<br />P.S. Where are my stroopwafels? :?: :?: :?:<br />
<br /><br />No stroopwafels.. Sorry TS! <br /><br />However... What I can offer you is some Swedish Pancakes. Please enjoy! ;D<br /><br /><br /><br />Presented to you by:<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br />Well, yes -- I did enjoy ...<br /><br />But somehow virtual food just lacks a bit in taste, and also in appeasing the hunger department. errrr /cook/
TS you are so organized that you scare me sometimes :shock:.<br /><br />Now you'll make your 111th post on 11/11/2011 at 11/11 maybe ?<br /><br />I have not a clue what is it going to be about but at this time maybe you should get some sleep ;D.<br /><br />
<br />anyone notice in the connie doco, how CM refers to him as The Source.<br /><br />i dont think cm is TS. i have a different opinion on that. but just thought the "The Source" reference was interesting as TS has referenced to himself as The Source previously.<br /><br />L.O.V.E to all.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />OMGGG look at the hour of your post !!! 12h21 12 !! <br />Gos is behind this hoax for sure, and behind believer!! this can't be a coincidence
<br />Let's celebrate the great day 11 - 11 - 11. My best wishes to all of you great, beautiful, thinking, fighting and LOVING people in hoaxfamily. I had difficulties to post lately, but I'm here every single day to take part of your thoughts and feelings. Blessings and L.O.V.E. to all of you!<br />
<br /><br />You too...did anyone make a wish on 11/11/11 11:11:11?
11-11-11...my grandfather born this day 100 years ago. I miss him. Robert Robinson.<br />I too expected TS to post today..and HE DID!! yeehaw.<br />( I have someone on my FB with the name Friends<br />Thais Santos Souza...COOL???)
<br />11-11-11...my grandfather born this day 100 years ago. I miss him. Robert Robinson.<br />I too expected TS to post today..and HE DID!! yeehaw.<br />( I have someone on my FB with the name Friends<br />Thais Santos Souza...COOL???)<br />
<br /><br />COOL :shock: but it's just a coincidence
<br />P.S. Where are my stroopwafels? :?: :?: :?:<br />
<br /><br />No stroopwafels.. Sorry TS! <br /><br />However... What I can offer you is some Swedish Pancakes. Please enjoy! ;D<br /><br /><br /><br />Presented to you by:<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br />Well, yes -- I did enjoy ...<br /><br />But somehow virtual food just lacks a bit in taste, and also in appeasing the hunger department. errrr /cook/<br />
<br /><br />Oh, no... You are right! What have I done?? /overreacting/<br /><br />But wait a sec... I have a solution for you! /woohoo/<br /><br />Just pm me your name (real name) and address and I'll send you a box of delicious Swedish pancakes!! <br /><br /> /bravo/ lolol/
Thanks for your reply BeTheChange.<br /><br />TS, I realized that after lol. I'm going with TMZ knowing the verdict in advance by reporting it at 1:15; just like they did in pronouncing the "death". Another clue to let us know, they know.
<br />Thanks for your reply BeTheChange.<br /><br />TS, I realized that after lol. I'm going with TMZ knowing the verdict in advance by reporting it at 1:15; just like they did in pronouncing the "death". Another clue to let us know, they know.<br />
<br /><br />EXACTLY! That must be another IN YO FACE moment for the ones who still have doubts about TMZ. Key people in TMZ knows! Period.
@Purelove Yes...but also about TS. He also knew the timing of the verdict beforehand, which would explain him trying to push us to try and find the 2005 'verdict time'. He was trying to get us to pay attention to the time it was read in the Murray trial; unfortunately, I believe we failed lol.
<br />It was future when I posted this thread (at 2:13); but it is not future anymore. The 2005 verdict timing was a reminder to watch for the 2011 verdict timing (1:17 on 11-7).<br /><br />TMZ either knew the verdict in advance, or else fudged on their time (1:15). The verdict was not read until 1:17; anyone watching the clock would've known that. Also the time is documented on this thread, and HLN, as I pointed out already.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/national/14jackson.html?pagewanted=all<br />
<br /><br />The various streams were not broadcasted synchronously. Thus the timing of one specific channel does not give the truth at all.<br />It's like naming Caliland the umbilicus of the world and claiming everything happening there had more relevance than anything happening in other time zones. Nope.
