If Martin Blount is also an undercover agent we will probably never know that for sure. He will need to keep his identity a secret but that would explain his presence. Does anyone remember the wife who posted comments on a blog and then removed them? Who's wife was she?<br /><br />TS - how does one know that? Is there somewhere online to confirm this information?<br /><br />Blessings
<br />If Martin Blount is also an undercover agent we will probably never know that for sure. He will need to keep his identity a secret but that would explain his presence. Does anyone remember the wife who posted comments on a blog and then removed them? Who's wife was she?<br /><br />TS - how does one know that? Is there somewhere online to confirm this information?<br /><br />Blessings<br />
<br /><br />That was Sean Mills wife.<br /><br />@TS, I remember some time early in the hoax, in 2009, someone posted the shift schedule for the paramedics and yes, I recall that Blount was listed on a different shift then the one that was supposed to be on duty at the time of the 911 call and subsequent LAFD response. That never went anywhere namely because we couldn't prove that the schedule posted was the schedule in place on 6/25/09.<br /><br />Perhaps there is some secrecy necessary regarding the subject of the sting, however, we are privy to the fact that MJ is alive and you'd think that if it's too risky for us to know the target of the sting it would certainly be too risky for us to know that MJ isn't dead in the first place. Besides, TS is bringing it up and encouraging discussion about it so clearly it isn't THAT covert.
@TS, I thought you said things would fall into place!<br /><br />So, you still want us to work out what went to UCLA? Has anyone put forward anything close to the truth yet? Please, I hate to call for the spoon, or the silver platter for you to feed us from, but really we (at least I) need some help here!<br /><br />I wouldn't be concerned, at this stage I'd be happy to wait and see, but it seems important to you that we understand certain things (hoax/sting court and UCLA in particular), and reach a concensus ..... with time running out.<br /><br />Are we helping, are we doing ok, or are you tearing your hair out at our inabilty to grasp what you're trying to convey? Is there anything else we should/could be doing with the information we have? Or is this an exercise in proving the futility of trying to find the truth when one isn't in possession of all of the facts? :icon_redface:
<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.<br />
<br /><br />Agree Andrea - they needed him there for some reason otherwise why bring him in from another shift? <br /><br />
on 1353354955:
<br />If Martin Blount is also an undercover agent we will probably never know that for sure. He will need to keep his identity a secret but that would explain his presence. <br />
<br /><br />Yes - true voice.<br /><br />1/1/13 is approaching so only time will tell exactly how covert the sting element is and I hope we and the world do find out what the sting was. We aren't privy to all the inside machinations. What we've been shown, told, thought we've figured out, led to believe, might only be the tip of the iceberg and only what MJ + team allows/needs us to see/know.........<br /><br />I agree curls......TS is probably tearing his hair out at us. Maybe that silver platter will be warranted soon because I feel we are at a loss too when we don't have all the inside facts and knowledge.
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 />Yep, strategic.<br /><br />Voice<br />
If Martin Blount is also an undercover agent we will probably never know that for sure. He will need to keep his identity a secret but that would explain his presence. Does anyone remember the wife who posted comments on a blog and then removed them? Who's wife was she?
<br /><br />Do you remember you posted this a while back?<br />
Something else I noticed is that the badge on Martin Blount is one that a long time ago I found was sold at a badge store and not the official one that they wear. I no longer have the link to the site but will keep looking but I did keep pictures.
Thanks TS for clarifying! Makes sense about SONY. I’m glad at least YOU remember every detail of things you’ve written, plus, I know at least YOU, know what’s going on. :Michael_Jackson_dancing_smile Whereas I’ve just got these pieces of the puzzle laying around on the brain. :computer-losy-smiley:<br /><br />Thriller4ever<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 />Do you remember you posted this a while back?<br />
Something else I noticed is that the badge on Martin Blount is one that a long time ago I found was sold at a badge store and not the official one that they wear. I no longer have the link to the site but will keep looking but I did keep pictures.
