<br />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 />... 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 />[size=14pt]This answer is close enough, for our purposes.[/size] 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 />
on 1353088340:
<br />[size=14pt]For our purposes[/size], yes, I do believe so.<br />
:suspect: :icon_e_wink:<br /><br />It seems Bec and TS work for the same "Team".."For OUR PURPOSES" and just what might OUR PURPOSE be?? :icon_geek:<br /><br />"TS"...I LOVE you, but I ain't "BUYI_G what YE are "SELLI_G", cause I've been doing a lot of "Thinking for myself!" :LolLolLolLol:<br /> I do however totally appreciate the wonderful "Life Lessons and skills" you have taught me on this Journey...it took me falling down a few of those "rabbit Holes" before I finally started piecing things together, but there is always a lesson to be learned on every path you take, right or wrong, doesn't matter, but the "Lesson" does!<br />Anyway...just sayin hello, as I won't be posting much on the "hoaxy" side of things anymore, but I want you to know that I do "Thank you" from the bottom of my Heart! You are a great teacher, and I have gained so much knowledge and Wisdom along the way...This journey changed me forever, it gave my life purpose again, cause I know now that LOVE has always been the answer, and I feel I have now come "full circle" on my own "personal" journey, my life makes sense, and I will always do my best to live and act, with LOVE, always! So, again, I sincerely thank you for taking me places that I have never thought possible...You helped me to know that it is ok to just be ME, and now I must be the Best Me I can be! Bless you TS, whoever you may be! LOVE you!<br /> :bearhug:<br /> and of course...I LOVE you Family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /> :bearhug:
Thank you TS for laying it out more clearly for us. I was already very much going along the lines of a hospice patient/real body being used. <br /><br />If this is what happened, then to be able to die with dignity within Michael Jackson's house must have been very comforting for the person. Having watched my mother die from untreatable secondary liver cancer I know how agonisingly painful a terminal illness is and where I live we did not have the option of anything like the DWD laws that OR & WA have in the USA. If we did I know my mum and my family would have accessed them to save her from the terrible suffering she endured.....anyway I am getting all emotional and teary now thinking about it so I will stop there as it's not relevant to the discussion.<br /><br />Interesting thought too @BTC about "who delivered the fatal dose" in the trial.<br /><br />Andrea - nice catch about TS post number for this last one - 2:26 - the time of death of "Michael Jackson"<br /><br />
Thankyou TS. I wish we had a DWD option here is Aus. My poor Dad had to stop eating to hasten his cancer related death. Took him 6 weeks. It could have been easier for him and us. <br /><br />Seems that the most logical explanation is often the right explanation as in this case.<br />
<br />Thankyou TS. I wish we had a DWD option here is Aus. My poor Dad had to stop eating to hasten his cancer related death. Took him 6 weeks. It could have been easier for him and us. <br /><br />Seems that the most logical explanation is often the right explanation as in this case.<br />
<br /><br /><br />This should be very hard for your dad and for the whole family :P
[size=12pt]Um...I'm thinkin'...just Wow! I have to say that if this scenario of 6/25 is the real deal...then that patient...whoever he(they) was(were)...apparently gave Michael one of the very few truly genuine and selfless gifts he ever received. Kinda speechless at the moment though...still digesting the possibility and how hard it would have been on him. We always knew it was one of the possibilities but it's strange to see it all written out like that. [/size]
<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 />[size=14pt]Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and [size=18pt]maybe[/size] both of them, were in California. [/size]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 />OK, I just need to clarify that when I said to TS I'm not buying what he is selling, I was referring to the way TS words his posts, to "Lead" us now to believe that someone "died" in MJ's place. I was in no way trying to make light of the DWD law!! <br /><br />My point in all of this is that we will NEVER know exactly HOW Michael pulled this off, until Michael himself tells us!! TS is just giving us information that "could" be valid, but it also might not be...TS says not to take his word as truth...Notice how carefully his posts are worded, it is all about how we "perceive" his words, he covers his butt, especially when he says if MJ hasn't Bammed by January1st, we can know him to be a "fake" informer!! If he knew Michael was going to Bam for sure by that date, why would he need to give us this option, that he "May" be a fake informer??<br /><br />The above information from TS, still doesn't tell us what really went on that day...TS just gives us some "valid" information about the DWD law, but then he uses words like I have bolded above, "most likely" and "Maybe"...he isn't saying this is what actually happened!! <br /><br />Anyway, just wanted to clarify this.<br /><br />Blessings and LOVE!
