I've been continuing to ponder the use of the word 'alleged'. If we spotted it and questioned it's use (as we did, in chat, the second it was uttered) how could it have gone unnoticed by professional lawyers whose very job is centred around semantics? They most surely noticed too.<br /><br />Playing DA here (that's Devil's Advocate, not District Atorney!) and running with the idea that this was a real trial, this begs the question why they let it go unchallenged:<br /><br />1. From the defense point of view this would have been the ideal get-out-of-jail-free card - you cannot convict my client if the victim and date are mere allegations i.e. not proven. So why did Chernoff not kick up a fuss??<br /><br />2. From the prosecution's side, was it a case of ignore it, so what if we're going to put a man in prison on the basis of mere allegations, as long as we win the case? (Didn't Walgren get some huge promotion in the wake of his 'success' in this case? :suspect:)<br /><br />Kind of makes a mockery of the whole trial doesn't it? I suspect this is the point.<br />
From the defense point of view this would have been the ideal get-out-of-jail-free card - you cannot convict my client if the victim and date are mere allegations i.e. not proven. So why did Chernoff not kick up a fuss??
<br /><br />Actually that is a really good point curls...why indeed did they not pick up on that? As you say, semantics is a big part of practising Law and you would expect at least one of the Defence team would have made a fuss about the use of "alleged" & perhaps used it to try to get Dr M off on this.......but as I said earlier - I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know.<br /><br />As for the Prosecution.....hmmm not sure as to why they said nothing. If they were in on "it" then that would explain why. However, if they weren't in the know, then perhaps what you say is on the right track?!
<br />But if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?<br /><br />We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations??<br /><br /> :judge-smiley:
<br />... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS.
<br /><br />Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."<br /><br />So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).<br />
<br /><br /><br />You're right, and I think the movie is one aspect of the trial. Can't footage from a televised trial be used in a movie, without having permission from those who participated in the trial - like witnesses, court people, etc? Because it's already public record. Like in movies where they show televised footage of real world events - like Presidential speeches, interviews, famous people doing stuff, car chases, other court footage from famous trials. There are a number of movies that use actual footage, for whatever reasons. <br />
<br /><br />Not sure if you remember the beginning of this discussion. The original question was whether witnesses, jury, etc, could be used as "actors" in a mere movie (not a sting), if the people themselves did not know that it was fake (like Candid Camera). They may know in advance that it would be televised, but this does not mean that they would know in advance that it was merely entertainment (if indeed that's all it was). Legally, it's almost certain that the "actors" would need to know and agree in advance, not merely know that it would be televised, but also know that it was fake--UNLESS there is a serious sting involved, then that would change everything.<br /><br />P.S. If the sting was only on the media and fans (and public), and not dealing with one or more areas of illegal corruption, then a simple movie would do the job (no need for an FBI sting, no need for "alleged", no need for jury to go down the toilet, etc. Unfortunately, the media telling lies and the fans and public believing the lies is NOT illegal (and therefore a sting on them would not need to have a real legal court involved, etc).
<br />... Thanks TS for picking out my post, but I’m curious that though I’ve listed Sony as among the harmful forces towards MJ, it was surely Sony that introduced the sequel to TII, of TIAI where it was discovered the redirect site, and our introduction to you, our guide and friend. In fact Sony could be supporting and involved with the whole hoax, (see Bec's post above) IDK. The issue MJ had in 2002 was over Tommy Mattola, not Sony, as he even said at his 45 birthday party. At 7:30 So I’m still not clear on that.
<br /><br />If you have read all my previous posts, and remembered them all (a lot to remember, lol): I have said that MJ has a few key people in on the hoax, including at Sony. Also, as I have said before, just because I redirect to or quote some post, does not mean that I agree with every word in the post--only the main ideas.
<br />... A valid reason for using the word "alleged" in the verdict when referring to victim and date is a hoax court aspect. It sort of annuls the whole trial, imo.<br />
<br /><br />More than 100 pages into this thread, it seems that I need to clarify the definitions of hoax court and sting court.<br /><br />Hoax court = entertainment, punk the media and public, etc.<br /><br />Sting court = FBI doing serious investigation into illegal criminal activities, etc.<br /><br />The question on this level is whether the Murray trial was hoax court, or sting court, or both. I have recently stated that it is both (and have indicated the same, all along). However, don't believe it just because I say so; go by the evidence that we have access to. And that evidence includes the usage of the word "alleged" in the verdict. So if it was MERELY a hoax court (not a real court involved, only a rented courtroom and actors for a movie): then there would be no need for the word "alleged" in the verdict (and no need for jury to go down the toilet, and there WOULD be a need for the witnesses and jury to know in advance that they were merely acting in a movie). I hope that this is getting clearer, so that we can get back to the question of what went to UCLA.
