<br />In regards to the subject of a [legal, organized] sting operation [with the intent of procuring charges brought against someone in a court of law directly as a result of], I don't think so. TS's statement backs up this theory I have been leaning towards for some time:<br /><br />
on 1353470872:
<br />
on 1353349067:
<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 />
<br /><br /> :th_bravo:<br /><br />This answer is close enough, for our purposes. In fact, the focus of the sting is not even the subject of Level 7 (that was Level 4--which had a lot of good investigation and discussion, but the fullest answer on this will not come until after BAM).<br />
<br /><br />I think we are looking more at a "lessons learned"-sting as opposed to a, charges-brought-in-direct-connection-with-evidence-collected-in-the-process-of--sting. A metaphorical sting, if you will consider, a figurative "sting", and operation that masquerades as a "sting" for purposes of teaching a lesson as opposed to bringing criminal charges.<br /><br />For example, charges are NOT going to be brought against the public for believing the BS. Simply the goal is for lessons to be learned, public service message, and all.<br /><br />The sting IS artistic...<br /><br />...yet the actions of these entities ARE criminal; in what they do to the people, to society, make no mistake, they ARE criminals... but perhaps even criminals can turn over a new leaf upon lessons learned. Perhaps even criminals can change their ways if given an opportunity to do so, and precipitated with a shocking situation that they never saw coming. Lessons will be learned. Perhaps that is the goal of this "artistic" sting operation, rather then arrests/criminal charges.<br /><br />If so, there is no harm in these people/entities reading this information. They can either learn their lesson the easy way (by piecing together the information as we are) or the hard way (by disregarding everything we write as lunacy and then witnessing the Bam in live time and undergoing Total Recall at that moment). No matter, either way the goal will be achieved.<br /><br />Much as the general public and the fans have the same opportunities we do; to pick up on the clues, hints and whispers, and become hoaxers as we have; the OTHER subjects of the artistic sting have an opportunity to follow our dialogue, to see the light, and to make that change.<br />
<br /><br /><br />As long as the general public believes the media, is blinded by it and is completely ignorant,the criminals are free to commit their crimes. But if the public is completely aware of situations, those criminals are forced to be just. This hoax, if it involves sting, is for sure to make the public aware. That awareness might lead to a better world as the established institutions will, at any cost, have to be good in their conduct and dealings. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they have learned their lesson. <br /><br />Criminals must be given an opportunity to change. But these criminals are not petty thieves who started stealing out of poverty, hunger or lack of education and literacy. These criminals are 'the people in power'. They, in the conscious minds have resolved mislead the public, benefit out of them, and carry out any agenda through the means of media, entertainment and others. So a sting is necessary to make the public aware. And I'm also sure that it targets all departments that, at this present moment, rule and influence the world. But I'm not sure how this is all going to unfold. Many people are going to be revealed who are deliberately guilty of their crimes. I don't know what's going to happen to them...<br /><br />But there definitely will be a revolt by the public.<br />
<br />@ellyd ...u did a great job on this !!!
<br />If he "really put his soul into it", that would be if MJ himself actually died, and was brought back to life somehow later at UCLA, but we were not told about that. Miracle resurrection...<br />
<br /><br />I have similar types of thoughts MJonMind ! It also led me to think about things like resurrection and reincarnation. I think there is a spiritual side to this that we have to put together with all the facts and events. Both of these things have been going on at the same time. That's just what it seems like or feels like to me.<br /><br /><br /><br />
<br />In reality though, have we any reason to think Spike Lee is in on the hoax (and therefore sending clues in this docu)? I was thinking this was just a genuine tribute to MJ.<br /><br />I'd like to see the context in which those dummies/CPR were shown.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Again about the BAD25 film, imo it was as if it were a reintroduction to MJ the person versus the tabloid media BS. Reminding the public what a genius the man is, showing different sides of Michael. There were a few things I thought might be hoaxy. OR maybe it was to get fans and ppl thinking about it again or questioning things? <br /><br />The two things mentioned before the cpr dummy was:<br /><br />- The movie Third Man was the inspiration for the look of smooth criminal.<br />- The photo of MJ/mirrors is shown while his voice trainer talks about different tones of his voice, received a phone call from MJ where he spoke in low tone, which said he preferred not to use.<br /><br />Followed by the cpr image...<br />Leave me alone, saying it was ahead of its time, collage of images meticulously cut and arranged, about tabloid media… he says ppl don’t know me and believe the media.<br /><br /><br /><br />@ellyd That's an awesome map you have! Taking a look at it now. <br /><br />
on 1353688797:
<br /><br />The sting IS artistic...<br /><br />...yet the actions of these entities ARE criminal; in what they do to the people, to society, make no mistake, they ARE criminals... but perhaps even criminals can turn over a new leaf upon lessons learned. Perhaps even criminals can change their ways if given an opportunity to do so, and precipitated with a shocking situation that they never saw coming. Lessons will be learned. Perhaps that is the goal of this "artistic" sting operation, rather then arrests/criminal charges.<br /><br />If so, there is no harm in these people/entities reading this information. They can either learn their lesson the easy way (by piecing together the information as we are) or the hard way (by disregarding everything we write as lunacy and then witnessing the Bam in live time and undergoing Total Recall at that moment). No matter, either way the goal will be achieved.<br /><br />Much as the general public and the fans have the same opportunities we do; to pick up on the clues, hints and whispers, and become hoaxers as we have; the OTHER subjects of the artistic sting have an opportunity to follow our dialogue, to see the light, and to make that change.<br />
<br /><br />I agree! ... but I also think there is more to the story, perhaps someone planned to harm him and he was a step ahead. Double sting. Maybe TS can say more about it? :icon_geek:<br /><br />thanks TS, same to you :icon_e_biggrin:
Over the years, there has been and still is a great deal of excellent investigation in this forum—not only in these seven levels, but in all other areas as well. With only one week to go for Level 7, though, it’s time for me to bring out the Thanksgiving leftovers on a silver platter. :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br />It seems that at least some here have not looked very much into Death with Dignity (DWD). It is only for those who have already been diagnosed with less than six months to live, and who personally initiate the request for the process; and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act}<br /><br />This means that DWD is not murder. There are some who call it suicide, and there are some who argue against it being suicide; but there is no basis to argue that it is murder, or anything similar to murder. It is a matter of historical fact that the majority of voters in Oregon (OR) and Washington (WA) do not even think that it’s suicide, much less murder. And for those who do think it is suicide: “Those whose spiritual beliefs include opposition to physician-assisted dying are free to not use the Oregon or Washington law.” {http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/questions; see http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2012/02/23/myth-4-its-suicide; http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2011/04/25/death-dignity-isnt-suicide; http://tinyurl.com/ck2nnuf}<br /><br />So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program: it would be someone who had already voluntarily enlisted in the program, who did not think that it was suicide, and who would be dying anyway within a limited time window—the only question would be where, and exactly when. No doubt many would consider it an honor and privilege to be allowed in MJ’s home for their final hours—especially if it was someone who had no close relatives or friends, to be with them at the close of their life. If we wanted to use emotional arguments: we could easily claim that it would be very cruel and coldhearted, to deny someone this privilege and opportunity.<br /><br />Nevertheless, good investigators should leave feelings out of the formula, and stick with facts as far as possible. And it is a simple fact that DWD is not illegal. In fact, both OR and WA have laws against calling DWD suicide, or homicide, etc. “Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” {http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx} “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide.’” {https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/Documents/I1000-Text%20for%20web.pdf}<br /><br />And these laws provide a very clear explanation for the word “alleged” in the verdict. It would be inaccurate, if not illegal, to state that the DWD patient was a “victim” of manslaughter (which is a type of homicide); but the wording “alleged victim” made it perfectly accurate and legal. On a side note: a dummy would not have any date of death, much less any need for an “alleged date” of death.<br /><br />It’s true that under the OR and WA laws, the DWD patients must be residents of those states; however, there is nothing in the laws that specifically require the patients to physically be in OR or WA, when they ingest the medication. It is also an interesting fact that during the first 13 years of the OR law (1998 to 2010), not even 1 case listed the location of death as “unknown”; but during the first 3 years of the WA law, 2 listed the location as “unknown”—both of which were in 2009.{http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14-tbl-1.pdf; http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2011.pdf}.<br /><br />Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California. Since the DWD program is entirely voluntary, and the patient is free to back out at any time for any reason: having a second patient readily available would still allow everything to go as planned, even if one of the two changed his mind. And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.<br /><br />Speaking of risk: it would be the FBI four years ago, and not members of this forum now, who would decide the risks of using a dummy versus a DWD patient. Our investigation job here is not to decide the risk factors for the FBI, but rather to investigate the evidence pointing to whether they decided in favor of DWD or a dummy.<br /><br />Nevertheless, although I have never worked for the FBI in any capacity, yet it is my personal assessment that DWD is a much lower risk than a dummy. I have already gone over the appearance confusing factors with MJ, as well as with the DWD patient, so I won’t repeat them now; and I have already mentioned that reports of a patient, who does not look like MJ, would not spoil the hoax—since that actually happened, and nobody cared. And even if someone had a serious problem with a real patient, that did not look like MJ, it would be easy to explain that the real patient was a distraction factor—since real patients are readily available at UCLA, any time of any day.<br /><br />On the other hand, any unexpected discovery of a dummy at Carolwood or UCLA would’ve most likely raised huge suspicions, at the very least. To claim that a dummy could be explained away, by saying it was merely a distraction, can only be sustained by attempting to support a preconceived idea against common sense. Such an explanation would only raise far more suspicions, regarding who knew in advance that MJ would die on this very day—and had a 2009 MJ dummy already made, and handy, just for a distraction tactic??? Also, for those who think that an old MJ dummy would’ve been used on 6-25-09, why? All the years and money spent preparing for this hoax, and then not bother to make and use a new dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009?<br /><br />Both OR and WA statistics show that about 80% to 90% of DWD patients were also hospice patients {see links above, for “unknown” statistics}. Didn’t the paramedics say that it looked like a hospice patient? If these paramedics were not in the hoax, then we can be certain that it was a real patient (a dummy would not look like a hospice patient, nor would a dummy fool many if any paramedics). And if they were in the hoax, what would be the motive for lying? To give a clue that it was NOT a dummy, when it really WAS a dummy? If that were actually the case, it would seem reasonable to ask who is dumber: the dummy itself, or the dummy giving so-called clues?<br /><br />And now for yet another amazing hoax koinkidink: “The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, codified as RCW 70.245, passed on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.” {http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct.aspx} The OR DWD law had already been around for about ten years; so even if the law in WA had not passed, OR patients could’ve been available. Once the WA law passed in November, however, it was only a matter of waiting the 120 day period for it to go into effect. It is essentially certain that the FBI was aware of DWD laws both in OR and in WA, and so they would’ve known when the WA law would go into effect. What is the likelihood, then, that the FBI said nothing to MJ about this—either before or after MJ planned, by koinkidink, to have the London press conference on 3-5-09?<br /><br />Finally, WA is the state which not only went into effect on 3-5-09, but is also the state that had the two DWD patients which died in an “unknown” location in 2009; and yet no other “unknown” death locations before or since with WA patients, and zero “unknown” death locations with OR patients from 1998 to 2010 (3 in 2011). How many koinkidinks must line up, before we remember that koinkidink is the same excuse which people use to claim that there is no hoax at all?