@ Grace, everything happened in California surrounding this hoax. One time zone of Michael's choice/need would be more significant than others, because it's not possible for things to happen in accordance with every time zone; so one has to be more relevant.<br />I do think though, that is why no one caught on to paying attention to the verdict time; because we all live in different time zones. Remember times are obviously important in this hoax (numerology), and the California time zone is crucial to that.
<br />@ Grace, everything happened in California surrounding this hoax. One time zone of Michael's choice, would be more significant than others because it's not possible for things to happen in accordance with every time zone; so one has to be more relevant.<br />I do think though, that is why no one caught on to paying attention to the verdict time; because we all live in different time zones.<br />
<br /><br />Nope. Not everything in this play is happening on Caliland stage. Not at all.<br /><br />I don't overly like repeating myself but obviously I did not come across clearly:<br />"The various streams were not broadcasted synchronously. Thus the timing of one specific channel does not give the truth at all."
If the timing of one channel doesn't give the truth, then all are untrue? Ofcourse they were not all in synch.<br /><br /> And if California's time zone isn't more significant; than the timeline of June 25 including: timeline (of anything ie. Murray etc.), time of death, timing of almost everything, isn't valid numerology because not everything happened 'synchronously' all over the world according to one time zone.<br /><br />I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, just clarify because perhaps I'm misunderstanding.<br /><br />
I wouldn't put too much into the timing of anything. It all depends on THEIR clocks. I can look at the on air news clock, the time on my satellite box, the time on my computer, and the time on my iPhone and all will be different. Yet one would think they'd all be the same.
<br />Wishing everyone a great 11-11-11...lest we forget.<br /><br /><br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />Sad that the message of your video has gone ignored but what TS whats to eat is high priority. I thought Michael's message was about love - not food. The video is a beautiful - a wonderful reminder for all of us. Thanks for sharing. *No offence TS<br />
<br /><br />[size=12pt]I saw it also and it is beautiful message to share :-*!!! Spread LOVE, LIFE and HAPPINESS,"HERE and NOW" !!!!! respect/[/size]
1. I agree 100% that if Murray had been found Not Guilty it would have caused riots therefore I believe the jury convicted on that fear of riots which is an emotional conviction. The jury did not want to be known as the jury who caused a horrible aftermath. Although the jury was told not to read or do all the other things the judge said not to do while not in court this jury had been exposed to everything regarding this case. The media, family, Murray, etc. helped to plant info that would remain in the juries mind while deliberating. The Casey Anthony trial was fresh and it was being said that the jury made a mistake with their verdict. Many people are angry over the decision and there has been backlash. The Murray jury did not want that kind of stuff to happen because of them.<br /><br />2. There is way more to this Guilty verdict in regards to emotional based conviction. This is what I said from the beginning:<br />
<br />The list goes on and on of wrongfully convicted men and women. So yes this part of the hoax concerning the trial and whether or not Murray gets convicted over false evidence is very important. Just because there are clues to say Murray didn’t do it and we know he didn’t do it DOES NOT guarantee that the jury will not be biased/racist/prejudice and convict him on flimsy/false evidence. <br /><br />Hypothetical situation of Murray being convicted:<br /><br />It would be a miscarriage of justice and IMO the jury would have convicted him based on emotional bias/racist/prejudice. Maybe they don’t like Murray because he took away The KOP and they’re secretly a fan or maybe they don’t like MJ but still want to punish Murray for whatever their biased/racist/prejudice emotional feelings think at that time. <br /><br />The DA and the Defense will present their cases. This is a combination of hard evidence and theatrics with who tells the better story. Who is more believable? It is the DA’s job to convince the jury Murray did it by using evidence that can be seen, touched and then made to believe it is true. It is the Defenses job to poke holes in anything the DA says and show that there is still a more logical explanation to the facts presented. It sometimes comes down to who did the most convincing talking.
