<br />... continuing on my last post ...<br /><br />Notice also that many things were done, to confuse the appearance of the patient.<br /><br />Blount: “he had an IV attached to his leg”, a “nasal cannula … attached to his nose”, “a condom catheter attached to him”; “and all of that was in place, when” Blount “first saw Mr. Jackson”; and Blount “described Mr. Jackson as being very pale and very thin”<br />{~0:50, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wh0omtmt-E; see also ~12:00, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ03Oo_ppjg}<br /><br />“[Senneff:] The patient was dressed with pajama bottoms, a pajama top; the top was open, the patient was wearing a surgical cap, or something similar, covering his hair; and he appeared to be underweight to me.” {~9:15, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_44lw6Y_FiQ}<br /><br />“[Senneff:] … his eyes were open, they were dry, and his pupils were dilated.”<br />{~3:45, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mbf1uQikbQ}<br /><br />“Richard Senneff testified when he arrived at MJ's house and saw MJ, he looked like a hospice patient – extremely frail.” {http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/11/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-preliminary-hearing-trial-witness-propofol-death-week1/}<br />
<br /><br />Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).
Notice also the difference in the reports of Senneff and Blount, regarding the recognition of the patient.<br /><br />“[Brazil:] At, at this point in time, have you recognized the patient as anyone that you’re familiar with? [Senneff:] No, I haven’t even looked. [Brazil:] You haven’t looked at the patient at all? [Senneff:] No I’ve, I’ve looked at the patient; but I didn’t really look at the whole face, I, — I was busy. [Brazil:] At some point, did you learn that the patient that was on the floor that you were treating was in fact Michael Jackson? [Senneff:] I did.” {~5:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrccoOTZt7Y}<br /><br />“[Brazil:] When you entered the room, and you saw the patient, did you recognize who the patient was? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am. [Brazil:] Did you immediately recognize him? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am. [Brazil:] And you recognized him to be, Mr. Michael Jackson—correct? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am.” {~7:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQXU2KE1j_k}
<br />In all honesty and when I consider how long this has been going, how can we ever know what really happened? We go round and round in circles with the mental gymnatics .... so TS ....<br /><br />Here's the silver platter.... now dish out the facts dude! ::)<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /> :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br /><br />Yes, it may be about time for the platter.<br /><br /> :abouttime:<br /><br />However, just because I say that things were done a certain way, does not mean that everyone will believe me--and in fact, it is good if people don't just take my word merely because I say so. Nevertheless, it is hard and time consuming to back up what I say with strong evidence.<br /><br /> :Pulling_hair: :LolLolLolLol:<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />We can actually test what or who was in the ambulance, where is the evidence to prove this thesis or theory. The only reality is that the only thing we have are a lot of contradictions.
Agree with you wholeheartedly that a dummy carries risk. BOTH options carry risk. <br /><br />I'm also factoring into my 'no corpse' decision, the ethical ramifications post BAM if / when it comes out that MJ used a corpse to hoax his death vs MJ used a dummy to fake his death.<br /><br />Re: MJs looks, yes you have a point about questions around MJs looks and why the illusion is being put out. But this could also be argued as standard 'business as usual' when it comes to decoys / body doubles / privacy etc...<br /><br />
TS:<br /><br />Now what if it came out on TMZ and in court that a dummy had been discovered, do you really think that the public would not think twice about it??<br /><br />
<br /><br />True. But with respect, anything about any 'classified' part of the hoax could have come out via TMZ or in court over the past few years, and make the public scratch their heads.<br /><br />I think the select individuals in charge of the body aka dummy (who i believe were 'in') had to operate very carefully knowing the risk that it carried ensuring transportation etc went off without a hitch as it was an integral if not THE most integral part of the day. Having said that MJ certainly wouldn't leave such tasks to a paramedic / health worker rookie. In fact they might not be health staff at all rather actors like the dancers or security staff trained in first aid and medical procedure (Playing a role) George Clooney did it well also many other medical drama actors :icon_e_wink:<br /><br />Ok spit balling here....<br /><br />I'm happy to be wrong. I'm just grateful to be here.<br /><br />Luv ya TS thanks for giving so much of yourself to this thread :bearhug:
at this point, i've got some things clear in my mind according my perspective...<br /><br />Having a dummy play as MJ would be highly risky, because of it high chances of recognition.<br />[ and i feel that the paramedics would be able to tell whether it's a dummy. ]<br /><br />So, as the hoax had to be done (at any cost), a real hospice patient was present in the room on 6/25/2009. The involvement of paramedics in the hoax is not clear to me at this point.<br /><br />
on 1353509515:
