I actually agree with Souza on all parts except where I commented in blue.<br /><br />
on 1317253963:
<br />
on 1317234846:
<br />
on 1317208808:
I think this is a hoax court "with STINGS attached". I think the prosecution knows, I think the judge knows, the defence knows and I think the jury knows. I also think that is why we had the delay between May and now. They questioned the potentials jurors back than and I think they needed the time to screen them, let them sign some papers and make sure they were up to date about this hoax court. The sting part is probably against the media and some of the witnesses, but that we will learn as the trial progresses.
How would a trial against Murray be a sting on the media? IF this was a sting on the media all MJ would of had to do is fake his death, do the memorial, funeral, stay gone for a while during his play time with the media, then come back and BAM! Tell the media they got punked. IF the media was the target, after the BAM then everyone would know the media is full of shit and lies to the public but again there is still the trial. What would be the point in doing the trial to expose the media as liars?<br /><br />The media is getting punked for sure but when thinking about a sting operation the targets are much bigger and dirtier than just some talking heads in front of the camera. The justice system with it's shady and corrupt actions are much more important in exposing. The DA is doing his job and going through the motions but he is not in on it. He is really thinking he has a case.
<br /><br />The trial is needed for the simple reason that the media should have an excuse to investigate. If he only faked his death, and no foul play was involved, there would be nothing to question. The family says he's dead, so that's it. But as soon as it is alleged that he was killed/murdered, the media would have an excuse to investigate the case and see the inconsistencies. But still they don't, not even when an innocent man is on trial. So for a 'sting' against the media, a trial IS needed in my opinion. But as I explained later on, I think the real sting is against certain people/organisations behind the curtain, and that this trial is also partly meant as a distraction, hence why the focus is only on Murray.
<br /><br />The trial is needed because it's the public show. Tired phrase by now, but this is indeed the Greatest Show on Earth. This is exactly what the media and the media watching public crave and desire and live for. 2 years were useful for engaging the ARG aspect of the hoax. An ARG that was only a few months long is a direct copycat of NiN's ARG and we all know MJ doesn't copy someone else's idea. He may be inspired by it, but his pattern of behavior reflects a man who isn't satisfied with being a copycat. <br /><br />Also don't forget the numerology. The trial was needed to keep MJ in the news for over 2 years from the date of death. OBVIOUSLY there is a pre-planned BAM date that ties into some crucial numerology. There is a perfect bam date that is being waited for, as sure as 6/25/09 was the perfect day to die. <br /><br />Don't forget the Sting on the fans; fake, straight non-believers, and fake believers alike.<br /><br />What better way to kill 2 years while putting on this massive a show, and what better way to manipulate the media, the general public, and throngs of fans not getting the message to fall directly into your trap, and what better way to kick off a massive parallel ARG based on the media events surrounding "the investigation" then to stage a Hollywood Death Trial. History proves they are at the center of everyone's attention.<br /><br />Michael isn't doing anything except providing these people with an opportunity, as you said Im_convinced, by dying in such a deliciously sinister, Hollywood True Crimes TV way... to ensure much notoriety and controversy and confusion... which begets curiosity... which begets gossip and rumor. The Sting that we are witnessing is less FBI and more LOL.<br /><br />So why a trial and why 2 years? It had to be this way, to give rise to all that MJ wanted to do with this multi-media performance. It is huge. It is earth trembling. It is epic.<br /><br />
on 1317253963:
on 1317234846:
The defense most likely knows, well at least Murray does. The judge is also someone who is under investigation. The judge is someone who hands down a verdict so considering what TS said about that...
We also know that for years the FBI investigated MJ, and the pedophile claim; but they found nothing against MJ. Could it be that in the process of this investigation, the FBI found evidence of corruption in the LA prosecution and the MJ trial? Could it be that as a result, the FBI in cooperation with MJ decided to make the LA court system the focus of a sting operation? Please remember that the “top priority” of the FBI is “public corruption” in government agencies; and their investigation specifically includes “verdicts handed down in courts” <br />{http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption}.
The jury is a real jury. They really were pooled from the community. The reason I say that is because they filled out an extensive questionare and because of their answers many were let go. IF the jury was in on it the questionare would not even need to be part of the picture.