<br />I thought of a real body at the scene is that in this way does not involve as many people in the deception, if a doll come to UCLA, by God no one noticed?<br />is supposed to be the smallest number of people known to<br />
<br /><br />[size=12pt]And all these men surrounding the stretcher not to allow very little to look at, I suppose that inside of the hospital is equal [/size] <br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />I support the dummy theory, because the body is still surrounded by the same group of men when it enters the emergency entrance, and it seems that they continue to do so. Isn't it the normal procedure that a medical crew of the UCLA emergency unit is waiting at the entrance to take over the patient/body from the ambu crew? In this picture I don't see this take over... So it seems that the group of people involved remains limited.<br />
<br /><br /><br />But also something not right here, this photo, there is also a video, which you can see the person that is on the table, which rises and looks part of the side of his face, specifically the ear and the hair held in a queue. Then it's a doll or what?
<br />Over the years, there has been and still is a great deal of excellent investigation in this forum—not only in these seven levels, but in all other areas as well. With only one week to go for Level 7, though, it’s time for me to bring out the [size=12pt]Thanksgiving leftovers[/size] on a silver platter. :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br />It seems that at least some here have not looked very much into Death with Dignity (DWD). It is only for those who have already been diagnosed with less than six months to live, and who personally initiate the request for the process; and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act}<br /><br />This means that DWD is not murder. There are some who call it suicide, and there are some who argue against it being suicide; but there is no basis to argue that it is murder, or anything similar to murder. It is a matter of historical fact that the majority of voters in Oregon (OR) and Washington (WA) do not even think that it’s suicide, much less murder. And for those who do think it is suicide: “Those whose spiritual beliefs include opposition to physician-assisted dying are free to not use the Oregon or Washington law.” {http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/questions; see http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2012/02/23/myth-4-its-suicide; http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2011/04/25/death-dignity-isnt-suicide; http://tinyurl.com/ck2nnuf}<br /><br />So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program: it would be someone who had already voluntarily enlisted in the program, who did not think that it was suicide, and who would be dying anyway within a limited time window—the only question would be where, and exactly when. No doubt many would consider it an honor and privilege to be allowed in MJ’s home for their final hours—especially if it was someone who had no close relatives or friends, to be with them at the close of their life. If we wanted to use emotional arguments: we could easily claim that it would be very cruel and coldhearted, to deny someone this privilege and opportunity.<br /><br />Nevertheless, good investigators should leave feelings out of the formula, and stick with facts as far as possible. And it is a simple fact that DWD is not illegal. In fact, both OR and WA have laws against calling DWD suicide, or homicide, etc. “Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” {http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx} “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide.’” {https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/Documents/I1000-Text%20for%20web.pdf}<br /><br />And these laws provide a very clear explanation for the word “alleged” in the verdict. It would be inaccurate, if not illegal, to state that the DWD patient was a “victim” of manslaughter (which is a type of homicide); but the wording “alleged victim” made it perfectly accurate and legal. On a side note: a dummy would not have any date of death, much less any need for an “alleged date” of death.<br /><br />It’s true that under the OR and WA laws, the DWD patients must be residents of those states; however, there is nothing in the laws that specifically require the patients to physically be in OR or WA, when they ingest the medication. It is also an interesting fact that during the first 13 years of the OR law (1998 to 2010), not even 1 case listed the location of death as “unknown”; but during the first 3 years of the WA law, 2 listed the location as “unknown”—both of which were in 2009.{http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14-tbl-1.pdf; http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2011.pdf}.<br /><br />Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California. Since the DWD program is entirely voluntary, and the patient is free to back out at any time for any reason: having a second patient readily available would still allow everything to go as planned, even if one of the two changed his mind. And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.<br /><br />Speaking of risk: it would be the FBI four years ago, and not members of this forum now, who would decide the risks of using a dummy versus a DWD patient. Our investigation job here is not to decide the risk factors for the FBI, but rather to investigate the evidence pointing to whether they decided in favor of DWD or a dummy.<br /><br />Nevertheless, although I have never worked for the FBI in any capacity, yet it is my personal assessment that DWD is a much lower risk than a dummy. I have already gone over the appearance confusing factors with MJ, as well as with the DWD patient, so I won’t repeat them now; and I have already mentioned that reports of a patient, who does not look like MJ, would not spoil the hoax—since that actually happened, and nobody cared. And even if someone had a serious problem with a real patient, that did not look like MJ, it would be easy to explain that the real patient was a distraction factor—since real patients are readily available at UCLA, any time of any day.<br /><br />On the other hand, any unexpected discovery of a dummy at Carolwood or UCLA would’ve most likely raised huge suspicions, at the very least. To claim that a dummy could be explained away, by saying it was merely a distraction, can only be sustained by attempting to support a preconceived idea against common sense. Such an explanation would only raise far more suspicions, regarding who knew in advance that MJ would die on this very day—and had a 2009 MJ dummy already made, and handy, just for a distraction tactic??? Also, for those who think that an old MJ dummy would’ve been used on 6-25-09, why? All the years and money spent preparing for this hoax, and then not bother to make and use a new dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009?<br /><br />Both OR and WA statistics show that about 80% to 90% of DWD patients were also hospice patients {see links above, for “unknown” statistics}. Didn’t the paramedics say that it looked like a hospice patient? If these paramedics were not in the hoax, then we can be certain that it was a real patient (a dummy would not look like a hospice patient, nor would a dummy fool many if any paramedics). And if they were in the hoax, what would be the motive for lying? To give a clue that it was NOT a dummy, when it really WAS a dummy? If that were actually the case, it would seem reasonable to ask who is dumber: the dummy itself, or the dummy giving so-called clues?<br /><br />And now for yet another amazing hoax koinkidink: “The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, codified as RCW 70.245, passed on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.” {http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct.aspx} The OR DWD law had already been around for about ten years; so even if the law in WA had not passed, OR patients could’ve been available. Once the WA law passed in November, however, it was only a matter of waiting the 120 day period for it to go into effect. It is essentially certain that the FBI was aware of DWD laws both in OR and in WA, and so they would’ve known when the WA law would go into effect. What is the likelihood, then, that the FBI said nothing to MJ about this—either before or after MJ planned, by koinkidink, to have the London press conference on 3-5-09?<br /><br />Finally, WA is the state which not only went into effect on 3-5-09, but is also the state that had the two DWD patients which died in an “unknown” location in 2009; and yet no other “unknown” death locations before or since with WA patients, and zero “unknown” death locations with OR patients from 1998 to 2010 (3 in 2011). How many koinkidinks must line up, before we remember that koinkidink is the same excuse which people use to claim that there is no hoax at all?<br />
<br /><br /> :th_bravo:<br /><br />Just a funny koinkidank La Toya just tweeted this a few minutes ago. :icon_lol:<br /><br />La Toya Jackson @latoyajackson<;br />What is everyone doing with the left overs?