<br /><br />I will explain more below about the mind games played to ensure a Guilty verdict.<br /><br />3. It is my belief that the jury did not take everything into consideration and based their decision on closing arguments from the DA especially the part about MJ's kids not having their father anymore. I believe this jury allowed their emotions to take over and the DA made sure to plant subliminal heart tugging sad stuff.<br /><br />I believe the jury convicted Murray because of them seeing MJ's fam in the court house, the jury felt like they owed a Guilty verdict for the fam especially seeing Katherine in the court room, that helped to ensure a Guilty verdict. Murray's own words and actions helped to convict him. The wording asked/explained to the jury allowed for a Guilty verdict.
<br />
Typically, a kangaroo court will deliberately abuse one or more of the following rights of the accused:<br /><br />right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty <br />right to control one's own defense e.g. selecting one's own defense counsel <br />right to hear a full and precise statement of the charges made against the accused <br />right to have adequate time and resources to prepare a defense against the charges <br />right not to incriminate oneself <br />right to summon witnesses <br />right of cross-examination <br />right to introduce evidence which supports acquittal of the accused <br />right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay <br />right not to be tried on secret evidence <br />right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality, prejudice or conflict of interest <br />right to have a verbatim stenographic record of the trial proceedings created <br />right to have no interference or undue influence made by external agencies e.g. political or military leaders <br />right of appeal against conviction
They knew about the involuntary manslaughter charge against Murray before they came to court and most of them know Jackson's music. A few said they were fans and one, the video animation specialist, said he had some interaction with Jackson when the singer was making the video, "Captain EO."
<br /><br />The juror who had some interaction with MJ may possibly be a conflict of interest according to the Kangaroo definitions. The article below says that Judge Pastor hurried the process of jury selection by the lawyers and cut the time down to 1 min per each juror. The reason given is because of the extensive jury questionnaire that the jury filled out. That could potentially be a problem if Murray's lawyers didn't have adequate time to question each juror face to face.<br /><br />The tape recording Murray did with the detective and his lawyer at the hotel, was it obtained correctly? Was Murray a suspect at that time? No. Was he arrested and his rights read to him? No.<br /><br />Murray was only a person of interest at that time. So maybe the tape should not have been considered as evidence. Maybe it should have been excluded. It sure did help to convict Murray though.<br /><br />http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/23/local/la-me-0923-conrad-murray-20110924<br />
Conrad Murray jury selection will be quick<br /><br />The judge in the manslaughter trial of Michael Jackson's doctor is allowing lawyers only half the usual time to question potential panelists as they cull the pool<br /> <br />September 23, 2011|By Harriet Ryan, Los Angeles Times <br /><br />If, as is often said, trials are won or lost in the selection of jurors, the fate of Michael Jackson's doctor may be sealed Friday when a pool of prospective jurors is narrowed to a dozen.<br /><br />That jury is expected to spend about five weeks hearing testimony about the music icon's final days and the culpability of Dr. Conrad Murray, Jackson's $150,000-a-month personal physician who gave him the surgical anesthetic propofol as a sleep aid.<br /><br />The approximately 145 potential jurors are already well-known to both sides, thanks to what the judge in the case has called "the most complete questionnaire ever" — 32 pages of questions about their background, job history, views of Jackson and exposure to the media coverage of his 2009 overdose. In an initial screening earlier this month, every potential juror said they had some knowledge of the involuntary manslaughter case against Murray.<br /><br />Because the questionnaire is so thorough, Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor has said he will allow attorneys only half the normally allotted time to question the would-be jurors as a group in court.<br /><br />With less than a minute per potential juror, lawyers are likely to have decided beforehand "whether they want to keep them or get rid of them," said Richard Hirschorn, a veteran Texas jury consultant.<br /><br />Murray's defense lawyers retained an unidentified jury consultant to help evaluate the questionnaires. The prosecutor's office has used such consultants in the past but elected not to this time.<br /><br />"It's very lean times for public prosecutors' offices," said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office.<br /><br />In evaluating the questionnaires, experts said, both sides are likely to home in on the questions they care about most. Hirschorn said prosecutors might focus on what jurors wrote about their experiences with doctors and prescription drugs. Particularly revealing, he said, was the question, "Has a physician ever refused to prescribe a medication that you specifically requested?"