<br /><br />The judge is in on it. He is the one setting the oh so 'coincidental' dates. Also, and I said that back in the other thread about sting vs. hoax: MJ was malicious prosecuted by the SB prosecution, not the LA prosecution. There is corruption everywhere, and only targeting this one court doesn't make sense. You might catch a judge and a DA, but you won't expose all the rest of the corrupt bunch. <br /><br />And we do not know if the jury is real. They could be, but they could also have been picked from the first pool like I explained earlier. They had 4 months to screen them and (if necessary) contract them. Like TS says: Kangaroo court, or hoax court, which means the verdict is already known. That means the jury already have orders about their verdict.<br /><br />Also (and I have mentioned this before as well) if the DA was not in on it, and they would suspect him being corrupt, then so far he has shown he's not very focussed to get Murray in jail. He only charged him with one count, while he could have charged him with many more. That doesn't make sense either. And if he was corrupt in the way that he would want to save Murray from jail, even if he were guilty, then why prosecute him at all?<br /><br />
on 1317234846:
on 1317208808:
The first smoking gun for me (also indicating that the prosecution is in on it) was at the start of the DA's opening statement. Michael JOSEPH Jackson died. We all know for a very long time (and thank you Jermaine for confirming that in your book!) that his middle name is JOE. You really can't tell me that the prosecution wouldn't know. They read like we do, they must know his middle name is Joe, so if the sting would have been against them, they would have smelled a rat right at the beginning and I don't see them going through with the case against Murray.
The DA's office isn't a hoaxer so they do not look at the middle name with hoaxy glasses on. They would not have any reason to think that MJ's middle name was different. They do not need to know his middle name to try to prosecute Murray.
<br /><br />If we go by your theory of sting court against DA (as well as others), then it would also be very likely (if he were dirty) that he would search the net all over for dirt on Murray, just like Sneddon did. Just type in 'Michael Jackson death' or 'Conrad Murray Court Case' and this forum will show up immediately. If he were dirty, he would have enough reson to know exactly what is said about the case as well, and I am sure he would have read about his middle name too. He can pull a BC in a second and as soon as he would have the confirmation on his real middle name, he would have smelled a rat. And let's not forget that the middle name is not the only obvious indication that this is a hoax. And this Walgren looks like a smart guy, so I don't buy it, that DA is definitely in on it. <br /><br />
on 1317234846:
on 1317151606:
:idea: Voice recording, my what a deep voice you have Michael, lol. I don't understand how it is admissible for the Prosecutor to state that this recording is "proof of intoxication". There is simply no way that this could be considered proof of intoxication in a court of law. No objection from the Defense on it either.
on 1317208808:
The fact that Chernoff didn't object and let the DA go on with this, tells me that the plan is to sort of 'remake' the 2005 trial with one huge difference: this time the innocent black man has a lousy lawyer that can't defend his client as he should. Which will make me think that Murray will be found guilty even though the evidence, if properly investigated, will prove the opposite.
<br />The tape recording was not being introduced as evidence so no objection was needed. The tape was played during the DA's opening statements and was a part of their over view of what they were going to present. That was a strategic move on their part to plant a scary slurring image of MJ in the jurys minds.
<br /><br />Oh, but there were other objections during the opening statements. I know they can't come up with evidence or arguments, but it's not like they are free to say whatever they want. And I watched TMZ live this afternoon, and I noticed that Harvey was also surprised that there was no objection to that from the prosecution, and he's a lawyer, so apparently it is very normal to object in opening statements, evidence or not. You can influence a jury with your statement, and that is what Chernoff did. From day one he said: Klein is the guilty one, not Murray, because Klein addicted MJ to Demerol (not propofol). BS! "Objection! Hearsay Your Honer!".<br /><br />
on 1317234846:
on 1317151606:
:idea: Prosecution: [the day before his death] 'Michael was excited about the Illusion that was to begin the next day'. Great, just great, that the Prosecution slipped that in.
on 1317208808:
Ding dong, everyone paying attention? The DA even asked Kenny what that illusion meant, and Kenny answered that MJ would disappear from a bed. I wonder how many people noticed that huge 'coincidence'.
During the DA's opening statements he was telling the jury what Kenny had stated about the Illusion and that they would be hearing about that from Kenny. The DA was just repeating what Kenny had said during the pre-liminary hearings. The DA was saying that after Kenny told MJ about the Illusion starting the next day MJ was excited. The DA was using that as an example to show MJ was in a good mood. This was a strategic move to show MJ was not feeling ill and to give the impression MJ was healthy on the day Kenny told him of the Illusion..