... and speaking of getting back to what went to UCLA ...<br /><br />Fire Station 71, Shift C: Jeff Mills (Captain), Richard Senneff, Mark Goodwin, Bret Heron, Sean Mills.<br /><br />Did anyone know that Martin Blount was not from the same shift (he was from the A Shift)?<br /><br />:icon_e_confused:<br />
<br />But if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?<br /><br />We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations??<br /><br /> :judge-smiley:
<br />... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS.
<br /><br />Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."<br /><br />So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).<br />
<br /><br /><br />You're right, and I think the movie is one aspect of the trial. Can't footage from a televised trial be used in a movie, without having permission from those who participated in the trial - like witnesses, court people, etc? Because it's already public record. Like in movies where they show televised footage of real world events - like Presidential speeches, interviews, famous people doing stuff, car chases, other court footage from famous trials. There are a number of movies that use actual footage, for whatever reasons. <br />
<br /><br />Not sure if you remember the beginning of this discussion. The original question was whether witnesses, jury, etc, could be used as "actors" in a mere movie (not a sting), if the people themselves did not know that it was fake (like Candid Camera). They may know in advance that it would be televised, but this does not mean that they would know in advance that it was merely entertainment (if indeed that's all it was). Legally, it's almost certain that the "actors" would need to know and agree in advance, not merely know that it would be televised, but also know that it was fake--UNLESS there is a serious sting involved, then that would change everything.<br /><br />P.S. If the sting was only on the media and fans (and public), and not dealing with one or more areas of illegal corruption, then a simple movie would do the job (no need for an FBI sting, no need for "alleged", no need for jury to go down the toilet, etc. Unfortunately, the media telling lies and the fans and public believing the lies is NOT illegal (and therefore a sting on them would not need to have a real legal court involved, etc).<br />
<br /><br /> there have been many movies in that past talk about the general public becoming aware of the injustices done by the those in power, revolting against them, and finally succeeding. But somewhere in people's minds it has been established that "It only happens in the movies".<br /><br />Even if, now any person addresses a large audience and says that a revolution is necessary, very few people come forward to actually support.<br />Being just and fair has only been limited to a person's imagination, but when it comes to real life, most of the them want to save their own skin and believe what the majority believes, and be on the "track".<br /><br />So, coming back to the point, I feel that mere movies (which are for mere entertainment) will not (and never) have the required affect on the public. And as Michael says, the movies needed to be taken into the next level. And that's what maybe Michael did...there are some who know and co-operate, whereas on the other hand, there are others who are just watching and are really confused. <br />With the deliberate 'loop-hole' in the verdict of the trial, this hoax( in my opinion) is telling the audience to think and not just see and believe. The public needs to have their ground shaken to come back to reality and know what's happening with them and also what they've been doing...<br /><br />P.S.. Sorry if I misunderstood your post. any which ways, this is part of my understanding of the whole situation...
<br />I hope that this is getting clearer, so that we can get back to the question of [size=14pt]what[/size] went to UCLA.<br />
<br /><br />Was that a 'hint' or did you just forget to add "/who"...or were both implied? lol<br /><br />I've never believed that all 'this' was merely for a fan and/or media sting...that never made sense given, as TS said, ignorance isn't illegal. A 'sting' court made sense all along; however, any potential 'targets' fizzled out over the course of the trial (i.e. nothing really came of those we thought could be 'targets')...but, then again, we are only privy to a fraction of what's going on behind the scenes, especially IF the FBI is involved (and there's been several 'leads' pointing to their involvement).<br /><br />I'm still unsure of the jury's role in all of this...TS has mentioned them a few times. Given the verdict 'leak' to TMZ...I had thought that perhaps the jury had been infiltrated by a 'plant'...which would further shed light on the inadequacy of the court system. IF there is a sting going on, then having a 'plant' in the jury makes sense (assuming the entire jury wasn't in on it)...and that would've been relatively easy to do IF the DA, defense, and judge were in on it. The use of the word 'alleged' in the verdict, IMO, gives further credence to all 3 (DA, defense and judge) being in on it....or, as mentioned by others, it would've been contested (if any of them are not in on it and didn't notice it lol, then we can add another huge bullet point to the incompetency of the court system).<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
not only in the movies, is how many people there now in prisons unjustly, without charges, without trial, without a process basic, or convicted unjustly without sufficient evidence or with forged evidence.