<br />Notice also the difference in the reports of Senneff and Blount, regarding the recognition of the patient.<br /><br />“[Brazil:] At, at this point in time, have you recognized the patient as anyone that you’re familiar with? [Senneff:] No, I haven’t even looked. [Brazil:] You haven’t looked at the patient at all? [Senneff:] No I’ve, I’ve looked at the patient; but I didn’t really look at the whole face, I, — I was busy. [Brazil:] At some point, did you learn that the patient that was on the floor that you were treating was in fact Michael Jackson? [Senneff:] I did.” {~5:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrccoOTZt7Y}<br /><br />“[Brazil:] When you entered the room, and you saw the patient, did you recognize who the patient was? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am. [Brazil:] Did you immediately recognize him? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am. [Brazil:] And you recognized him to be, Mr. Michael Jackson—correct? [Blount:] Yes, ma’am.” {~7:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQXU2KE1j_k}<br />
<br /><br />could this contradiction between Blount and senneff be a clue regarding who's in the hoax and who's not?<br /><br />Senneff maybe wasn't in the hoax and Blount was...which is what this contradiction says. Because one knowing it's MJ and the other not knowing, is ridiculous. These both guys are working on a patient and there has to be communication between them. <br />Its not possible that one guy thinks it's MJ and not expresses it to the other guy that it is, in fact, MJ
<br />... continuing on my last post ...<br /><br />Notice also that many things were done, to confuse the appearance of the patient.<br /><br />Blount: “he had an IV attached to his leg”, a “nasal cannula … attached to his nose”, “a condom catheter attached to him”; “and all of that was in place, when” Blount “first saw Mr. Jackson”; and Blount “described Mr. Jackson as being very pale and very thin”<br />{~0:50, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wh0omtmt-E; see also ~12:00, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ03Oo_ppjg}<br /><br />“[Senneff:] The patient was dressed with pajama bottoms, a pajama top; the top was open, the patient was wearing a surgical cap, or something similar, covering his hair; and he appeared to be underweight to me.” {~9:15, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_44lw6Y_FiQ}<br /><br />Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).<br /><br />“[Senneff:] … his eyes were open, they were dry, and his pupils were dilated.”<br />{~3:45, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mbf1uQikbQ}<br /><br />“Richard Senneff testified when he arrived at MJ's house and saw MJ, he looked like a hospice patient – extremely frail.” {http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/11/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-preliminary-hearing-trial-witness-propofol-death-week1/}<br />
<br /><br />Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).<br />
<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing ...<br /><br />Does this description fit exactly what we see in the ambo pic???<br /><br /> :icon_e_confused: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_bounce: :icon_e_surprised: :icon_geek: :suspect: :animal0017:
<br />... continuing on my last post ...<br /><br />Notice also that many things were done, to confuse the appearance of the patient.<br /><br />Blount: “he had an IV attached to his leg”, a “nasal cannula … attached to his nose”, “a condom catheter attached to him”; “and all of that was in place, when” Blount “first saw Mr. Jackson”; and Blount “described Mr. Jackson as being very pale and very thin”<br />{~0:50, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wh0omtmt-E; see also ~12:00, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ03Oo_ppjg}<br /><br />“[Senneff:] The patient was dressed with pajama bottoms, a pajama top; the top was open, the patient was wearing a surgical cap, or something similar, covering his hair; and he appeared to be underweight to me.” {~9:15, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_44lw6Y_FiQ}<br /><br />Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).<br /><br />“[Senneff:] … his eyes were open, they were dry, and his pupils were dilated.”<br />{~3:45, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mbf1uQikbQ}<br /><br />“Richard Senneff testified when he arrived at MJ's house and saw MJ, he looked like a hospice patient – extremely frail.” {http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/11/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-preliminary-hearing-trial-witness-propofol-death-week1/}<br />
<br /><br />Edit: also a strap going under the chin, and around behind the ears and head (but don't ask me to find that one, maybe someone else can find it).<br />
<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing ...<br /><br />Does this description fit exactly what we see in the ambo pic???<br /><br /> :icon_e_confused: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_bounce: :icon_e_surprised: :icon_geek: :suspect: :animal0017:<br />
With all respect, but you can't just pick a ((almost)death) patient out of an hospice to "act" as a dying MJ.<br />What about the family of the patient, or the (possible) pain and drama,this person was going through (the end of) his life?<br />You can't just "use" such a real person for this, that's rude.<br /><br />And seriously, what would the world think, when this comes out?<br /><br />"MJ used a hospice patient for his death hoax". Don't you think the people will think that MJ is crazier than they allready thought?<br />I'm sorry but I can't see how a used corpse can help him to build up a better image for him as a person.<br /><br />If there wasn't a dummy involved, there must be another possibilty.<br />But hey, that's just me <br />
<br />... could this contradiction between Blount and senneff be a clue regarding who's in the hoax and who's not?<br /><br />Senneff maybe wasn't in the hoax and Blount was...which is what this contradiction says. ...
