TIAI January 3

Andrea

One of my posts, made my heart skip a beat when I saw it. <!-- s:P -->:P<!-- s:P -->

<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=50&t=16968#p288929<!-- l -->

As TMZ first reported, prosecutors plan to call 30 witnesses during the 2-week prelim ... many of whom will be medical professionals offering opinions about the standard of care administered by Dr. Murray.

There will be no "star witness" in the prelim. Sources tell us the various witnesses will form building blocks, making the case that Dr. Murray acted recklessly by administering Propofol and other drugs to Jackson the day he died.

When I read this, I think there will be no BAM (star-witness) during the prelim. I think the witnesses will be the brickmen, pointing out the contradicting stories and the utter BS in this case. Media is on top of it and will report it, people that still haven't got a clue will start questioning. Many bricks have been left behind already, maybe this will be the much needed last push/wake-up call.

I totally agree.

The prosecutor in the Michael Jackson manslaughter preliminary hearing -- which begins tomorrow -- will not call Michael's eldest son, Prince Michael, to testify about what he saw the day his dad died ... sources tell TMZ.

I also see this article showing Prince will not have to lie under oath about "what he saw that day".

looking4truth

He seems to be redirecting at odd times lately. Is it just me noticing this? And congrats for being redirected. I felt the same way when it happened to me. <!-- s --><!-- s -->

Oh and that's smart that Prince wouldn't have to lie under oath.

MJFAN7

Aha! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> Great post Andrea & Souza <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->

ignisaeternus

That is great Andrea!

Thank you, TS- it's good to know (or assume) that Prince will not have to lie. Tomorrow will be interesting, I am sure!

RK

I wonder if we'll hear from Dr Hoeflin and Arnie?

paula-c

Well, i finished reading your post in the news of TMZ Andrea <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> . There are to be prepared to see a bunch of contradictions.

lilwendy

He seems to be redirecting at odd times lately. Is it just me noticing this? And congrats for being redirected. I felt the same way when it happened to me. <!-- s --><!-- s -->

Oh and that's smart that Prince wouldn't have to lie under oath.

Nope I noticed the odd times too! Also when I read this post I thought the same thing you did! <!-- s:-) -->:-)<!-- s:-) --> Good point about Prince not having to lie under oath! <!-- s:-) -->:-)<!-- s:-) -->

lilwendy

Aha! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> Great post Andrea & Souza <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->

MJFAN7... I love your signature! LOL It just makes me laugh! What a joker! Love it!

bec

If the redirect was meant to include the very last line, "lie under oath" that means court is real. If court is real then that means the DA really did decide to bring charges on Murray and they really do think MJ is dead and this really is how things get handled in our department of justice... <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->

But maybe the redirect just meant the first part, with the brickmen and "final push" to get people questioning the inconsistencies in this case. I kind of hope it's that and court is staged because it's frightening to think that our officials in charge of these matters really are this stupid and inept.

MJFAN7

Aha! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> Great post Andrea & Souza <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->

MJFAN7... I love your signature! LOL It just makes me laugh! What a joker! Love it!

<!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

bec

Reread the thread and it's obvious now, the redirect is indeed to the "not have to lie under oath" part that Andrea said and that means court is real <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->

but it also means, I realized, that "they" (MJ camp) are pretty sure it won't make it past the prelim trial phase because surely Prince would inevitably be called to the stand in an official manslaughter trial. Now the only question is why are they pretty sure? Are they pretty sure because they have it rigged through the judge to ensure it, or pretty sure because they have it rigged through the witnesses, or pretty sure just because as we already know, the facts are scarce, the testimonies don't line up, the time line makes no sense, and the evidence including the scene were grossly mismanaged?

I have been operating under the theory that court is staged, movie set on site style, so the court is real theory takes a little bit of rethinking for me. If court is real, and this is really how it goes down and really all it takes to be tried in court for some criminal offense, how are they going to ensure that Murray doesn't actually go to prison?? I would say, well the star witness, MJ himself walking in pretty much nullifies the entire situ, but now we are getting signals that there will be no star witness at the prelim.

So I'm having a wtf moment.

Andrea

Reread the thread and it's obvious now, the redirect is indeed to the "not have to lie under oath" part that Andrea said and that means court is real <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->

but it also means, I realized, that "they" (MJ camp) are pretty sure it won't make it past the prelim trial phase because surely Prince would inevitably be called to the stand in an official manslaughter trial. Now the only question is why are they pretty sure? Are they pretty sure because they have it rigged through the judge to ensure it, or pretty sure because they have it rigged through the witnesses, or pretty sure just because as we already know, the facts are scarce, the testimonies don't line up, the time line makes no sense, and the evidence including the scene were grossly mismanaged?

I have been operating under the theory that court is staged, movie set on site style, so the court is real theory takes a little bit of rethinking for me. If court is real, and this is really how it goes down and really all it takes to be tried in court for some criminal offense, how are they going to ensure that Murray doesn't actually go to prison?? I would say, well the star witness, MJ himself walking in pretty much nullifies the entire situ, but now we are getting signals that there will be no star witness at the prelim.