<br />In regards to the subject of a [legal, organized] sting operation [with the intent of procuring charges brought against someone in a court of law directly as a result of], I don't think so. TS's statement backs up this theory I have been leaning towards for some time:<br /><br />
on 1353470872:
<br />
on 1353349067:
<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 />
<br /><br /> :th_bravo:<br /><br />This answer is close enough, for our purposes. In fact, the focus of the sting is not even the subject of Level 7 (that was Level 4--which had a lot of good investigation and discussion, but the fullest answer on this will not come until after BAM).<br />
<br /><br />I think we are looking more at a "lessons learned"-sting as opposed to a, charges-brought-in-direct-connection-with-evidence-collected-in-the-process-of--sting. A metaphorical sting, if you will consider, a figurative "sting", and operation that masquerades as a "sting" for purposes of teaching a lesson as opposed to bringing criminal charges.<br /><br />For example, charges are NOT going to be brought against the public for believing the BS. Simply the goal is for lessons to be learned, public service message, and all.<br /><br />Add to that this post by TS:<br /><br />
on 1353472585:
<br />
on 1353471616:
<br /><br />Broad perspective is close.<br />Makes the sting an artistic one ...
<br /><br />The sting IS artistic...<br /><br />...yet the actions of these entities ARE criminal; in what they do to the people, to society, make no mistake, they ARE criminals... but perhaps even criminals can turn over a new leaf upon lessons learned. Perhaps even criminals can change their ways if given an opportunity to do so, and precipitated with a shocking situation that they never saw coming. Lessons will be learned. Perhaps that is the goal of this "artistic" sting operation, rather then arrests/criminal charges.<br /><br />If so, there is no harm in these people/entities reading this information. They can either learn their lesson the easy way (by piecing together the information as we are) or the hard way (by disregarding everything we write as lunacy and then witnessing the Bam in live time and undergoing Total Recall at that moment). No matter, either way the goal will be achieved.<br /><br />Much as the general public and the fans have the same opportunities we do; to pick up on the clues, hints and whispers, and become hoaxers as we have; the OTHER subjects of the artistic sting have an opportunity to follow our dialogue, to see the light, and to make that change.<br />
<br /><br />Bec, this was profound!<br /> :th_bravo:<br /><br />Yes, MJ is creating a catalyst for the world to change, not through force but by becoming a Way, and a grassroots movement to swell and cover the earth. “The whole world has to answer right now, as I tell you once again—I’m bad. (in an awesomely good way)”. This is simply breathtaking; remember MJ’s statements about Hitler, and how he could have changed him (not damned him)? Like Alicia Keys (I think) said in the Bad 25 docu, "MJ changes the molecules in the room" (in the world).<br /><br />I also agree about the many rumors that either MJ included or they sprung up on their own. No work would have to be invested in these details but words on the screen, yet they were highly effective in creating confusion and mystique around the story.<br /><br />Thriller4ever<br />
This hoax is definitely impossible with only a few working/involved. Though TS said to start off by taking in people 'as few as possible', this hoax is simply vast! it's not limited to any particular person, or an incident to involve 'as few as possible'. And if the hoax needs to be successful, there has to a massive team behind Michael and several people co-operating.
