a burglar broke into my home [ abroad ] he was caught , some days later . But i could NOT receive my items back immediately . They had to serve as "proofs" . This only to tell you that it's not enough for the police to say : the victim was stabbed . They have to show [ pictures ] where , and how .

comments of Rabbanim here ? Not only Rav Metzger or Amar , but other's comments too . Look only at the latest , this about Kabbalah and Madonna , visiting the Kotel on Shabbat , and many others .

Experience - it happens time and time again, and the police files a request to do an autopsy *first* and considers alternatives as an *afterthought*. That's experience people have, and in murder investigations the police always tries to insist on an autopsy, even when one can be avoided. At times, politicians from both municipal and Knesset levels get involved to avert them. The police doesn't care much for religious concerns, Charles. It cares for standard operating procedures - and those were written by secular people. Our police force tries to emulate police forces in Western countries, and there autopsies are treated as standard for any violent or suspect death. Connections - You do realize that in this country, there *always* someone who knows someone? Haredi community leaders and local politicians (AKA askanim) work with representatives of the police on a regular basis, so they tend to have their friends and sources. So yes, I daresay they had a reason to expect an autopsy. And when it comes to Abu Kabir, autopsies tend to have a bad reputation in general, not just for the religious.

That's when Rabbis get on the front pages of secular newspapers. With Madonna, it's because she's a celebrity. With Rav Ovadia, it's because reporters can easily take a snipped of something he said and write an article ridiculing him. With the matter of visiting the Kotel on Shabbat, it's "look how silly those religious are, with their limitations". Find me articles that interview Rabbis in a serious manner, Charles. That ask them about pressing issues to show their considerations and their side. So far, the only real voice of the religious public here on Ynet are two or three semi-regular writers who write opinion ads. When was the last time someone interviewed a Rabbi on the secular news rags, just to show his side of things?

And those i have cited are only those freshly printed . And those regular writers ? What about my other tb's ? no reaction for stone throwing charidim ?

They won't do autopsies if not necessary , it costs money and they too have their budget . And if necessary , no religious law is above the state law . When someone dies suspectly , an autopsy is a MUST in many or most cases , religious or not . When police arrive at the scene , those charidim can't have talked to their "relations" , they can't know what the police will do , even the police don't know what will happen or what they will or have to do . And as everywhere in the world , people have to respect the laws , or are you , the religious , above the laws ?

writers. There's an American Rabbi who writes here sometimes, and one local Haredi man who seems to be invited as a guest writer once every few months... and that's about it. That's the meaning of "semi-regular" is, Charles. And also, now Rabbis must run around, chasing journalists who are generally hostile to them? Firstly, they don't seek publicity. Secondly, that's not how journalism works - as a rule, it's the journalist who decides who to interview, not the other way around. You're nitpicking just now, and that's pointless. Now, where did I not reply to one of your comments? I thought I addressed the matter of violence in this case quite clearly already.

Autopsy is the cheapest method of accurately ascertaining cause of death and the state of the deceased during the events that led to his death - it just leaves the body in pieces that are then literally sewn together. And in Abu Kabir, you're never sure if they kept some pieces for their research - they didn't bother asking for permission on such matters before. And no, an autopsy is not a must with every single suspicious death. There are alternatives to ascertain cause of death, and there are many cases where an autopsy is chosen simply because it is the simplest and cheapest method available, nothing more. And that's hardly a justification for desecrating the dead from my religious point of view. Religious authorities approve of autopsies for legal considerations when it's a matter that has immediate bearing on people's lives - such as apprehending murderers. But when an autopsy is not required to ascertain cause of death, then it becomes merely the choice of convenience - and that's something no Jewish religious authority will approve of. Yes, the state has laws. It also had a law, until 1980, that allowed autopsy on pretty much any body doctors could get their hands on, no limits. And the bodies of retarded or insane people in medical institutions became property of the state when they died, without any regard for their families, and thus became part of the state research. The law isn't always moral or acceptable, Charles. And in this case, this isn't ever a clear or set law today - there is no legal requirement to hold an autopsy, the police asks for judicial approval as needed, and per their concerns. And it's that judicial request that becomes as its filed, Charles. The law does not demand autopsies - the police demands them, because it simplifies matters for them. That it leaves the relatives of the deceased with a second disaster is of secondary concern to them, sadly.

That should have been: "And it's that judicial request that becomes known as its filed"