yes, the puzzle begins to make sense<br />Initiative 1000<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Specific provisions in the initiative<br /><br />Provisions in the law include:<br />The patient must be an adult (18 or over) resident of the state of Washington<br />The patient must be mentally competent, verified by two physicians (or referred to a mental health evaluation)<br />[size=14pt]The patient must be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, verified by two physicians.[/size]<br />The patient must make voluntary requests, without coercion, verified by two physicians<br />The patient must be informed of all other options including palliative and hospice care<br />There is a 15 day waiting period between the first oral request and a written request<br />There is a 48 hour waiting period between the written request and the writing of the prescription<br />The written request must be signed by two independent witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient or employed by the health care facility<br />The patient is encouraged to discuss with family (not required because of confidentiality laws)<br />The patient may change their mind at any time and rescind the request<br />The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which must list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death<br />
Thank you for sharing your thoughts everyone. I'm hesitant to voice my opinion but I lean with the belief of Mjj4ever777.<br /><br />I am truly confused now by TS's post. Maybe my judgment is being clouded because I do not believe in the DWD law or maybe it's because I can't picture MJ letting someone go through with this just to satisfy a body for his hoax (whether the person was ill or not or volunteered or not). I have personal reasons why we shouldn't play God with our own lives but I'll leave it alone because it is a fact that it is a law in two states.<br /><br />Why does the unknown persons from WA have to be in California? There are plenty of other states the person could have gone to. To me this is just speculation without any true proof.<br /><br />If the WA patient DWD theory is correct then Michael didn't have the ending figured out until the last few months and I don't believe that to be true (because the laws went into effect in 2009). Now this makes me start believing in coincidence. Crumb.<br /><br />This theory makes the least amount of sense to me but then I am only one person. I'll keep watchin' to see where the pieces fall in the next few weeks.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />PS - and then why choose a cardiologist to care for this patient instead of one more qualified? Just to satisfy the hoax appearance seems really cruel and I think that if this is true then Michael will receive more backlash then using a dummy.<br />
<br />yes, the puzzle begins to make sense<br />Initiative 1000<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Specific provisions in the initiative<br /><br />Provisions in the law include:<br />The patient must be an adult (18 or over) resident of the state of Washington<br />The patient must be mentally competent, verified by two physicians (or referred to a mental health evaluation)<br />[size=14pt]The patient must be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, verified by two physicians.[/size]<br />The patient must make voluntary requests, without coercion, verified by two physicians<br />The patient must be informed of all other options including palliative and hospice care<br />There is a 15 day waiting period between the first oral request and a written request<br />There is a 48 hour waiting period between the written request and the writing of the prescription<br />The written request must be signed by two independent witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient or employed by the health care facility<br />The patient is encouraged to discuss with family (not required because of confidentiality laws)<br />The patient may change their mind at any time and rescind the request<br />The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which must list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death<br /><br />
All the years and money spent preparing for this hoax[/quote]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Although I have a problem with this and the numerology, the time spent to plan the hoax and the date of the death of this person that coincides with the day and the precise time, or was made to match that fits with the numbers of the hoax
I remember reading about Michael and Janet delivering dinners to the homeless in L.A. and there are a few other accounts of Michael’s compassion towards the homeless. Could perhaps someone from that community have been the patient at Michael’s house? Maybe Michael opened his home to a dying person to give him some dignity in death, and in returning the kindness this person signed the DWD so as not to cause any legal trouble for his benefactor? There has been some reports of the children assisting and raising money for the homeless of late. Just throwing a possible scenario out there.