<br />That’s always what I’ve thought from day one (massively huge involving many), but TS has been the SOLE instigator for me/us trying to severely limit insiders. And what was his purpose, leading us down false paths, and this is not the only aspect—what about MJ leaving on a plane, FBI involvement, and more. Thus we end up going round in circles. Perhaps even in this he is teaching lessons about discerning truth from falsehood, such an extremely trick/layered thing. And TS, you know I love you dearly and thank you for all you've done here!<br /><br />
<br />Over the years, there has been and still is a great deal of excellent investigation in this forum—not only in these seven levels, but in all other areas as well. With only one week to go for Level 7, though, it’s time for me to bring out the Thanksgiving leftovers on a silver platter. :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br />It seems that at least some here have not looked very much into Death with Dignity (DWD). It is only for those who have already been diagnosed with less than six months to live, and who personally initiate the request for the process; and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act}<br /><br />This means that DWD is not murder. There are some who call it suicide, and there are some who argue against it being suicide; but there is no basis to argue that it is murder, or anything similar to murder. It is a matter of historical fact that the majority of voters in Oregon (OR) and Washington (WA) do not even think that it’s suicide, much less murder. And for those who do think it is suicide: “Those whose spiritual beliefs include opposition to physician-assisted dying are free to not use the Oregon or Washington law.” {http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/questions; see http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2012/02/23/myth-4-its-suicide; http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2011/04/25/death-dignity-isnt-suicide; http://tinyurl.com/ck2nnuf}<br /><br />So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program: it would be someone who had already voluntarily enlisted in the program, who did not think that it was suicide, and who would be dying anyway within a limited time window—the only question would be where, and exactly when. No doubt many would consider it an honor and privilege to be allowed in MJ’s home for their final hours—especially if it was someone who had no close relatives or friends, to be with them at the close of their life. If we wanted to use emotional arguments: we could easily claim that it would be very cruel and coldhearted, to deny someone this privilege and opportunity.<br /><br />Nevertheless, good investigators should leave feelings out of the formula, and stick with facts as far as possible. And it is a simple fact that DWD is not illegal. In fact, both OR and WA have laws against calling DWD suicide, or homicide, etc. “Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” {http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx} “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide.’” {https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/Documents/I1000-Text%20for%20web.pdf}<br /><br />And these laws provide a very clear explanation for the word “alleged” in the verdict. It would be inaccurate, if not illegal, to state that the DWD patient was a “victim” of manslaughter (which is a type of homicide); but the wording “alleged victim” made it perfectly accurate and legal. On a side note: a dummy would not have any date of death, much less any need for an “alleged date” of death.<br /><br />It’s true that under the OR and WA laws, the DWD patients must be residents of those states; however, there is nothing in the laws that specifically require the patients to physically be in OR or WA, when they ingest the medication. It is also an interesting fact that during the first 13 years of the OR law (1998 to 2010), not even 1 case listed the location of death as “unknown”; but during the first 3 years of the WA law, 2 listed the location as “unknown”—both of which were in 2009.{http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14-tbl-1.pdf; http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2011.pdf}.<br /><br />Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California. Since the DWD program is entirely voluntary, and the patient is free to back out at any time for any reason: having a second patient readily available would still allow everything to go as planned, even if one of the two changed his mind. And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.<br /><br />Speaking of risk: it would be the FBI four years ago, and not members of this forum now, who would decide the risks of using a dummy versus a DWD patient. Our investigation job here is not to decide the risk factors for the FBI, but rather to investigate the evidence pointing to whether they decided in favor of DWD or a dummy.<br /><br />Nevertheless, although I have never worked for the FBI in any capacity, yet it is my personal assessment that DWD is a much lower risk than a dummy. I have already gone over the appearance confusing factors with MJ, as well as with the DWD patient, so I won’t repeat them now; and I have already mentioned that reports of a patient, who does not look like MJ, would not spoil the hoax—since that actually happened, and nobody cared. And even if someone had a serious problem with a real patient, that did not look like MJ, it would be easy to explain that the real patient was a distraction factor—since real patients are readily available at UCLA, any time of any day.<br /><br />On the other hand, any unexpected discovery of a dummy at Carolwood or UCLA would’ve most likely raised huge suspicions, at the very least. To claim that a dummy could be explained away, by saying it was merely a distraction, can only be sustained by attempting to support a preconceived idea against common sense. Such an explanation would only raise far more suspicions, regarding who knew in advance that MJ would die on this very day—and had a 2009 MJ dummy already made, and handy, just for a distraction tactic??? Also, for those who think that an old MJ dummy would’ve been used on 6-25-09, why? All the years and money spent preparing for this hoax, and then not bother to make and use a new dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009?<br /><br />Both OR and WA statistics show that about 80% to 90% of DWD patients were also hospice patients {see links above, for “unknown” statistics}. Didn’t the paramedics say that it looked like a hospice patient? If these paramedics were not in the hoax, then we can be certain that it was a real patient (a dummy would not look like a hospice patient, nor would a dummy fool many if any paramedics). And if they were in the hoax, what would be the motive for lying? To give a clue that it was NOT a dummy, when it really WAS a dummy? If that were actually the case, it would seem reasonable to ask who is dumber: the dummy itself, or the dummy giving so-called clues?<br /><br />And now for yet another amazing hoax koinkidink: “The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, codified as RCW 70.245, passed on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.” {http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct.aspx} The OR DWD law had already been around for about ten years; so even if the law in WA had not passed, OR patients could’ve been available. Once the WA law passed in November, however, it was only a matter of waiting the 120 day period for it to go into effect. It is essentially certain that the FBI was aware of DWD laws both in OR and in WA, and so they would’ve known when the WA law would go into effect. What is the likelihood, then, that the FBI said nothing to MJ about this—either before or after MJ planned, by koinkidink, to have the London press conference on 3-5-09?<br /><br />Finally, WA is the state which not only went into effect on 3-5-09, but is also the state that had the two DWD patients which died in an “unknown” location in 2009; and yet no other “unknown” death locations before or since with WA patients, and zero “unknown” death locations with OR patients from 1998 to 2010 (3 in 2011). How many koinkidinks must line up, before we remember that koinkidink is the same excuse which people use to claim that there is no hoax at all?<br />
<br /><br /><br />Thanks TS, the dummy theory really did not convince me that great information of only two people killed "unknown", there were also rumors quoting E, Casanova with a terminal illness and that took the place of MJ.