Ok family, don't kill me for this, but I think that Michael played the part of Martin Blount!! Why you ask...well #1, His forehead looks like he is a Klingon, and it never moves, his eyebrows don't move either, he just looks like he isn't real!! <br />#2- he seems to clear his throat a lot, which could indicate that he is using a different voice from his own and he is "conscious" of it!<br /> #3 In the video below, at 2:27, Brazil asks him what Lidocaine is used for and he answers "an anti arythmic drug, it's a Heart drug !! " :thjajaja121: Lidocaine is a topical numbing agent!! I mean come on, he is suppose to be a Paramedic, with lots of training!! This sealed the deal for me, that Blount isn't who he claims to be!!! <br /><br />EDIT**** Ok, I just found where they do use Lidocaine for an "irregular heartbeat" so I guess I jumped on this too fast, BUT...we are led to believe that Conrad used a lot of Lidocaine if there were 3 bottles on the floor...question s why??...I still find Mr. Blount to be highly suspect though... :suspect:<br /><br />EDIT EDIT*** oops, forgot to add, that Marty Blount was the driver of the ambulance right??? Ya...I still think this is MJ as Blount though, because there is no way an "experienced" ambulance driver would take that long to back out of the driveway...we all know the rumors of MJ not being the best of drivers and maybe we were told that he wasn't the best driver, so that we would "reflect" back on this tidbit of info and "connect the dots" with the ambulance driver??? Everyone was keeping their attention on who was in the back of the ambulance, not who was driving!! It is possible! Something about Blount is "off"...jmo<br /><br />oh, and lets not forget that it was during Blounts testimony that the fire alarm went off!!! Michael...you can't fool me you wascally wabbit you!! :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br />I can't wait to find out just how many "characters" Michael has portrayed in this ARG/Hoax/Mission/Education...etc<br /><br /><br /><br />This is just my opinion of course! <br /><br /><br />LOVE to all of you...TS that includes you!!! :bearhug: :smiley_abuv:
Sean Mills wife stated on her blog that he was on the call that went to Carrolwood. Since he was never accounted for in the group that worked on the patient and there was a fireman outside Carrolwood (setting traffic cones near the firetruck) I always presumed Sean Mills was that man, since no one else has come forward as being there.<br /><br />Upon reviewing Blount's testimony, I don't think he is MJ in disguise but I do think the dummy theory is starting to fall into place. His statements can easily indicate a dummy. The skin was warm to the touch in the bed (fire in the room), cool once it was placed on the floor, eyes were fixed n dilated (haha) and there was no heart activity, lifeless condition. All of that would be TRUE and easy for him to recollect accurately. <br /><br />We have rejected a different dead person, a dead double, live MJ himself, and nothing at all, so we are left with a dummy. In that way alone it falls into place.
<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.<br />
<br /><br />
Unless Sean was there but went on the stretcher as the body...
<br /><br />I thought about that too. <br /><br />I agree Andrea, Sean Mills wasn't mentioned by Martin Blount, at about 4:20 Martin Blount mentions the other rescue personnel.<br /> <br /><br /><br />Blount was the driver of the ambulance, the other passenger was paramedic Richard Sennef. He was the one who called UCLA by cell phone (shouldn't this be a radio?) to report to nurse ... Strange that there hasn't been mentioned a name of the nurse :icon_e_confused: while every detail and name has been mentioned during the trial. They call her 'radio nurse' while she has been called by cell phone?<br /><br /><br /><br />5:30: At some point, subsequently, Richard Sennef recognized the patient as Michael Jackson while Martin Blount immediately recognized Michael Jackson :icon_e_confused: Striking contradiction imo. As Sennef reported frequently updates of the patient's condition to the UCLA nurse, I suppose he would have reported the patient's name/address etc, because I'd think that's essential for UCLA to collect available medical records of the patient before it arrives at the UCLA. They didn't recognize the patient as Michael Jackson at UCLA, even though they must have had the patient's medical records ready by then. Was Michael using a pseudonym as a patient? Sean Mills perhaps, or Sean JackSUN? or what was Michael's pseudo name on Arnold Klein's med records? (I'm thinking of the recent news reports about name change of Jermaine, which could be a hint) and was this pseudonym reported to UCLA? I'd think that someBODY/thing else on the stretcher with a pseudonym would not get as much attention as Michael Jackson on a stretcher. That's probably why the ER physician didn't recognize the patient as Michael Jackson. Michael was distracting the media and was a few steps ahead of them and this gave him time and opportunity to get away. <br /><br /><br />Need some sleep, have to get up early. Have a nice day/night!<br /><br />LOVE<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br />If Martin Blount is also an undercover agent we will probably never know that for sure. He will need to keep his identity a secret but that would explain his presence. Does anyone remember the wife who posted comments on a blog and then removed them? Who's wife was she?<br /><br />TS - how does one know that? Is there somewhere online to confirm this information?<br /><br />Blessings<br />