<br /><br />Kenny is not the only one who said Mike was in good spirits that day. He could have easily said "You will learn from several witnesses during the trial that Michael Jackson was fit and in good spirits the night before he died...". But instead of saying that, he decided the very hoaxy of the illusion. Coincidence? Maybe, but I happen not to believe in them.<br /><br />
on 1317234846:
on 1317151606:
:idea: Murray's email at 11:15am on 6/25/09, 'all press reports regarding Michael Jackson's health are fallacious'. That's an incredible true statement. Blink and you'll miss it type.
on 1317208808:
Ding dong again!
Murray's email to the Insurer was a response to their questioning MJ's health based on what they were reading in the news. Murray was reasurring the insurance company that MJ is well and the news reports about his health is fallacious. smiley_spider <br />
<br /><br />Don't we all know that? Hahahahaha, he had to be healthy enough to at least not die. If anything, we know THAT for sure.<br /><br />I am actually waiting for TS and his far-fetched murder theories. I agree on too many points with you to really have much satisfaction in challenging your statements, lol. I wanna kick some ass! TS???? Come play when you're done doing what you're doing. lolol/ <br />
<br />Oh wow just now saw the cleaned up version of the pic and there's still no aura!!! :'( <br />
<br /><br /><br />OMG, he MUST be dead then... :? <br />
<br /> <br />LOL Souza you are too funny lolol/ . I also feel strange things in my stomach reading you sometimes :shock: WTF?? .<br /> <br />But the aura thing is no joking matter. I trust he has no aura in the photo because I do not believe it is a photo but a painting. In a painting he can not have an aura.
Also (and I have mentioned this before too) if the DA was not in on it, and they would suspect him being corrupt, then so far he has shown he's not very focussed to get Murray in jail. He only charged him with one count, while he could have charged him on many more. That doesn't make sense either. And if he was corrupt in the way that he would want to save Murray from jail, even if he were guilty, then why prosecute him at all?<br />
<br /><br />@Souza-The DA is prejudice towards MJ and therefore they didn't even try to prosecute Murray at all in the beginning. The DA only took the case because of pressure from the family and they only could charge Murray with Involuntary Manslaughter based on the laws definition. The LAPD let the house be open on the same day of MJ's death. They didn't even bother to try to see if more was going on in the house. They didn't question anyone that day. Some pages back I provided definitions of Homicide and Criminal Homicide specifically Involuntary Manslaughter. I also provided an article where a spokeswoman from the DA's office said they didn't have the case, they weren't charging Murray and reports of that was bogus. That article was from Jan. 2010 fresse/ <br /><br />The FBI is involved and IF they think and choose to investigate and take down (with MJ's help) the LA court system then there ya go. It doesn't have to be a vendetta from MJ just because of his trial in Santa Barbara. I already said I would only spend so much time debating on one subject so I think we both presented our arguements well. Let it ride...black 27 /woohoo/ <br />
<br /><br />Just one last thing: It still doesn't make sense. "Under pressure of the family?" Since when does the (corrupt) DA's office listen to the family? If they wouldn't want Murray in jail, they wouldn't have prosecuted him. If there was no case, there was no case, period. And they would have been right, because there is indeed no case, because Mike is alive. <br />
<br /><br />One last thing. In America The Jackson Family has clout. They are a very famous and powerful family. If they pressured the DA with the help of the public then it gets done. The Jackson Family is American royalty and a huge part of History. michael-jackson/ <br />
<br /><br /><br />100% respect and no tone intended, but are you from the US? Because that is not at all the case. <br /><br /><br />The DA could give a rip about pressure from anyone when it comes to victim's family and the public. They only bring cases they think they can win.<br /><br /><br />The single count of Manslaughter is strong piece of evidence supporting hoax court (DA=in on it). It's almost unheard of to bring a single count in a case like this.<br /><br /><br />I don't see the FBI Sting case being made on this thread, but what does trip me up is the 333 pages of FBI files released. <br /><br /><br />Now. How do we know there are 333 pages? Yes yes I know, do the math. But my point is, those documents were released via TMZ, correct? So who says all 333 pages are legit? One page off and it's no longer hoaxy. Who says any of them are legit? The DC is fake, the contract is fake, the will is fake. Why should we be so certain that the FBI files aren't fake?<br />