That's some pretty sound logic there TS. I think that for many of us that remained open to the corpse theory...the last 'hurdle' (if any) was the emotional factor...and you've cleared that hurdle in your explanation. Still, if this is what did take place (and as mentioned, that's sound logic)....getting confirmation of it has left me more emotional. Someone choosing to use their last 'act' on Earth to assist Mike is very touching and very special. <br /><br />Given TS had said that knowing who or what went to UCLA 'that day' would shed light on hoax vs. sting court...I'm not sure if this 'confirmation' provides any answers or just more questions. I'll have to think on it some more...but need to go for a walk first to fully digest what just happened.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br />That's some pretty sound logic there TS. I think that for many of us that remained open to the corpse theory...the last 'hurdle' (if any) was the emotional factor...and you've cleared that hurdle in your explanation. Still, if this is what did take place (and as mentioned, that's sound logic)....getting confirmation of it has left me more emotional. Someone choosing to use their last 'act' on Earth to assist Mike is very touching and very special. <br /><br />Given TS had said that knowing who or what went to UCLA 'that day' would shed light on hoax vs. sting court...I'm not sure if this 'confirmation' provides any answers or just more questions. I'll have to think on it some more...but need to go for a walk first to fully digest what just happened.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />I agree with you that using a real body, should not have been an easy subject for MJ, but maybe it was not his decision and just accept the help you provided. I imagine that this plan was not entirely easy or so cheerful thought for MJ, I am inclined to think that with all the pain just got around to it, period. :bearhug:<br />
TS thank you for all that information!... now I get it, understand. <br /><br />
<br />And if they were in the hoax, what would be the motive for lying? To give a clue that it was NOT a dummy, when it really WAS a dummy? If that were actually the case, it would seem reasonable to ask who is dumber: the dummy itself, or the dummy giving so-called clues?<br />
<br /> :icon_lol: Definitely not a dummy.<br /><br />I didn't read further into the law or know "DWD patients must be residents of those states; however, there is nothing in the laws that specifically require the patients to physically be in OR or WA, when they ingest the medication. "<br /><br />Very very interesting all the koinkidinks. Now waiting for bamsies. :Michael_Jackson_smiley_by_red
Thanks TS. I hope you had a great holiday. The information you gave sounds logical. I didn't know about the death with dignity act. It's emotional but I could see why someone who was going to die anyway would want to help MJ "heal the world". <br /><br />
Thanks TS - however, what about WA patients under California law? <br />DWD falling into the category of nurse-assisted suicide or DWD can be applied no matter where? <br /><br />A corpse went into UCLA and another corpse went to the coroner or how do we explain how the corpse on the stretcher changed?<br />Camera perspective only?<br /><br />Btw, everybody got his/her t-shirt if only 1 week is left, lol...<br />
TS, thanks for the DWD info, I'll admit I didn't look into beyond clicking on the initial link you had posted earlier.<br /><br />I will entertain the hospice patient/corpse theory for this post. The part where you wrote and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” immediately made me think of the defense's claim that "MJ" drank propofol minutes before he died. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2038988/Michael-Jackson-drank-Propofol-died-Conrad-Murray-trial-turned-upside-down.html ) which was their explanation for why propofol was found in the stomach. So the patient willingly drank the propofol before the paramedics showed up, died, and attempts were made to bring him back. The defense abandoned that theory, but it was still in the news for at least a month before they did. There was also that TMZ article from earlier this year where they said propofol was now being used on purpose to kill inmates on death row. http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/24/propofol-conrad-murray-missouri-michael-jackson/ Not that I think a body would be a deathrow inmate, it was the title of the article "PROPOFOL Now Used to Kill People... On Purpose" that caught my attention.<br /><br /><br />Still, if it was meant to fool the paramedics who would believe it's MJ because that's what they're told - WHAT ABOUT THE AMBULANCE PHOTO? We only see part of MJ's face and it's so recognizable as Michael, no question, maybe not currently but it definitely looks like him. I realize the photo was staged but there are paramedics in the photo - why did they not say anything about it? How can there be a photo, staged in an ambulance no less, without the responding paramedics going along with it - therefore, being in on it? I suppose the only explanation that I could consider would be if the FBI approached the paramedics afterwards and told them a photo was quickly staged afterwards and that they couldn't say why. Their reason being they needed photographic proof for Michael's enemies (sting targets) that it was him in the ambulance and the one who died. But still, even that explanation is dodgy.<br /><br /><br />If the corpse was used to fool the 2 doctors at UCLA and the coroner - they would not have only ID'd the body with a driver's license, they would've done fingerprints or DNA or dental records ESPECIALLY if the body was not recognizable as Michael. Additionally the autopsy would've revealed the terminal illness the patient had, instead of a fairly healthy guy. But I guess those last couple points would only involve the coroner, not the doctors. Did the hospice patient agree to have his lifeless body worked on for over two hours after he died? What if he had been revived somehow? What then?<br /><br /><br />It makes more sense to me to have everyone who comes into contact with the "body" to be in on it, since pulling off the hoax would depend on it. There were enough measures taken to clear out the hospital when the ambulance arrived - fire alarm pulled, stretcher surrounded, etc. But I won't dismiss the corpse theory just because I don't understand it.
<br />It seems that at least some here have not looked very much into Death with Dignity (DWD). It is only for those who have already been diagnosed with less than six months to live, and who personally initiate the request for the process; and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act}<br />
<br /><br />That brings to mind all the discussion pre-, post- and during the trial of the 'fatal dose' and who administered it (i.e. Murray, the 'patient', someone else in the house, etc). So, if DWD is what took place...then it would have been a self-administered 'fatal dose' in accordance with the law.<br /><br />Thinking more on the jury...IF they were not in on it, how the heck were they supposed have figured this out with the info they had at their disposal? It wouldn't really be a fair 'sting' on them (IF they were a 'target') since in 100% of cases, the jury is only given a fraction of the 'evidence' in court and aren't allowed to do any research on their own. IF they were part of a 'sting', I don't think it was to highlight any 'ignorance' on their part (as a reflection of the general public, them being our 'peers')...but rather to highlight the limitations of a jury and the inadequacy of the system.<br /><br />Sarahli:<br />
<br />Just a funny koinkidank La Toya just tweeted this a few minutes ago. <br /><br />La Toya Jackson @latoyajackson<;br />What is everyone doing with the left overs?<br />
:th_bravo: TS. That also would shed light on the description given of the patient as being unrecognizable & that of a hospice patient. Thank you for opening my eyes. That changes things a lot for me. Where I was once blind, I now can see. :th_bravo: Makes perfect sense. It also explains why there were reportedly 2 ambulances that came and went from the residence that morning. Incredible!