<br /><br />That was Sean Mills wife.<br /><br />@TS, I remember some time early in the hoax, in 2009, someone posted the shift schedule for the paramedics and yes, I recall that Blount was listed on a different shift then the one that was supposed to be on duty at the time of the 911 call and subsequent LAFD response. That never went anywhere namely because we couldn't prove that the schedule posted was the schedule in place on 6/25/09.<br /><br />Perhaps there is some secrecy necessary regarding the subject of the sting, however, we are privy to the fact that MJ is alive and you'd think that if it's too risky for us to know the target of the sting it would certainly be too risky for us to know that MJ isn't dead in the first place. Besides, TS is bringing it up and encouraging discussion about it so clearly it isn't THAT covert.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Is Sean Mills or Jeff Mills, well copied and pasted from another forum what he wrote in those days<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
CPR VIP<br />Published by Darylynn at 12:01 am under Friends, Things and Stuff <br /><br />CPR VIP: that’s the text message I received from Jeff at 2:38 PM yesterday. I am not going to write the name here because I don’t want search engines to turn it up but I think you know who I mean. As you know, Jeff’s fire station is in Bel Air and they got the emergency call. Jeff said they used everything in their paramedic kits and worked on him for 45 minutes taking turns doing chest compressions. He’s pretty sure he was gone before they got there. They went to UCLA medical center with him and had to stay quite a long time. I could see Jeff’s rescue ambulance- 71’s- on the news at the ER entrance for hours. He finally called me around 7 PM and still couldn’t say much. He was warned that the paparazzi can intercept cellphone calls. Back at his fire station, he was fielding phone calls from TMZ and other celebrity websites looking for information. Of course, he is saying, “No comment.” All of the guys on Jeff’s crew had cellphones with cameras but not one took a photo. That would be a million dollar photo. I asked him what I could write today and he said that he would only be comfortable with this… so that’s all for now. We also lost Farrah Fawcett yesterday and that was a long, hard brave struggle that she fought. I had the Farrah Flip back in the 1970’s… we all did.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />
There are some online rumors that a photograph of MJ was taken by a fireman and sold for $100,000. The photograph in question (which I won’t link to because it’s despicable) shows him in the back of the ambulance with a tube down his throat. You can see the hands of the paramedics still giving him CPR. You can also see a reflection on the glass where the photo was taken from outside the ambulance… not from inside. Also online are videos showing the ambulance being swarmed by paparazzi as they back out of the residence. What an insult to Jeff and his crew who worked so hard to try and bring him back. It made me angry but Jeff and the guys just laughed off the accusation. They said the first one of them that shows up with a new boat will be the prime suspect. It makes you realize how frustrating it must be for celebrities to read all the lies printed about them in tabloids. Anyway, that’s all I have to say about the whole thing today besides what I wrote on Friday. *Added later: some people are misunderstanding this post… I am saying the photo WAS taken by paparazzi and not the firemen. But someone made up a ridiculous rumor that it was taken by a fireman and he sold it for money. Jeff even had news people calling him at the station asking if it was true. He also had reporters come into the station when the door was left open asking for “off the record” comments. Ridiculous like anything you said would be confidential.<br /><br />
<br />[size=10pt]... and speaking of getting back to what went to UCLA ...[/size]<br /><br />Fire Station 71, Shift C: Jeff Mills (Captain), Richard Senneff, Mark Goodwin, Bret Heron, Sean Mills.<br /><br />[size=10pt]Did anyone know that Martin Blount was not from the same shift (he was from the A Shift)?[/size]<br /><br />:icon_e_confused:<br />
<br /><br />So there must be a significant connection between Blount being brought in from a different shift and what went to UCLA that day, otherwise why would TS draw our attention to it in the above way..... ie linking change in Blount's shift with "what" went to UCLA?
Wait wait, it was JEFF Mills wife who blogged that her husband was on that call. Blount did list him as one of three guys who came on the firetruck.<br /><br />Not sure where the name Sean came from but we can clear that up now.<br /><br />paula, I just saw you posted the same while I was writing this.
<br />Sean Mills wife stated on her blog that he was on the call that went to Carrolwood. Since he was never accounted for in the group that worked on the patient and there was a fireman outside Carrolwood (setting traffic cones near the firetruck) I always presumed Sean Mills was that man, since no one else has come forward as being there.<br /><br />Upon reviewing Blount's testimony, I don't think he is MJ in disguise but I do think the dummy theory is starting to fall into place. His statements can easily indicate a dummy. The skin was warm to the touch in the bed (fire in the room), cool once it was placed on the floor, eyes were fixed n dilated (haha) and there was no heart activity, lifeless condition. All of that would be TRUE and easy for him to recollect accurately. <br /><br />We have rejected a different dead person, a dead double, live MJ himself, and nothing at all, so we are left with a dummy. In that way alone it falls into place.<br />
<br /><br /><br />The ambulance photo supports the dummy theory as well. A dummy that looks like MJ, making him "immediately" recognizable and to be able to say he was working on "Michael Jackson", it's what he actually saw (in dummy form).