<br />But if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?<br /><br />We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations??<br /><br /> :judge-smiley:
<br />... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS.
<br /><br />Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."<br /><br />So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).<br />
<br /><br /><br />You're right, and I think the movie is one aspect of the trial. Can't footage from a televised trial be used in a movie, without having permission from those who participated in the trial - like witnesses, court people, etc? Because it's already public record. Like in movies where they show televised footage of real world events - like Presidential speeches, interviews, famous people doing stuff, car chases, other court footage from famous trials. There are a number of movies that use actual footage, for whatever reasons. <br />
<br /><br />Not sure if you remember the beginning of this discussion. The original question was whether witnesses, jury, etc, could be used as "actors" in a mere movie (not a sting), if the people themselves did not know that it was fake (like Candid Camera). They may know in advance that it would be televised, but this does not mean that they would know in advance that it was merely entertainment (if indeed that's all it was). Legally, it's almost certain that the "actors" would need to know and agree in advance, not merely know that it would be televised, but also know that it was fake--UNLESS there is a serious sting involved, then that would change everything.<br /><br />P.S. If the sting was only on the media and fans (and public), and not dealing with one or more areas of illegal corruption, then a simple movie would do the job (no need for an FBI sting, no need for "alleged", no need for jury to go down the toilet, etc. Unfortunately, the media telling lies and the fans and public believing the lies is NOT illegal (and therefore a sting on them would not need to have a real legal court involved, etc).<br />
<br /><br /><br />I remembered the beginning of your discussion TS, sorry if I went away from that. I just had the above thought pop into my head last night and wasn't sure if it had been covered. Thank you for addressing my question.<br /><br /><br />I honestly don't know if a mere movie could use "actors" without their knowledge. I believe some of the witnesses already knew the truth, like Kenny Ortega for example. He knows (imo) so he was acting, willingly. But were ALL the witnesses privy to MJ being alive? The jury? Probably not. The addition of a sting court allows the "actors" to be deliberately left in the dark since a sting, by definition, is a deceptive operation. Is that closer to the mark or am I missing the point again? :icon_neutral:<br /><br /><br />
<br />... A valid reason for using the word "alleged" in the verdict when referring to victim and date is a hoax court aspect. It sort of annuls the whole trial, imo.<br />
<br /><br />More than 100 pages into this thread, it seems that I need to clarify the definitions of hoax court and sting court.<br /><br />Hoax court = entertainment, punk the media and public, etc.<br /><br />Sting court = FBI doing serious investigation into illegal criminal activities, etc.<br /><br />The question on this level is whether the Murray trial was hoax court, or sting court, or both. I have recently stated that it is both (and have indicated the same, all along). However, don't believe it just because I say so; go by the evidence that we have access to. And that evidence includes the usage of the word "alleged" in the verdict. So if it was MERELY a hoax court (not a real court involved, only a rented courtroom and actors for a movie): then there would be no need for the word "alleged" in the verdict (and no need for jury to go down the toilet, and there WOULD be a need for the witnesses and jury to know in advance that they were merely acting in a movie). I hope that this is getting clearer, so that we can get back to the question of what went to UCLA.<br />
<br /><br /><br />You're right, poor wording on my part, thanks again for clarifying.<br /><br />I had suggested last year in the thread that was debating hoax court vs sting court that it was both and I still think that's quite likely. It's been a year now since the trial ended so I wonder if the sting is still ongoing, if the trial was only part of it. I believe this whole hoax, trial included, has so many different aspects that MJ is covered legally no matter what and will be free to return with no legal ramifications. But you are correct TS, if the trial was merely a hoax court or a movie with a rented set and players, there would be no need for the word "alleged" because it wouldn't be real anyways.