<br />Thanks TS - however, what about WA patients under California law? <br />DWD falling into the category of nurse-assisted suicide or DWD can be applied no matter where? <br /><br />A corpse went into UCLA and another corpse went to the coroner or how do we explain how the corpse on the stretcher changed?<br />Camera perspective only?<br /><br />Btw, everybody got his/her t-shirt if only 1 week is left, lol...<br />
<br /><br />It seems to me that this part explains that it doesn't matter where the patient dies as long as they are residents from the 2 states allowing DWD:<br /><br />
<br />Over the years, there has been and still is a great deal of excellent investigation in this forum—not only in these seven levels, but in all other areas as well. With only one week to go for Level 7, though, it’s time for me to bring out the Thanksgiving leftovers on a silver platter. :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br />It seems that at least some here have not looked very much into Death with Dignity (DWD). It is only for those who have already been diagnosed with less than six months to live, and who personally initiate the request for the process; and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act}<br /><br />This means that DWD is not murder. There are some who call it suicide, and there are some who argue against it being suicide; but there is no basis to argue that it is murder, or anything similar to murder. It is a matter of historical fact that the majority of voters in Oregon (OR) and Washington (WA) do not even think that it’s suicide, much less murder. And for those who do think it is suicide: “Those whose spiritual beliefs include opposition to physician-assisted dying are free to not use the Oregon or Washington law.” {http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/questions; see http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2012/02/23/myth-4-its-suicide; http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2011/04/25/death-dignity-isnt-suicide; http://tinyurl.com/ck2nnuf}<br /><br />So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program: it would be someone who had already voluntarily enlisted in the program, who did not think that it was suicide, and who would be dying anyway within a limited time window—the only question would be where, and exactly when. No doubt many would consider it an honor and privilege to be allowed in MJ’s home for their final hours—especially if it was someone who had no close relatives or friends, to be with them at the close of their life. If we wanted to use emotional arguments: we could easily claim that it would be very cruel and coldhearted, to deny someone this privilege and opportunity.<br /><br />Nevertheless, good investigators should leave feelings out of the formula, and stick with facts as far as possible. And it is a simple fact that DWD is not illegal. In fact, both OR and WA have laws against calling DWD suicide, or homicide, etc. “Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” {http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx} “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide.’” {https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/Documents/I1000-Text%20for%20web.pdf}<br /><br />And these laws provide a very clear explanation for the word “alleged” in the verdict. It would be inaccurate, if not illegal, to state that the DWD patient was a “victim” of manslaughter (which is a type of homicide); but the wording “alleged victim” made it perfectly accurate and legal. On a side note: a dummy would not have any date of death, much less any need for an “alleged date” of death.<br /><br />It’s true that under the OR and WA laws, the DWD patients must be residents of those states; however, there is nothing in the laws that specifically require the patients to physically be in OR or WA, when they ingest the medication. It is also an interesting fact that during the first 13 years of the OR law (1998 to 2010), not even 1 case listed the location of death as “unknown”; but during the first 3 years of the WA law, 2 listed the location as “unknown”—both of which were in 2009.{http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14-tbl-1.pdf; http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2011.pdf}.<br /><br />Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California. Since the DWD program is entirely voluntary, and the patient is free to back out at any time for any reason: having a second patient readily available would still allow everything to go as planned, even if one of the two changed his mind. And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.<br /><br />Speaking of risk: it would be the FBI four years ago, and not members of this forum now, who would decide the risks of using a dummy versus a DWD patient. Our investigation job here is not to decide the risk factors for the FBI, but rather to investigate the evidence pointing to whether they decided in favor of DWD or a dummy.<br /><br />Nevertheless, although I have never worked for the FBI in any capacity, yet it is my personal assessment that DWD is a much lower risk than a dummy. I have already gone over the appearance confusing factors with MJ, as well as with the DWD patient, so I won’t repeat them now; and I have already mentioned that reports of a patient, who does not look like MJ, would not spoil the hoax—since that actually happened, and nobody cared. And even if someone had a serious problem with a real patient, that did not look like MJ, it would be easy to explain that the real patient was a distraction factor—since real patients are readily available at UCLA, any time of any day.<br /><br />On the other hand, any unexpected discovery of a dummy at Carolwood or UCLA would’ve most likely raised huge suspicions, at the very least. To claim that a dummy could be explained away, by saying it was merely a distraction, can only be sustained by attempting to support a preconceived idea against common sense. Such an explanation would only raise far more suspicions, regarding who knew in advance that MJ would die on this very day—and had a 2009 MJ dummy already made, and handy, just for a distraction tactic??? Also, for those who think that an old MJ dummy would’ve been used on 6-25-09, why? All the years and money spent preparing for this hoax, and then not bother to make and use a new dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009?<br /><br />Both OR and WA statistics show that about 80% to 90% of DWD patients were also hospice patients {see links above, for “unknown” statistics}. Didn’t the paramedics say that it looked like a hospice patient? If these paramedics were not in the hoax, then we can be certain that it was a real patient (a dummy would not look like a hospice patient, nor would a dummy fool many if any paramedics). And if they were in the hoax, what would be the motive for lying? To give a clue that it was NOT a dummy, when it really WAS a dummy? If that were actually the case, it would seem reasonable to ask who is dumber: the dummy itself, or the dummy giving so-called clues?