<br /><br />Yes, but maybe you have it backwards. What if Senneff was in the hoax--since it is apparently him in the pre-staged ambo pic? Senneff knew that the patient was not Michael JOE Jackson, and he also knew (or learned) that the patient was Michael JOSEPH Jackson.<br /><br />But how did Blount "immediately" recognize MJ, with all the paraphernalia? Simple: Blount knew this was the KOP's house, and the master bedroom, and someone was on the bed which was not a child, not female, not a horse, etc; so Blount assumed it was MJ, by the normal process of context, and the normal way that our brains work. After a while, though, while working more closely with the patient, Blount began to realize that it did not appear to be MJ after all (which is what the stalker fan reported, at UCLA, which was long after Blount walked in the room and "immediately" recognized MJ).
@ TS about to hit the sack, but was just entertaining corpse theory for a moment and wanted to add. Without sounding presumptuous as I don't know MJ, I think (granted, with my limited knowledge on law) that the only way MJ could use a corpse and avoid legal ramifications is if he himself outright owned a medical or science research centre and the body / patient was 'donated'<br /><br />Even so this may avoid legal ramifications post bam but not ethical ramifications....<br /><br />Not that I judge what is done with a dead body. From dust you are and to the dust you shall return right? (gen.3:19, Ecc.12:7) I'm sure you remember those ones.... :icon_e_wink:<br /><br />But many others won't see it that way post bam or if 'project corpse' was leaked.<br /><br />Considering some of the goals are vindication, wrongs righted (although for other reasons) wouldn't you agree that MJ wouldn't want anything that can be interpreted as negative esp the sensitive issue of using circumstances of someone else's death to validate and advance his own personal agenda.<br /><br />Again, I don't care. But wouldn't you agree that would be the general perception?
<br /> Who said Blount lied to the fan? That could have easily been the truth and he instead, lied on the stand.
<br /><br />Or maybe Blount did not lie to the fan OR on the stand. Maybe it was just as I portrayed it, in my last post.<br /><br />Although it's true that we should not gullibly believe everything we hear; on the other hand, it is also true that we should not reject everything we hear--merely because we can’t gullibly believe everything. We should seriously consider taking things at face value, unless there is solid evidence otherwise.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Having a dummy play as MJ would be highly risky, because of it high chances of recognition.<br /><br />So, as the hoax had to be done (at any cost), a real hospice patient was present in the room.<br />
<br /><br />Not if the paramedics were in on it. Remember these people had the most important job on the day. Transporting the body. Yes, a paramedic would tell the difference between a body and a dummy. You are right. My bet is that these weren't regular paramedics.... Just like the 911 operator wasn't real operator (jmo) <br /><br />The were 'in' and they were not only transporting the body but protecting the body, including and most importantly ensuring that no one would see or feel that the body was indeed a dummy.<br /><br />Again JMO<br /><br />
<br />... could this contradiction between Blount and senneff be a clue regarding who's in the hoax and who's not?<br /><br />Senneff maybe wasn't in the hoax and Blount was...which is what this contradiction says. ...