Well after reading all these TS_comments posts I have learned something for sure:<br /><br />1- The trial was a HOAX court + STING court because it's clear that FBI was involved investigating criminal activities.<br /><br />2- That there was not a real body most probably a dummy on the stretcher heading to UCLA.<br /><br />3- TS doesn't want to talk about BAM, why? is it still far away? does he want to distract us from BAM in order to get us get shocked by Michael? :icon_mrgreen: :smiley_abuv: :affraid:
<br />Well after reading all these TS_comments posts I have learned something for sure:<br /><br />1- The trial was a HOAX court + STING court because it's clear that FBI was involved investigating criminal activities.<br /><br />2- That there was not a real body most probably a dummy on the stretcher heading to UCLA.<br /><br />3- TS doesn't want to talk about BAM, why? is it still far away? does he want to distract us from BAM in order to get shocked by Michael? :icon_mrgreen: :smiley_abuv: :affraid:<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I'm inclined to think that there was no real body, the June 25 be doctors involved waiting for the time indicated in that arrives "the body" to the hospital.<br /><br /><br />
The jury wouldn't need to be gotten consent from (to appear in the movie) as they were never on camera nor identified by name.<br /><br />I'm still confused as to what the alleged sting would be on. If the FBI sets up a sting, I'm thinking the typical, drug sales. An agent poses as a buyer and solicits a dealer to make an exchange. The dealer is set up by the agent, who completes the transaction n then the dealer is nabbed.<br /><br />In the case of this court case being an alleged sting, who's playing the part of the buyer and who is the dealer?<br /><br />Is the defense team the buyer and the DA is the dealer?<br /><br />If so, why is MJ involved in setting up LA County in a sting when it was Santa Barbara County DA that dogged him all those years and prosecuted him in 2005? That doesn't jive with me/ I don't see a motive for MJ's involvement or for MJ to participate and surround the situation with his life's work project to go after a county he isn't personally passionate about teaching a lesson to. Not that I am privy to MJ's personal passions, but after 3.5 years of research, I am at a loss as to envision MJ's being passionate about setting up LA County for anything.<br /><br />(Not to mention, the LA County DA's office is responsible for the missing N on the gurney pic slide powerpoint, which indicates they have been infiltrated anyway--in on it on some level, so the whole office certainly isn't the target.)<br /><br />LA County vs Santa Barbara County is where this whole Murray court doesn't connect to the false allegations, in my opinion, and it leads me to a sting court dead end. I can't come up with a motive for MJ's involvement in such a project.<br /><br />And for whatever reason, I just can't wrap my head around the concept of another target as yet unidentified. With all the clues, hints, and whispers over 3.5 years, you'd think it would be a little more obvious to us who the target might be. If we have to dig this hard and reach this far to come up with hypotheses they are probably unfounded.<br /><br />Because as it is, we are all at a loss, it seems, and TS is going to have to just spell it out for us (silver platter anyone?), and are we just going to accept him at his word? We know TS don't play that way.<br /><br />So maybe he just set up the jury. A jury is made up of normal, every day people, a cross section of the population, supposed to represent average Americans (a jury of our "peers"). We will all recall there were several MJ fans on that jury (at least latent "fans"--those who appreciated MJ and his music, you'll recall TMZ's article briefly describing some select jurors). This jury encompasses in cross section the fans and the general public. So sting still = on the fans/general public (and always the media).<br /><br />These fans and members of the general public scrutinized the information presented, in detail, and STILL found Murray guilty. We suspect that the ARG we are playing is designed to capture the attention of the curious and test our ability to decipher truth from BS and largely the entire MJ fan base has failed. That's why I have long defined the sting as being on the fans(/general public/media by proxy), so if TS wants to call it a sting court because it satisfied the same agenda in a very public way (in televised court proceedings), once and for all, mission accomplished. After nearly 2.5 years (as of 2011 by verdict time), the fans/general public (as represented in cross section) failed the test/got caught by the sting operation-- they found Murray guilty.<br /><br />If the FBI is involved, I continue to believe, based on the available information so far, that it is only to provide clearance (legality) to MJ to proceed with his life's work.