<br /><br />While the Jackson family is huge and they have several voices that want to be heard, they aren't that big in the US as some might think. I also don't think that they are going to just have control over what a DA or their office is going or not going to do. If that were the case then all the Jackson's had to do was make a phone call to the courts and the 2005 trial would of never happened. What about all of the other times MJ had gone to court over his music, again never would of happened if all it took was to have the last name Jackson. I hope that didn't come across too harsh. <br /><br />I can't remember but did anyone else report about the 333 pages from the FBI or was it just TMZ? I haven't made up my mind on whether it's a hoax court or sting, I'm still on the fence about it. I'm very interested in hearing all sides though.<br />
I just find it so amusing that Michael is adding again more epic crap photos to Google's everlasting database and thus is writing HIStory repeatedly again.<br /><br />Even regular tabloids have their share of a live stream now which they never offered before. <br /><br />I agree the trial is required for the public and the media payback layer in this disappearance.<br />I guess in case they smelled the fish they are just so much trying to keep their pants on that they have no free hand left to reasearch and type the truth. (Sorry if I am getting pathetic here LOL)<br /><br />I am however still following the corruption path on another layer and still think if one would like to reveal the background structures, one needs to let true corruption be part of the game. Kangaroo court says it all to me.<br />So I stick to hoax as a means of sting and murder in the sense of depriving of essential human life conditions and rights. All three apply, yet the murder was not taking place in 2009.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
Could be a painting. Possible.<br /><br /><br />Whatever it is, I think it's a lesson. This is a test. What do you assume about this pic? The prosecution hasn't said that it's Michael Jackson's corpse. This has just been eluded to so far and most are assuming from there.<br /><br /><br />What was this pic?<br /><br /><br /><br />Was this MJ sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber because he thought the bizarre notion that it would prevent him from aging? (immortality, just noticed that) Or did he just crawl inside and have his pic taken for fun and to fool people?<br /><br /><br />Well that truth has since come to light.<br /><br /><br />So what do you think the truth is about this pic?<br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br />I think we can safely connect the dots on this one and determine that if it's a painting, Michael painted it.<br /><br />Ps. Btw, there a very distinct triangle or pyramid shape on the MJ's torso in that [shadow=red,left]D.E.A.T.H[/shadow]. pic (Boo! fresse/ ). I guess that means the Illuminati killed him.<br /><br />There. Who needs TS. I just proved murder single-handedly.
<br />Before I forget, because I promised to post this, and IMO it's another proof of HOAX court. The seal the livestream is showing when the court is not in session, has 32 stars on is, instead of 31. As I understood it, it means that California was the 31st state, so that can't ever increase. Yet there are 32 stars (Minnesota is the 32nd state). So even the seal is fake. Details anyone?<br /><br />Credit to monstertooty in chat for counting the stars and noticing!<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br />I forgot to mention this one.<br /><br /><br />I think this proves hoax court beyond a reasonable doubt. It's undeniable. That's not the Official California State Seal. There is only one reason for this fake seal.
Hi guys, I don't post a lot but I'm here everyday. Is it me or is something wrong with the first calender. If I'm not mistaking it's october, wich has 31 days. If the 27th, 28th and 29th of october are behind the ladies head then were are the 30th and 31st of october. :?:
<br />Before I forget, because I promised to post this, and IMO it's another proof of HOAX court. The seal the livestream is showing when the court is not in session, has 32 stars on is, instead of 31. As I understood it, it means that California was the 31st state, so that can't ever increase. Yet there are 32 stars (Minnesota is the 32nd state). So even the seal is fake. Details anyone?<br /><br />Credit to monstertooty in chat for counting the stars and noticing!<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br />I forgot to mention this one.<br /><br /><br />I think this proves hoax court beyond a reasonable doubt. It's undeniable. That's not the Official California State Seal. There is only one reason for this fake seal.<br />
<br /><br />Round one to Bec and her Hoax Court!<br /><br />Also, look at the bear and the leaves at the bottom of the seal - it's mouth seems to be closed on the fake one and the 'leaves' appear to be missing on the fake, but are VERY familiar! Maybe it's just an optical illusion with one being a drawing and the other a photo ... maybe!