<br /><br />And now for yet another amazing hoax koinkidink: “The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, codified as RCW 70.245, passed on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.” {http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct.aspx} The OR DWD law had already been around for about ten years; so even if the law in WA had not passed, OR patients could’ve been available. Once the WA law passed in November, however, it was only a matter of waiting the 120 day period for it to go into effect. It is essentially certain that the FBI was aware of DWD laws both in OR and in WA, and so they would’ve known when the WA law would go into effect. What is the likelihood, then, that the FBI said nothing to MJ about this—either before or after MJ planned, by koinkidink, to have the London press conference on 3-5-09?<br /><br />Finally, WA is the state which not only went into effect on 3-5-09, but is also the state that had the two DWD patients which died in an “unknown” location in 2009; and yet no other “unknown” death locations before or since with WA patients, and zero “unknown” death locations with OR patients from 1998 to 2010 (3 in 2011). How many koinkidinks must line up, before we remember that koinkidink is the same excuse which people use to claim that there is no hoax at all?<br />
<br /><br />@TS... thanks for those leftovers but I am really freaking out, so what I gather from your big explanation paragraph is that a dummy was not used but a DWD or terminally ill person so then I have a big question: WHO was the person that decided to give the medicine to help to die to this unknown person? was it Michael or the unknown person himself? because I am quite sure that the date June 25 2009 was chosen to be "the day" if I recall correctly there was a book released one day before on June 24 2009 talking in advance about MJ's death hoax. <br />Since I saw several pics with a death MJ dummy, dummy has been ever used in this hoax ?
I understand that some people might be upset by this concept but death is part of life so to speak and here the person is ill and dying and suffering, they chose to die anyway even without a death hoax, so Michael is actually offering this person an opportunity to die in even better conditions than what they would have would they chose not to participate in the death hoax... so I see it as a positive for that person and his family ... and maybe that's what Front was warning us about when he said to "enjoy the bliss for now" and maybe there is even "worse" than that who knows.
<br />Thanks TS - however, what about WA patients under California law? <br />DWD falling into the category of nurse-assisted suicide or DWD can be applied no matter where? <br /><br />A corpse went into UCLA and another corpse went to the coroner or how do we explain how the corpse on the stretcher changed?<br />Camera perspective only?<br /><br />Btw, everybody got his/her t-shirt if only 1 week is left, lol...<br />
<br /><br />It seems to me that this part explains that it doesn't matter where the patient dies as long as they are residents from the 2 states allowing DWD:<br /><br />
<br /><br />We were discussing the matter of assisted suicide that is practiced in Europe, e.g. Souza explained this long time ago.<br /><br />Having a cross-state-border law application would complicate the legal situation to a degree that the jury cannot be condemned for their verdict. They find their decision on presented facts and not taking into account any other law than their own local and national law. So do we take into account what we can access - and for sure we did not consider any law made in Spitzbergen that could be applied to California as well. <br /><br />Takes weight from the false judgements of the public as well.<br /><br />Takes the DA out of scope as well as he considered Californian law and not any other potentially existing possibility.<br /><br />This takes CM out of scope as well - he always insisted that Michael Joseph Jackson applied the drugs himself.<br /><br />This indicates in addition that the situation of having someone else die that day is utterly delicate to have to be covered by such a legal bracket.<br /><br />Open question: an Asian old frail man from WA who happens to have (almost) the same name as MJ? Adoption? By Joe?<br /><br />Why was it required to show a dead body to so many "dead body" specialists and insiders (the public saw only prepared text and photo material)? <br />MJ could have died in an airplane crash, too, and vanished into the sea. This did not happen though. There was a need for a corpse. IMO the dead body was so important to play a role - despite all complications deriving from having to handle a corpse - because it was a prerequisite for the criminal sting. One could also argue that the corpse was a consequence of having a person die that day so that consecutively the corpse had to be dealt with. But still an exchange of bodies took place behind closed doors at Carolwood.
SweetSunset,<br /><br />There is no "Who" to worry about as in "Who gave the medication". He said the law requires that the patient ingest the medicine unassisted. The patient must take the medication him or herself.<br /><br />
TS, thanks for this eyeopening information.<br />I must admit I didn't read the DWD information before, so obviously I couldn't have made a good statement.<br />My apologies :-\<br /><br />But, now I did and I have read your WA document which you posted.<br />This and your information is indeed very logic and good.<br /><br />My statement earlier (the "cold blooded and heartless" part from my FBI post earlier on this thread) wasn't nice, especially looking to it from your point of view.<br />It would have been an honour to die this was for a person.<br />So, let me get my flag :smiley-vault-misc-150: and say to you that I cannot apologize enough for that and I hope you can forgive me for that.<br /><br />On the WA document there are also 2 reports of EMT involvements with "Calls for other reason (including to pronounce death)".<br />I suggest that these involvements are also for the 2 persons, and in fact was the EMT we have seen on video?<br />Also I recall that someone here noticed that she thought that there are two different ambulance videos, because she noticed different shadows (if I recall correctly).<br />Is it correct that there was indeed two ambulance videos made, considering 2 death patients?<br /><br />Please TS, this time I don't make statements, just suggestions and questions.<br />And I hope you can help me find anwers for it.<br /><br />Thanks :bearhug:
Comments
<br />@ellyd ...u did a great job on this !!!