<br /><br />"That's the prosecution case in one sentence — Murray should have said no" to his famous patient, Hirschorn said. People who have been turned down by doctors may be more critical of Murray's acquiescence: "I'm putting them on the jury 99 out of 100 times," he said.<br /><br />Questions about how closely they followed other high-profile legal cases, including the recent Casey Anthony murder trial in Florida, might draw close scrutiny also, said Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant who worked for music producer Phil Spector's murder defense. He said jurors interested in true crime stories covered obsessively by such cable news hosts as Nancy Grace "tend to be pretty pro-prosecution."<br /><br />Justice, on such programs, "has become code for conviction," he said.<br /><br />Attorneys might also zero in on potential jurors' experiences with drug and alcohol addiction, the subject of three questions. Hirschorn said people who have dealt with substance abuse would probably be more open to Murray's claim that Jackson begged for propofol and gave himself the fatal dose.<br /><br />"If they know somebody who has been addicted, then they know that person will do whatever they have to to get drugs," Hirschorn said.<br /><br />Legal teams typically rank jurors from one to five based on their answers and information turned up by Internet or public searches. In court Friday, experts said, both sides are likely to focus on the jurors they rank as ones — the worst for their case.<br /><br />"It's not a matter of picking the people you want. It's really a de-selection process: getting rid of the worst of the worst and hoping the ones that are left can be fair," said Hirschorn, who worked for the defense in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in the early 1990s.<br /><br />Both sides can excuse 10 potential jurors without giving a reason. Additionally, they can ask the judge to remove anyone who shows bias.<br /><br />But Howard Varinsky, the jury consultant for prosecutors in the trials of Scott Peterson and Martha Stewart, said the short time for questioning jurors in Murray's case will probably hurt lawyers' attempts to tease out bias.<br /><br />"It usually takes about five, six … minutes" of questioning, Varinsky said. "When you've got one minute, you can't do it. You're handcuffed."<br /><br />The limited time also constrains follow-up questions, such as in the case of jurors who check a box identifying themselves as Jackson fans, Gabriel said.<br /><br />"You don't know if that means 'I've seen every concert and own every album' or 'I just really liked "Thriller,"'" he said.
<br /><br />Here is the jury questionnaire on the linkhttp://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/09/dr-conrad-murray-jury-selection-questionnaire-releasedbelow. The info in the jury questionnaire was so much info that the lawyers and judge knew exactly what websites each juror had visited in the past before they got on the jury. Maybe that is what the judge was looking at on his pc. He was checking to make sure no tweeting was going on. fresse/<br /><br />
on 1320848032:
<br />@Im_convincedmjalive Excellent post. However, I am not sure if they depended on mind manipulation to make them say guilty due to an emotional response. That is a great argument and worth exploring but the only thing that gives me pause is the timing of everything. That would be really risky to solely trust in the jury's response and expect them to be completed by 11/7 and be ready to read the verdict by 1:15 or 1:17pm unless MJ had back up plans if they picked other days but I just don't think the timing was done by accident. And saying this makes me wonder if the jury was in on it to a degree or were outside influences forcing them to make a decision quickly.
In a separate interview broadcast Wednesday, one of the jurors said there were contentious moments, including yelling and cajoling, during the two days of deliberations.<br /><br />Debbie Franklin, 48, told ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" in the first juror interview so far [size=10pt]that most of the jurors had decided on guilt Friday, the first day of deliberations.[/size]<br /><br />[size=10pt]But, she said "not everyone was convinced that Dr. Murray was solely responsible for Michael Jackson's death."[/size]<br /><br />"Toward the end of the day, we finally took a vote," Franklin said. [size=10pt]"It was not unanimous and we talked a little more about it."[/size] The panel decided to think it over during a weekend break.<br /><br />[size=10pt]"It was stressful," said the mother of two[/size], who is a paralegal. She said there was "yelling and we had to keep saying, `Nobody talk while this person is talking. Raise your hand if you have something to say."<br /><br />[size=10pt]The majority managed on Monday to convince all jurors that Murray was negligent and his mistakes led to Jackson death, Franklin said.[/size]<br /><br />He had addictions. He asked other doctors to do it (give him the operating room anesthetic propofol). They said no. He was looking for somebody to say yes. And Conrad Murray said yes," she said.<br /><br />An Associated Press reporter approached Franklin for an interview Wednesday but she refused. She said all jurors had agreed not to speak to the media, but she did not explain why they made that agreement or why she spoke to ABC.
Comments