<br /><br />Yes, but maybe you have it backwards. What if Senneff was in the hoax--since it is apparently him in the pre-staged ambo pic? Senneff knew that the patient was not Michael JOE Jackson, and he also knew (or learned) that the patient was Michael JOSEPH Jackson.<br /><br />But how did Blount "immediately" recognize MJ, with all the paraphernalia? Simple: Blount knew this was the KOP's house, and the master bedroom, and someone was on the bed which was not a child, not female, not a horse, etc; so Blount assumed it was MJ, by the normal process of context, and the normal way that our brains work. After a while, though, while working more closely with the patient, Blount began to realize that it did not appear to be MJ after all (which is what the stalker fan reported, at UCLA, which was long after Blount walked in the room and "immediately" recognized MJ).<br />
<br /><br />That's a possible scenario...and when mixed in with the power of suggestion (as TS mentioned in the past)...(i.e. all the above factors re: Blount's thought process, as well as those in the know---perhaps Senneff---suggesting and/or 'confirming' that it IS MJ they are working on...would make Blount think it's Mike even more, despite having doubts. Even if doubts remained with Blount after 'that day'....the 'official' story plastered all over the news that it WAS Mike who died, followed by a supposedly 'real' trial (i.e. it 'seemed' pretty real to any who weren't in on the hoax, which may have included Blount), him being called in to testify, etc....would have further 'suggested' to Blount that it was Mike who died.<br /><br />Given the fact that 'it' all had to work without a hitch...there would've been no 'do-overs' on June 25th...and the possibility of something/someone showing up who hadn't been planned on (other than planning for the unexpected), the corpse theory makes sense IF Blount is not in on it, since he was the one working the 'patient' the whole time. Not sure a dummy would have fooled a trained EMT actively working the 'body'.<br /><br />I vaguely recall thinking/posting about Senneff being in on it because his testimony was closest in supporting Alvarez's account of events (and I believe Alvarez was in on it). Also, it was Senneff who went back into the house after the 'body' was loaded into the ambulance...perhaps to have a tete-a-tete with Murray about how things were going so far lol.<br /><br />P.S. Wishing TS and everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving :icon_razz:<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br /><br />Having a dummy play as MJ would be highly risky, because of it high chances of recognition.<br /><br />So, as the hoax had to be done (at any cost), a real hospice patient was present in the room.<br />
<br /><br />Not if the paramedics were in on it. Remember these people had the most important job on the day. Transporting the body. Yes, a paramedic would tell the difference between a body and a dummy. You are right. My bet is that these weren't regular paramedics.... Just like the 911 operator wasn't real operator (jmo) <br /><br />The were 'in' and they were not only transporting the body but protecting the body, including and most importantly ensuring that no one would see or feel that the body was indeed a dummy.<br /><br />Again JMO<br />
<br /><br />But the hoax had to go on under any circumstance. Even if some other paramedic appeared opposed to what was planned, it needed to be made sure that the other paramedic wouldn't really notice that a "hoax" was going on.<br /><br />If a dummy was placed, it would allow the other paramedic to notice that it's a dummy, and therefore hoax would be busted...<br /><br />Michael needed to make sure that the plan was going on, so that makes me think that it had to be a corpse...
<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing ...<br /><br />Does this description fit exactly what we see in the ambo pic???<br /><br /> :icon_e_confused: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_bounce: :icon_e_surprised: :icon_geek: :suspect: :animal0017:<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Nope, looks different, and like a dummy.<br /><br />
on 1353511389:
<br />With all respect, but you can't just pick a ((almost)death) patient out of an hospice to "act" as a dying MJ.<br />What about the family of the patient, or the (possible) pain and drama,this person was going through (the end of) his life?<br />You can't just "use" such a real person for this, that's rude.<br /><br />And seriously, what would the world think, when this comes out?<br />
<br /><br />My thoughts too... must be a dummy.<br /><br />
on 1353511474:
<br />But how did Blount "immediately" recognize MJ, with all the paraphernalia? Simple: Blount knew this was the KOP's house, and the master bedroom, and someone was on the bed which was not a child, not female, not a horse, etc; so Blount assumed it was MJ, by the normal process of context, and the normal way that our brains work. After a while, though, while working more closely with the patient, Blount began to realize that it did not appear to be MJ after all (which is what the stalker fan reported, at UCLA, which was long after Blount walked in the room and "immediately" recognized MJ).<br />
<br /><br />This makes sense to me... he assumed it was him, it was like a movie set everyone acting their part - at the time it probably looked convincing. <br /><br />
on 1353512348:
<br /><br />The were 'in' and they were not only transporting the body but protecting the body, including and most importantly ensuring that no one would see or feel that the body was indeed a dummy.<br /><br />Again JMO<br />
<br /><br />I agree, I also remember a comment made that they couldn't find a vein because of the amount of time? hmmm... on 'alleged' victim :icon_geek:
<br /><br />Having a dummy play as MJ would be highly risky, because of it high chances of recognition.<br /><br />So, as the hoax had to be done (at any cost), a real hospice patient was present in the room.<br />
<br /><br />Not if the paramedics were in on it. Remember these people had the most important job on the day. Transporting the body. Yes, a paramedic would tell the difference between a body and a dummy. You are right. My bet is that these weren't regular paramedics.... Just like the 911 operator wasn't real operator (jmo) <br /><br />The were 'in' and they were not only transporting the body but protecting the body, including and most importantly ensuring that no one would see or feel that the body was indeed a dummy.<br /><br />Again JMO<br />
<br /><br />But the hoax had to go on under any circumstance. Even if some other paramedic appeared opposed to what was planned, it needed to be made sure that the other paramedic wouldn't really notice that a "hoax" was going on.<br /><br />If a dummy was placed, it would allow the other paramedic to notice that it's a dummy, and therefore hoax would be busted...<br /><br />Michael needed to make sure that the plan was going on, so that makes me think that it had to be a corpse...<br />
<br /><br /><br />Lol, when its knock off time. You don't leave your shift when ur working on resuscitating Michael Jackson. <br />(That's regarding the shift change)<br /><br />And MJ planning the hoax to a T and not arranging a specific paramedic and ambulance crew? Leaving that to chance?<br /><br />Nah don't buy it, the paramedics and co were playing a role and were all over that dummy making sure the fact it was a dummy was kept secret.<br /><br />Again JMO. Happy to eat my hat if I'm wrong.
<br />With all respect, but you can't just pick a ((almost)death) patient out of an hospice to "act" as a dying MJ.<br />What about the family of the patient, or the (possible) pain and drama,this person was going through (the end of) his life?<br />You can't just "use" such a real person for this, that's rude.<br /><br />And seriously, what would the world think, when this comes out?<br /><br />"MJ used a hospice patient for his death hoax". Don't you think the people will think that MJ is crazier than they allready thought?<br />I'm sorry but I can't see how a used corpse can help him to build up a better image for him as a person. ...
<br /><br />Unfortunately, this kind of reasoning (which is not evidence, and would not hold up in a court of law) is what many people are using, as their MAIN reason to dismiss the corpse theory--and prevent them from candidly assessing some very obvious facts. What if this was court, and these reasons were thrown out of court as emotional reasons and not admissible evidence, what would you have left?<br /><br />Furthermore, there are answers to these objections. First of all, who says that the whole world is going to learn all the steps in how the hoax was accomplished? Unless it is announced on major news, by the FBI or someone that the public would believe, then the public would be left merely to investigate the methods--if they wanted to (and most would not bother to investigate).<br /><br />Next, if there is a real criminal sting involved, then the FBI would have the final say in at least some phases of the hoax--including what went to UCLA on the stretcher. So it would not be MJ's decision, and nobody could blame MJ even if they learned how it was accomplished.<br /><br />Third, and I think Souza and/or others found this in one of the previous levels: Death with Dignity answers a lot of questions about timing, and much more.<br />{http://www.deathwithdignity.org/}<br />
<br />... Also, Should a real corpse have been used, the risk of it 'not being MJ' possibly witnessed by paramedics, UCLA staff / coroner / autopsy personnel would have been high considering MJs distinguished looks. ..."
<br /><br />Actually, the risk of someone who didn't look too much like MJ is much less of a risk than a dummy being discovered by someone not in the hoax.<br /><br />Consider the fact that it has actually been reported, both on TMZ and in court, that the patient looked like a frail hospice patient, and not MJ, etc. But does the public think twice about these reports, or do they just continue believing the official story?<br /><br />Now what if it came out on TMZ and in court that a dummy had been discovered, do you really think that the public would not think twice about it??<br /><br />Also, over the years--and especially leading into June 25,2009--many things were done (or at least reported), to create confusion about MJ's appearance--so much so that even some stalker fans apparently could not tell the real from a double. Was perhaps there a reason for this, or just a random koinkidink?<br /><br />Doubles used ...<br />Plastic surgery ...<br />Baldness and wigs ...<br />Masks ...<br />Not out in public much ...<br />And more ...<br />
<br /><br />Well TS you clearly are trying to confuse us here to keep us busy and working on it to try to get to discover it.. or not with the theories of a dummy and/or a corpse being used while heading to UCLA, why do I think that way?:<br /><br />A) Because you have used the word "WHAT was on the stretcher" where "WHAT" means "IT" and I would never take a corpse as a "THING" but as a dead body (at least in spanish) still a person without breathing, I would always use the word "IT" for a dummy only.<br /><br />B) Because you are hinting that to use a dummy would have been very risky in case they would have discovered it.<br /><br />So which theory is the correct one? I don't really know but the use of a dummy would have more sense to me, why? because if they were using a real corpse or an hospice patient would have complicated the scene due to they had someone to take care of on their hands although this person were really dead and I think that this hoax would have to avoid any complication to seem real.