<br />The jury wouldn't need to be gotten consent from (to appear in the movie) as they were never on camera nor identified by name.<br /><br />I'm still confused as to what the alleged sting would be on. If the FBI sets up a sting, I'm thinking the typical, drug sales. An agent poses as a buyer and solicits a dealer to make an exchange. The dealer is set up by the agent, who completes the transaction n then the dealer is nabbed.<br /><br />In the case of this court case being an alleged sting, who's playing the part of the buyer and who is the dealer?<br /><br />Is the defense team the buyer and the DA is the dealer?<br /><br />If so, why is MJ involved in setting up LA County in a sting when it was Santa Barbara County DA that dogged him all those years and prosecuted him in 2005? That doesn't jive with me/ I don't see a motive for MJ's involvement or for MJ to participate and surround the situation with his life's work project to go after a county he isn't personally passionate about teaching a lesson to. Not that I am privy to MJ's personal passions, but after 3.5 years of research, I am at a loss as to envision MJ's being passionate about setting up LA County for anything.<br /><br />(Not to mention, the LA County DA's office is responsible for the missing N on the gurney pic slide powerpoint, which indicates they have been infiltrated anyway--in on it on some level, so the whole office certainly isn't the target.)<br /><br />LA County vs Santa Barbara County is where this whole Murray court doesn't connect to the false allegations, in my opinion, and it leads me to a sting court dead end. I can't come up with a motive for MJ's involvement in such a project.<br /><br />And for whatever reason, I just can't wrap my head around the concept of another target as yet unidentified. With all the clues, hints, and whispers over 3.5 years, you'd think it would be a little more obvious to us who the target might be. If we have to dig this hard and reach this far to come up with hypotheses they are probably unfounded.<br /><br />Because as it is, we are all at a loss, it seems, and TS is going to have to just spell it out for us (silver platter anyone?), and are we just going to accept him at his word? We know TS don't play that way.<br /><br />So maybe he just set up the jury. A jury is made up of normal, every day people, a cross section of the population, supposed to represent average Americans (a jury of our "peers"). We will all recall there were several MJ fans on that jury (at least latent "fans"--those who appreciated MJ and his music, you'll recall TMZ's article briefly describing some select jurors). This jury encompasses in cross section the fans and the general public. So sting still = on the fans/general public (and always the media).<br /><br />These fans and members of the general public scrutinized the information presented, in detail, and STILL found Murray guilty. We suspect that the ARG we are playing is designed to capture the attention of the curious and test our ability to decipher truth from BS and largely the entire MJ fan base has failed. That's why I have long defined the sting as being on the fans(/general public/media by proxy), so if TS wants to call it a sting court because it satisfied the same agenda in a very public way (in televised court proceedings), once and for all, mission accomplished. After nearly 2.5 years (as of 2011 by verdict time), the fans/general public (as represented in cross section) failed the test/got caught by the sting operation-- they found Murray guilty.<br /><br />If the FBI is involved, I continue to believe, based on the available information so far, that it is only to provide clearance (legality) to MJ to proceed with his life's work.<br />
<br /><br />we're definitely having a missing puzzle piece here...a sting on fans/public/media maybe a part of a bigger sting operation...
can't shake the feeling that somehow bam will not be so much about michael showing back up as much as someone will be arrested. just a gut feeling i have had .
<br />http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/Uploads/1420129281042RulesRegardingFilming.htm<br /><br />There was filming of the audience in the trial tho? and in the document i have add , says: It is not permissible to film the audience, or anyone sitting beyond the ‘rail’ (the barrier between the public seating area and the area where counsel tables are located in) in the courtroom. Tight shots must be used to avoid capturing these images.<br /><br />Would it be admitted when it was a real Court?<br /><br />I am short in time and havent searched for more info on this site, and maybe you have seen it before but i will add this website aswell who knows there is more to find on this.<br /><br />http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/ui/main.aspx<br />
<br /><br />as far as i remember, the audience was not shown...only the view where the lawyers are sitting...anyways, it's definitely not a real court, because of the "alleged" reference.<br />i think most of us are agreeing upon sting+hoax...<br /><br />
on 1353346390:
<br />can't shake the feeling that somehow bam will not be so much about michael showing back up as much as someone will be arrested. just a gut feeling i have had .<br />