Yeah but the photo was taken earlier so it doesn't really have any bearing on what was in the ambulance that day.<br /><br />But yes, a dummy would make him immediately recognizable, more or less, if you remember MJ's appearance from 1987. Maybe Blount does by Senneff was never much of a fan back then (ha) so it took him a minute. <br /><br />I swear that's the Leave Me Alone dummy in the ambulance pic. Maybe they did use the same one on 6/25/09. I suppose they would IF they did use a dummy that day as well. Why use 2 different MJ dummies for two different scenes requiring a dummy?<br /><br />Did they use a dummy that day or the other day? Haha.
Exactly, why not fool people with the dummy that was shown to everyone in the now infamous photo. One of the first clues for me was that photo, it was so obviously MJ from the late 80s I didn't understand why no one else (in real life) could see why that was strange and it made me think it was a dummy. That's so crazy now that I think about this because that was my initial reaction when the photo first came out. <br /><br />So that tells me that there WAS a dummy used during the planning of the hoax, because like you said bec, the photo was staged beforehand on "the other d--". So IF a dummy was used ON June 25th, for all the stretcher action shots, why not use the one people think they saw anyways, especially when it gives factual statements to what Blount said. <br /><br />So where does this leave MJ-actual in that scenario?
So when was the cadaver idea rejected (and I don't mean a body double conveniently dying the same day)? <br /><br />I didn't think that the use of a cadaver had actually had been decided upon either way.
<br />Yeah but the photo was taken earlier so it doesn't really have any bearing on what was in the ambulance that day.<br /><br />But yes, a dummy would make him immediately recognizable, more or less, if you remember MJ's appearance from 1987. Maybe Blount does by Senneff was never much of a fan back then (ha) so it took him a minute. <br /><br />I swear that's the Leave Me Alone dummy in the ambulance pic. Maybe they did use the same one on 6/25/09. I suppose they would IF they did use a dummy that day as well. Why use 2 different MJ dummies for two different scenes requiring a dummy?<br /><br />Did they use a dummy that day or the other day? Haha.<br />
<br /><br />If they used the Leave Me Alone dummy then that explains why we were getting redirects of the picture early on in the hoax. I too believe it was a dummy or wax figure of some kind - but I guess not wax or the heat would make him melt.<br /><br />Regarding the badges - I do remember that now. Thanks. I had searched the Internet looking at badges and I happened upon a store where you could buy badges. One of the badges looked identical to the one that Blount wore. I think that the link to the store was actually through the fire station website or city website. Unfortunately I recently deleted those photos from my computer too because of memory issues.<br /><br />
No one has ever been able to satisfy why a real body would need to be used. Any real body isn't going to look like MJ which necessitates everyone who comes in contact with it to be in on the hoax otherwise they're going to know something is not right with the story.<br /><br />So if there's no NEED for a real body to fool anyone why go through the trouble?<br /><br />To me, that's why it is rejected. There lacks motive for the trouble of a real body.<br /><br />I don't know where that leaves live MJ in all of this except that all reports were that he was at UCLA that day and no other theory seems supported by the evidence. He had to have his pic taken at some point for the gurney pic and the autopsy photo, and the crew needed him to be there so they could truthfully say as much in their statements, also, that which we have already discussed regarding on site direction and communication.
isn't this what they used for autopsy photo and maybe ambulance photo?? It's crazy how real a dummy can look!<br /><br /><br /><br />Forgive me if it has already been posted.<br /><br />LOVE you guys!
<br />So when was the cadaver idea rejected (and I don't mean a body double conveniently dying the same day)? <br /><br />I didn't think that the use of a cadaver had actually had been decided upon either way.<br />
<br /><br />The only reason to use a cadaver would be to fool the people who would have to see and handle the body - the docs at UCLA and the coroner. But they would have to be in on it, because of the invasiveness of their roles - a professional coroner performing a real autopsy is probably going to realize he's not actually working on the body of Michael Jackson. So instead of getting and using a real cadaver and the complications that can arise with that scenario (considering the people it wants to fool would have to be in on it anyways), it's easier to not have a dead body. If the autopsy is going to be tailored to the needs of the hoax, why does any of it have to be actually real? The autopsy was finalized on 9/9/09. Brian Oxman said the ambulance photo was 99.9% fake.<br /><br /><br />ps. just saw your reply bec, our reasoning is often similar, lol.