<br />... Lol, when its knock off time. You don't leave your shift when ur working on resuscitating Michael Jackson. <br />(That's regarding the shift change)<br /><br />And MJ planning the hoax to a T and not arranging a specific paramedic and ambulance crew? Leaving that to chance? ...
<br /><br />This is not about leaving a shift, during the middle of a call--nor is it about failing to arrange specific people in advance. Instead, it is about the possibility that someone would show up (at the house, or at UCLA), who was not planned to be there and was not in the hoax. This happens in real life; and it was a realistic possibility on 6-25-09, even if it was not highly probable.<br /><br />The hoax was planned with 3 layers of protection: <br />#1 Have everyone be in on the hoax, who is planned to be most directly working with the body.<br />#2 Have a real patient, just in case someone gets in the mix who was not originally planned to be there.<br />#3 If all else fails, have the FBI on standby to keep quiet anyone who might find something out that they were not intended to know.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Next, if there is a real criminal sting involved, then the FBI would have the final say in at least some phases of the hoax--including what went to UCLA on the stretcher. So it would not be MJ's decision, and nobody could blame MJ even if they learned how it was accomplished.<br /><br />Third, and I think Souza and/or others found this in one of the previous levels: Death with Dignity answers a lot of questions about timing, and much more.<br />{http://www.deathwithdignity.org/}<br />
<br /><br />FBI involvement and final say, definitely FBI involvement or the hoax could never be possible imo and does relieve MJ of blame, and I get the death with dignity. But this was a very public display... so wouldn't a dummy also be used? btw wasn't there a meeting or involvement of the TMZ photographer prior to the 25th for the ambulance photo?<br /><br />So there was a real death, cancer patient? and out of respect... and to make it more convincing for the public there was also a dummy?<br /><br />Just saw your answer thanks TS!<br /><br />
on 1353515319:
<br /><br />The hoax was planned with 3 layers of protection: <br />#1 Have everyone be in on the hoax, who is planned to be most directly working with the body.<br />#2 Have a real patient, just in case someone gets in the mix who was not originally planned to be there.<br />#3 If all else fails, have the FBI on standby to keep quiet anyone who might find something out that they were not intended to know.<br /><br />
<br />... Well TS you clearly are trying to confuse us here to keep us busy and working on it to try to get to discover it.. or not with the theories of a dummy and/or a corpse being used while heading to UCLA, why do I think that way?:<br /><br />A) Because you have used the word "WHAT was on the stretcher" where "WHAT" means "IT" and I would never take a corpse as a "THING" but as a dead body (at least in spanish) still a person without breathing, I would always use the word "IT" for a dummy only. ...
<br /><br />No intentional confusion. Someone else on this thread interpreted the word "what" to mean that it WAS a corpse; all a matter of interpretation.
@ TS yes, but persons are emotional creatures, right? As is Michael.<br />I can't see MJ will be so cold blooded and heartless. <br /><br /><br />So, IF there was a real corpse, there must be Feds involved in the hoax. And then indeed no one can blaim MJ.<br />Ok, fine with me.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
on 1353515635:
<br />
on 1353514614:
<br />... Well TS you clearly are trying to confuse us here to keep us busy and working on it to try to get to discover it.. or not with the theories of a dummy and/or a corpse being used while heading to UCLA, why do I think that way?:<br /><br />A) Because you have used the word "WHAT was on the stretcher" where "WHAT" means "IT" and I would never take a corpse as a "THING" but as a dead body (at least in spanish) still a person without breathing, I would always use the word "IT" for a dummy only. ...
<br /><br />No intentional confusion. Someone else on this thread interpreted the word "what" to mean that it WAS a corpse; all a matter of interpretation.<br />
<br /><br />I presume that I am that person, sorry. <br />
Comments