<br />Did anyone tried calling the numbers they showed in court today? <br />I did ;D, but only on one number, the CM's mobile number 702-809-3747 and a very pissed off lady picked up the phone. She scared me :?, so i hang up. I wish i was not that shy and i wish i would be able to ask WHY she is piking up this phone? If CM changed his phone number, then i would ask her how she got it. But i am such a coward :oops. Maybe one of you guys, can call her and talk to her. <br />The trial looks so staged to me, why would they show all these phone numbers on TV? i mean normally they would cover up information like that. Remember the FBI files, because they are real, they were blacking out all the names, which we did not need to know and all the other personal information.<br />
<br /><br />Some of the people in chat called some of the phone numbers but they didn't work...I bet she was upset because so many people called her...lol<br /><br />Anyway why did Michael Williams record his phone call of Murray, like you said Kristina, he could of just shown the police his phone...during the testimony and how he answered sounded like he was suspicious of Murray early on, like not wanting to take him back to the house.<br />
http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/California/statesealCA.html<br /> <br />I guess this official and it says that the great seal of California has 31 stars.<br />Is this one the DETAILS we had to notice?<br /> <br />MrMichael24 you have eagle eyes...you were just added on my suspects "black list"
<br />Could be a painting. Possible.<br /><br /><br />Whatever it is, I think it's a lesson. This is a test. What do you assume about this pic? The prosecution hasn't said that it's Michael Jackson's corpse. This has just been eluded to so far and most are assuming from there.<br /><br /><br />What was this pic?<br /><br /><br /><br />Was this MJ sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber because he thought the bizarre notion that it would prevent him from aging? (immortality, just noticed that) Or did he just crawl inside and have his pic taken for fun and to fool people?<br /> <br />So what do you think the truth is about this pic?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /> <br />I guess playing sick/dead/weird/crazy/nuts it's his favourite game OMG!
Excuse me if this has been said already, I just logged to post quickly.<br /><br />After watching the trial yesterday (I could only get the part with the head of Security) I get the impression that the trial is going towards the murder theory. <br /><br />The head of security was not in his position when all happened, he was in the bank. For what?. The bank scenario made me think of:<br />-abandonment as not being in his position as head of security<br />-fishy situation.Why was he at the bank? did he get money just to be away when all happened?<br /><br />Also, the guy "can´t recall"... :roll: we all remember what were doing, where we were and even clothes or people around us when we found out that Michael "died".<br /><br />How convinient that there are no cameras at the entrance, that the head of security was gone and that all happened when Murray was in the wc.<br /><br /><br />I can see the scenario; Murray goes to the wc and someone goes in Michael´s room, knowing that: security is not around and Murray is chatting with his mistress, taking that as the oportunity to poison Michael.<br /><br />Murray is not guilty and Michael did not kill himself, someone else tried to.
<br />After watching the trial yesterday (I could only get the part with the head of Security) I get the impression that the trial is going towards the murder theory. <br />
<br /><br />- I get same feeling so far [heh, more likely to make jurors doubt than defence initial idea<br />of drugged Michael with IV suddenly waking up, finding all the meds in 2 mins<br />around him and drinking it! :roll:]<br />Let's wait for the rest of trial/witnesses.. <br /> /judge/
I don't believe Michael drank propofol. Maybe a cola.<br />I don't know how it tastes but I imagine it's not good so how can someone drink it?<br /><br />We had a singer in my country who was found dead one year ago in her house she was only around 40 and they discovered some poisen in her stomach and they said she drank it (a whole glass) so they closed the case as suicide but now it is open again ...some people say a person can not DRINK that substance for many reasons. The suspicions are against her husband now.<br /><br />Anyway, it is difficult to imagine someone can drink propofol in such a quantity to cause death. I guess if you drink a little you can't possibly drink the rest of it fresse/.<br />Even though TMZ said 6 students mad ethe experiment and they survived suspicious//.
<br />I don't believe Michael drank propofol. <br />
<br /><br />- it's impossible to believe really, I laughed when heard it.. thought it's tabloid rumour.<br />And 2nd, it hardly will kill you - maybe upset stomach later :roll:<br />And really - here we have Michael already on heavy drugs, asleep, full bladder,<br />catheter, IV in his leg, all that stuff.. waking up [orly?], looking around, grabbing all the medicine<br />he finds and consuming it.. then falling dead immediately, on the bed..<br />all while Murray is in the bathroom, wasn't it for 2 minutes? {that's a lie<br />by itself IMHO, hoax or not, i think if there was "bathroom" then must be more<br />than couple mins?}<br />Oh, and no pills found later in stomach? Traces of propofol mean nothing, considering<br />the amount of it in blood. This is crazy idea and I doubt defence<br />can be serious with that one. Surprises might follow.
[size=14pt]The seal was designed by Major R. S. Garnett of the U.S. Army, and adopted at the Constitutional Convention of 1849 before California became a state in June 1850. At the time of the seal's adoption, thirty states comprised the United States. Near the upper edge of the seal are 31 stars, anticipating California's admission. The original 1849 design is depicted to the right.[/size]<br /><br />http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/seals/ca_seal.htm
Comments