<br /><br />don't worry suspicious, everything will carry out smoothly
I'm in the same boat as bec for not knowing WHO the sting would be against, if not just the media/fans/public. There have been many suggestions, good suggestions that make sense but I don't know exactly how the trial helped with that. Perhaps TS can't tell us who the sting is against because it would jeopardize the operation..? Maybe to understand who the sting could be against, it would help to look at the manner in which MJ "died" - OD'ing on propofol. WHY have him "die" in this manner? WHY have everyone think that MJ was so drug-addicted that he couldn't even sleep without being put under on a surgical anesthetic? There has to be reason for it to have happened in this way, instead of something more "normal" like a heart attack or stroke.<br /><br /><br />MJ apparently had several aliases for the purposes of getting a bunch of prescription drugs. There are so many prescription drugs that are simply not needed but doctors prescribe anyways, pharmacists package and sell them after getting them from suppliers - all for the profit, from big pharm. companies. There was the pharmacist Tim Lopez from Applied Pharmacy, who TMZ called a "Key Witness" - ( http://www.tmz.com/2011/09/15/conrad-murray-trial-key-witness-has-vanished-michael-jackson-propofol-pharmacist-tim-lopez-thailand/http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/04/people-vs-dr-conrad-murray-pharmacist-testifiespropofol-key-witness-resurfaces-tim-lopez/ ) - who provided the vast amounts of propofol to Murray, who Murray apparently contacted initially to get a skin cream from, for Vitiligo. During the trial, Tim spoke of his suppliers and different circumstances of getting stuff from his suppliers - like whether he had to pay up front or not. I don't know, it seemed kinda shady to me. During Lopez's testimony, he says that Murray asked him very specific questions about what he needed with the cream and then later the propofol. A set up? Applied Pharmacy was shut down ( http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/24/dr-murray-propofol-applied-pharmacy-michael-jackson-shut-down-las-vegas-bankruptcy/ ) but that was before the trial started. Here's Lopez's testimony, part 1 from William Wagener.<br /><br /><br /><br />Link for part 2: /><br /><br />If big pharm. companies/pharmacies/pharmacists are a potential sting target, there's still a question of WHY Michael would go along with this. Perhaps he's seen the effects of prescription drugs on people close to him and he did enter rehab in 1993 for a dependency on prescription drugs - at least that's the story that was reported. If the FBI is involved, they could've had a hand in the nature of Michael's "death" for the purpose of their sting. It's definitely gotten out of control with the amount of legal drugs that are out there and the doctor's who are more than willing to prescribe them for any reason. Many of the drugs have more potential damaging side effects than the condition itself but it's all about $$ and dependency.
<br />http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/Uploads/1420129281042RulesRegardingFilming.htm<br /><br />There was filming of the audience in the trial tho? and in the document i have add , says: It is not permissible to film the audience, or anyone sitting beyond the ‘rail’ (the barrier between the public seating area and the area where counsel tables are located in) in the courtroom. Tight shots must be used to avoid capturing these images.<br /><br />Would it be admitted when it was a real Court?<br /><br />I am short in time and havent searched for more info on this site, and maybe you have seen it before but i will add this website aswell who knows there is more to find on this.<br /><br />http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/ui/main.aspx<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Somewhere I read that the images, such as for example 'the corpse " of the victim should not be transmitted by television, and all saw it, ..at the global level.<br />
<br />... and speaking of getting back to what went to UCLA ...<br /><br />Fire Station 71, Shift C: Jeff Mills (Captain), Richard Senneff, Mark Goodwin, Bret Heron, Sean Mills.<br /><br />Did anyone know that Martin Blount was not from the same shift (he was from the A Shift)?<br /><br />:icon_e_confused:<br />
<br /><br />TS dropped this nugget and I had to pick up on it.<br /><br />I hadn't heard that....maybe others had?<br /><br />I interpret this as Martin Blount was bought in specifically from a different shift .....but for what reason? An undercover agent perhaps (if the FBI is involved?) or is it a simple explanation - like he was covering for another paramedic who was off work sick that day? :icon_e_confused:<br /><br />Wasn't Martin Blount the one who told the fan outside UCLA on June 25th that he didn't recognise MJ and then in his testimony during the trial he changed that story?<br /><br />I agree it's a hoax and a sting together (not only a sting against the media/fans/public).....but like others I am unsure who the BIG fish of the sting are. Perhaps it was never going to be obvious to us and hints/whispers/clues as to the target needed to be zero so as not to give it away.