So I'm having a wtf moment.

It's possible that the court is real but that there are key "players" within. Like Harvey Levin's long-time friend, the judge Mike Pastor. And Murray and his team of course.

If the court is staged, then it must be at least perceived as real and they still wouldn't want Prince lying "under oath".

bec

Reread the thread and it's obvious now, the redirect is indeed to the "not have to lie under oath" part that Andrea said and that means court is real <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->

but it also means, I realized, that "they" (MJ camp) are pretty sure it won't make it past the prelim trial phase because surely Prince would inevitably be called to the stand in an official manslaughter trial. Now the only question is why are they pretty sure? Are they pretty sure because they have it rigged through the judge to ensure it, or pretty sure because they have it rigged through the witnesses, or pretty sure just because as we already know, the facts are scarce, the testimonies don't line up, the time line makes no sense, and the evidence including the scene were grossly mismanaged?

I have been operating under the theory that court is staged, movie set on site style, so the court is real theory takes a little bit of rethinking for me. If court is real, and this is really how it goes down and really all it takes to be tried in court for some criminal offense, how are they going to ensure that Murray doesn't actually go to prison?? I would say, well the star witness, MJ himself walking in pretty much nullifies the entire situ, but now we are getting signals that there will be no star witness at the prelim.

So I'm having a wtf moment.

It's possible that the court is real but that there are key "players" within. Like Harvey Levin's long-time friend, the judge Mike Pastor. And Murray and his team of course.

If the court is staged, then it must be at least perceived as real and they still wouldn't want Prince lying "under oath".

I disagree with that, if it's fake, a movie, there's no harm, and really a greater good in the production of it all. Artists tell lies to tell the truth, etc.

After all, both Prince and Paris have been lying, outright, all this time, and in very bold and in your face ways. But I understand what you're saying, about morality questions and boundaries for the kid's roles in this hoax, but it's already perceived that they have lied to authorities (statements about what Prince saw leaked to the media, Prince had to tell someone what he "saw" and that was a lie) so I don't see that shielding Prince from having to lie under pretend oath would be crossing a line.

The way I'm seeing it, the only way Prince can't lie under oath, after all we've seen and heard thus far, and TS redirecting to this specific point, means court is real.

TheFunkMiser

I think what Andrea means is that the court case must be percieved as real (to the general public aka non-believers) so that if/when Michael comes back, and the public learns that it was all fake (if it's fake), then hopefully criticism towards Prince can be avoided (people calling him a liar...its just the way the common person reacts). Cause if this whole thing is really staged, one of the first things that is going to go through peoples minds is how many lies were told. If they never catch on to the case being fake (IF it is fake), then they WILL assume that Prince lied under oath in a supposedly real court room.

allforus7

the trial is real i guess. too many reasons to believe that...
this is said and not good

Andrea

I think what Andrea means is that the court case must be percieved as real (to the general public aka non-believers) so that if/when Michael comes back, and the public learns that it was all fake (if it's fake), then hopefully criticism towards Prince can be avoided (people calling him a liar...its just the way the common person reacts). Cause if this whole thing is really staged, one of the first things that is going to go through peoples minds is how many lies were told. If they never catch on to the case being fake (IF it is fake), then they WILL assume that Prince lied under oath in a supposedly real court room.

Yes, thank you for elaborating - that is where I was going with that.

And we don't really know what the kids may have lied about, or not lied about. We have several versions of what Prince saw/did/heard on *that* day. I can't actually recall the children ever saying anything publicly about their dad's "death", I've only seen footage of them praising their dad.

I think the court is real, but 'real' in a way like the 911 call, the ambulance and helicopter rides, etc. So I guess like 'on the surface' real if you see what I'm trying to say.

I agree with Bec that artists use lies to tell the truth. This is performance art and this particular artist is aware of his audience just as much as he would be aware of any legalities and loopholes to make it work in the way he's envisioned. There has been far too much planning on every imaginable level for the hoax to be de-railed by a prelim hearing, whether real or staged.

But keep the kids away from certain aspects, that makes sense.

allforus7

performance art?
put yourself in his shoes, would you leave your own kids in this just for the sake of a performance?
this is a serious act here, we're just speculating.
no offense, but it's too much.

Andrea

performance art?
put yourself in his shoes, would you leave your own kids in this just for the sake of a performance?
this is a serious act here, we're just speculating.
no offense, but it's too much.

Performance art on a totally different scale from any other performance art. And I believe that part is not even the "point" of the hoax. And we don't know how often Michael sees his kids, it could very well be a lot more than one might think.