Just going by memory here from the trial, but I think it was Richard Senneff who testified when he arrived at MJ's house that he thought MJ had been dead for a long time before Dr M called 911 and also that he looked like a frail hospice patient. <br /><br />Also I thought 2 of the doctors at UCLA (I think Richelle Cooper was one of them) that when MJ arrived at UCLA he was DOA.<br /><br />I'd have to go back and check the vids of their testimonies.<br /><br />I haven't discounted the use of a corpse yet, but I also agree that it may have been a life-like dummy...<br /><br />Was just reading this too from back in April 2011 from TS.......might shed some light (then again, maybe not lol)<br /><br /> http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,18688.msg325716.html#msg325716<br /><br />
on 1303620054:
<br />http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18688&start=475#p325011<br /><br />Good eye! <!-- s --><!-- s --> <br /><br />Although some have said that this thread is just going in circles, and nothing accomplished, yet there has been some definite progress. There have been strong arguments presented both for and against the corpse theory (with neither side fully convincing the other). But this can be a good thing; we will get a lot more information during the hearings, and some may find it easier to keep the faith with the corpse theory.<br /><br />On the other hand, I agree with bec and others, that the corpse theory is the least desirable—and would certainly be avoided if there was any other feasible way. Some are very strongly opposed to this idea, while others are not; and although the emotional argument holds a lot of weight on this forum (at least with some), it probably would not hold much if any weight in a court of law—which is the type of evidence we are looking for.<br /><br />And yes, I did say the fewer the better, not the fewest the best; nevertheless, for the sake of the challenge if nothing else, let’s examine this question from the fewest possible concept (and this is NOT the actual case, but for the purpose of making the point). <br /><br />What if MJ actually died morning of 6-25-09: how many would need to be “in on it”? NONE! Why? Because it would not be a hoax, and there would be no hoax for anyone to be “in on”. Then what if someone else actually died morning of 6-25-09, such as a hospice patient on life support: how many would need to be “in on it”? None, EXCEPT the following: those at the house who knew about the hospice patient there (could be none other than MJ and Murray), and one or at most a few involved in the autopsy.<br /><br />But in that case, wouldn’t people realize that it was not MJ? Scientific analysis (such as dental records) would only be done at the coroner; so this is why at least one there would need to be in. As far as visual recognition by others (paramedics, hospital staff, etc): this might not be as big of a problem as you would think. There are several things that would tend to distract people’s attention from the recognition factor: the power of suggestion (others saying that it is MJ), reports of baldness and wigs, and recent plastic surgery, and not very many recent pictures in the news, and the intensity of an emergency situation with a high profile VIP, and other distractions such as the fire alarm, etc (distractions created by the few who are in on it).<br /><br />We do know that This Scenario at least could have happened with the paramedics, since they reported not recognizing MJ. And if it could happen with the paramedics, then why not at the hospital also? In reality, we know that more are in on it than just Murray and the coroner; nevertheless, this should help to clarify which of the options would require the least number of people to be in on it. Any of the other options (MJ himself, an MJ living double, a dummy, or nothing) would require that ALL of the paramedics be in on it, as well as several at the hospital.<br /><br />So again, if anyone can debunk the corpse theory, please do. But not with emotional reactions please, only documented evidence. And there were a couple of good comments on the life support patient idea {http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18688&start=175#p322797; http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18688&start=375#p323766}.<br /><br />See also a similar but slightly different theory {http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18688&start=375#p324064; http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18688&start=400#p324431; http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18688&start=550#p325518}.<br />
To me, those pics look like a more recent MJ then the ambulance pic. So to me those pics are Live MJ and ambulance pic is a dummy.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
I just had a thought after re-reading that April 2011 post by TS I copied above.....this line stood out<br /><br />TS<br />
Any of the other options (MJ himself, an MJ living double, a dummy, or nothing) would require that ALL of the paramedics be in on it, as well as several at the hospital.
<br /><br />This is working on the premise of a corpse being used (and I don't know 100% if one was used or not) but perhaps this is why Martin Blount was brought into this shift.... out of all the paramedics there, maybe he really was the only one "in on it". Martin changed his account of the patient description from UCLA to his trial testimony (from not recognising MJ to immediately recognising MJ). Maybe on June 25th outside UCLA talking to the fan he went along with what the the other paramedics were saying just for unity purposes (that it didn't look like MJ etc) when maybe he really did know that it wasn't MJ who went to UCLA but the corpse of someone else (eg hospice patient).<br /><br />Anyway - this is just speculation on my part, but Blount must have been brought in for a reason.<br /><br />I can't think anymore - my brain is fried...... :smiley-vault-misc-150:<br /><br />I think I'll just read for a while.......see what happens.<br />
Comments