<br />... and speaking of getting back to what went to UCLA ...<br /><br />Fire Station 71, Shift C: Jeff Mills (Captain), Richard Senneff, Mark Goodwin, Bret Heron, Sean Mills.<br /><br />Did anyone know that Martin Blount was not from the same shift (he was from the A Shift)?<br /><br />:icon_e_confused:<br />
<br /><br />TS dropped this nugget and I had to pick up on it.<br /><br />I hadn't heard that....maybe others had?<br /><br />I interpret this as Martin Blount was bought in specifically from a different shift .....but for what reason? An undercover agent perhaps (if the FBI is involved?) or is it a simple explanation - like he was covering for another paramedic who was off work sick that day? :icon_e_confused:<br /><br />Wasn't Martin Blount the one who told the fan outside UCLA on June 25th that he didn't recognise MJ and then in his testimony during the trial he changed that story?<br /><br />I agree it's a hoax and a sting together (not only a sting against the media/fans/public).....but like others I am unsure who the BIG fish of the sting are. Perhaps it was never going to be obvious to us and hints/whispers/clues as to the target needed to be zero so as not to give it away.<br /><br />
on 1353341866:
<br /><br />So maybe he just set up the jury. A jury is made up of normal, every day people, a cross section of the population, supposed to represent average Americans (a jury of our "peers"). We will all recall there were several MJ fans on that jury (at least latent "fans"--those who appreciated MJ and his music, you'll recall TMZ's article briefly describing some select jurors). This jury encompasses in cross section the fans and the general public. So sting still = on the fans/general public (and always the media).<br /><br />These fans and members of the general public scrutinized the information presented, in detail, and STILL found Murray guilty. We suspect that the ARG we are playing is designed to capture the attention of the curious and test our ability to decipher truth from BS and largely the entire MJ fan base has failed. That's why I have long defined the sting as being on the fans(/general public/media by proxy), so if TS wants to call it a sting court because it satisfied the same agenda in a very public way (in televised court proceedings), once and for all, mission accomplished. After nearly 2.5 years (as of 2011 by verdict time), the fans/general public (as represented in cross section) failed the test/got caught by the sting operation-- they found Murray guilty.<br /><br />If the FBI is involved, I continue to believe, based on the available information so far, that it is only to provide clearance (legality) to MJ to proceed with his life's work. <br />
<br /><br />
on 1353347064:
<br /><br />If big pharm. companies/pharmacies/pharmacists are a potential sting target, there's still a question of WHY Michael would go along with this. Perhaps he's seen the effects of prescription drugs on people close to him and he did enter rehab in 1993 for a dependency on prescription drugs - at least that's the story that was reported. If the FBI is involved, they could've had a hand in the nature of Michael's "death" for the purpose of their sting. It's definitely gotten out of control with the amount of legal drugs that are out there and the doctor's who are more than willing to prescribe them for any reason. Many of the drugs have more potential damaging side effects than the condition itself but it's all about $$ and dependency.<br />
<br /><br />I feel that all the major segments of this world are under the sting...which might include, the justice system, the media, pharmaceuticals, finances, politics (?)<br />and then finally the public (including fans, the non-believers, who think murray is guilty)
<br />... and speaking of getting back to what went to UCLA ...<br /><br />Fire Station 71, Shift C: Jeff Mills (Captain), Richard Senneff, Mark Goodwin, Bret Heron, Sean Mills.<br /><br />Did anyone know that Martin Blount was not from the same shift (he was from the A Shift)?<br /><br />:icon_e_confused:<br />
<br /><br />TS dropped this nugget and I had to pick up on it.<br /><br />I hadn't heard that....maybe others had?<br /><br />I interpret this as Martin Blount was bought in specifically from a different shift .....but for what reason? An undercover agent perhaps (if the FBI is involved?) or is it a simple explanation - like he was covering for another paramedic who was off work sick that day? :icon_e_confused:<br /><br />Wasn't Martin Blount the one who told the fan outside UCLA on June 25th that he didn't recognise MJ and then in his testimony during the trial he changed that story?<br /><br />I agree it's a hoax and a sting together (not only a sting against the media/fans/public).....but like others I am unsure who the BIG fish of the sting is. Perhaps it was never going to be obvious to us and hints/whispers/clues as to the target needed to be zero so as not to give it away.<br />
<br /><br /><br />So Martin Blount replaced Sean Mills that day? I wasn't aware that Blount was supposed to be on another shift. Sean's name is the only one that I don't recognize. Martin named all the paramedics who were there that day and he didn't name Sean. Unless Sean was there but went on the stretcher as the body.... It's possible Blount is undercover somehow, he mentioned that his training was at UCLA - which could be an indication showing these agencies have worked together in the past. And Blount definitely stated that he immediately recognized MJ as the patient during his testimony. But I don't see how it's possible for only one paramedic to be in on it (not that that is the suggestion) but Blount's presence there that day when he wasn't supposed to be on shift indicates to me that he specifically needed to be there.
Comments