The TIAI re-direct for Nov 12, 2009 was about performance art: <!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art<!-- m -->

Lilwendy has been keeping excellent track of all the re-directs. <!-- m -->http://lilwendy.wordpress.com/<!-- m -->

allforus7

I see, Andrea.
I do not share the same opinion because I do not follow the redirects, TS already broke my heart expecting for MJ a year ago.
But if you put it like that and this is enough evidence for you, maybe performance act means simply faking the trial, no special effects and no entertainment as in art. So different views, different people.

MJonmind

If it is this Judge Pastor, the same with the toy yellow taxi and sunflower, he has to be in on the hoax. I don't know legal matters, but would he not be able to with some motion, nullify everything that went on, throw out the case, etc. for any reason he chooses, so no legal record would stand especially for a minor such as Prince if he had to lie under oath? Wipe the slate clean somehow? All a movie, all performance art.

bec

If it is this Judge Pastor, the same with the toy yellow taxi and sunflower, he has to be in on the hoax. I don't know legal matters, but would he not be able to with some motion, nullify everything that went on, throw out the case, etc. for any reason he chooses, so no legal record would stand especially for a minor such as Prince if he had to lie under oath? Wipe the slate clean somehow? All a movie, all performance art.

Interesting. I don't know in any factual way but I suppose that has to be true, he is the judge after all. He was the judge who waived the defendant's right to hearing his charge read out loud in court. No charge announced=no charge, possibly.

This is part of the reasons I used to theorize that court was staged. Performance art, movie set. Certain slight changes from reality but not many, other then the judge knowing.

This is all very interesting to me, how this is going to play out.

Souza

TS redirects to the best post available, so that means he might not 100% agree. Take out the 'under oath' part and the court case is fake again. I agree with TheFunkMiser, the kids simply don't have to lie, as in going into detail about his death.

Sarahli

If the purpose of all that is to prove something and I believe so then there must be truth in this case meaning this trial is not totally fake. Michael faked his death for real (lol) so as previously said I believe that only key people are in the know but the rest is "real". We must not forget Michael's trial with false testimonies, fake evidences etc. ... corruption exists and if enough money is put under the table you can pretty much do anything I think. Prince will not have to lie imo.

Souza

If the purpose of all that is to prove something and I believe so then there must be truth in this case meaning this trial is not totally fake. Michael faked his death for real (lol) so as previously said I believe that only key people are in the know but the rest is "real". We must not forget Michael's trial with false testimonies, fake evidences etc. ... corruption exists and if enough money is put under the table you can pretty much do anything I think. Prince will not have to lie imo.

True, but from what I have seen in court in this case, was too ridiculous not to be a movie set. Fake money, stuffed items, dinkytoys. I agree that a few people need to be 'in', otherwise this simply couldn't be done. Someone will spill the beans that there never was a hearing if they didn't at least show up there with the circus. But for all I know they could be having tea inside that building. The prelim being real doesn't make sense to me, since there was never a dead body. How could it if they don't have a corpse?

Sarahli

If the purpose of all that is to prove something and I believe so then there must be truth in this case meaning this trial is not totally fake. Michael faked his death for real (lol) so as previously said I believe that only key people are in the know but the rest is "real". We must not forget Michael's trial with false testimonies, fake evidences etc. ... corruption exists and if enough money is put under the table you can pretty much do anything I think. Prince will not have to lie imo.

True, but from what I have seen in court in this case, was too ridiculous not to be a movie set. Fake money, stuffed items, dinkytoys. I agree that a few people need to be 'in', otherwise this simply couldn't be done. Someone will spill the beans that there never was a hearing if they didn't at least show up there with the circus. But for all I know they could be having tea inside that building. The prelim being real doesn't make sense to me, since there was never a dead body. How could it if they don't have a corpse?

In reality I have hard time to imagine what percentage of real - not real there is and I'm trying to understand what are the lessons to be learned from that. Maybe that indeed they're having tea all together and that this is all just to make believe the people that this is a real trial while in reality this is a fake trial, behind close doors and that it is considered as truth just because the media report it to be so.

Souza

If the purpose of all that is to prove something and I believe so then there must be truth in this case meaning this trial is not totally fake. Michael faked his death for real (lol) so as previously said I believe that only key people are in the know but the rest is "real". We must not forget Michael's trial with false testimonies, fake evidences etc. ... corruption exists and if enough money is put under the table you can pretty much do anything I think. Prince will not have to lie imo.

True, but from what I have seen in court in this case, was too ridiculous not to be a movie set. Fake money, stuffed items, dinkytoys. I agree that a few people need to be 'in', otherwise this simply couldn't be done. Someone will spill the beans that there never was a hearing if they didn't at least show up there with the circus. But for all I know they could be having tea inside that building. The prelim being real doesn't make sense to me, since there was never a dead body. How could it if they don't have a corpse?

In reality I have hard time to imagine what percentage of real - not real there is and I'm trying to understand what are the lessons to be learned from that. Maybe that indeed they're having tea all together and that this is all just to make believe the people that this is a real trial while in reality this is a fake trial, behind close doors and that it is considered as truth just because the media report it to be so.

That is exactly what I think. Let's see what happens today.