<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 />I don't get what Death With Dignity (=actual death) law that passed in WA and OR has to do with CA death hoax= no death we are talking about here. Where is the connection? :suspect:<br />All I read is rethorical questions and vague answers on them pointing on DWD by dummy or not dummy. I don't buy this. :icon_e_confused:
<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 />I don't get what Death With Dignity (=actual death) law that passed in WA and OR has to do with CA death hoax= no death we are talking about here. Where is the connection? :suspect:<br />All I read is rethorical questions and vague answers on them pointing on DWD by dummy or not dummy. I don't buy this. :icon_e_confused:<br />
<br /><br />Sooooo :animal0017: there is no DWD law in California?
<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 />I don't get what Death With Dignity (=actual death) law that passed in WA and OR has to do with CA death hoax= no death we are talking about here. Where is the connection? :suspect:<br />All I read is rethorical questions and vague answers on them pointing on DWD by dummy or not dummy. I don't buy this. :icon_e_confused:<br />
<br /><br />Sooooo :animal0017: there is no DWD law in California? <br />
<br /><br />I guess not, even though Schwarzenegge signed off on it in 2008 it must have never been made law. <br /><br />http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-gov-signs-assisted-suicide-information-bill-law<br /><br />Also this quote is from a list of state laws on assisted suicide:<br /><br />"5. California Cal. Penal Code Sec. 401(24 KB) "Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.””<br /><br />http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132<br /><br />So I guess I’m back to the dummy theory. :Pulling_hair: I don’t see Michael allowing the law to be broken in his home with his a-foreknowledge.
I found the article about California approving nurse-assisted suicide. Remember, Dr.Murray was there to assist. But he's also doing time. :icon_e_confused:<br />http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/76713/
I call BS. I read about DWD, so your assumption is incorrect, TS. I read that it's only legal in two states. Something being legal in one state doesn't make residents of that state free to gallivant across the countryside practicing that something in a state where it is illegal. Gay marriage is legal in New Hampshire but two New Hampshire residents cannot go to Alabama and get married. Pot is legal in Colorado but Coloradans cannot go to Kansas and light up a jay. Each state is allowed to say what is legal and not legal within the boundaries of their state boarders. If you don't agree with a state's law, you are free to move to a different state, the laws of your residency do not apply to you wherever you go. Just because assisted suicide is legal in Washington and Oregon, does not mean it is legal for a resident of those states to perform it in California. Under California law, anyone found to be aiding or abetting or assisting this man in any way would be arrested and charged with murder or accessory to murder, someone also posted the statute attesting to that fact. This would be Murray, MJ, and any production company (AEG) in charge of this project. Again, the FBI can't go around breaking the law to catch bad guys. <br /><br />And why would they have to? Why couldn't MJ have rented a home in Seattle and died there? Why did it HAVE to take place in LA, California where assisted suicide is, by law, considered murder? Public exposure and proximity to an Elvis house trumps the law?<br /><br />Besides, look at that list of qualifications paula posted. All those people the patient is required to consult and notify and counsel with and we are to accept that this is fewer people in on it then the ~10 we listed and their corresponding supervisors? No way. <br /><br />Besides, as someone wisely already pointed out, so ok, this person took the suicide pills and they sent him to UCLA as MJ. At UCLA, they worked on that body (reportedly) for nearly an hour and a half. What if they revived the person? Perhaps you will say that the risk of that is so slight it's almost nothing (statistics) but I'll remind you that they reportedly DID. If Cooper isn't in on it then what she says is true, they did restart this person's heart and they did have a pulse for some time, inserted a balloon pump, had ventricle movement and heart activity. Then supposedly, ultimately, the patient's heart just couldn't sustain a regular rhythm and crashed again, and they called clinical death.<br /><br />Also, if there was a terminally ill patient that died in MJs place, why is there no mention of these suicide drugs in the autopsy? Not to mention the underlying condition like Andrea said, no mention of any terminal illness. <br /><br />Everything Andrea said should be considered, for that matter.<br /><br />I just don't believe the FBI is going to arrange a public circus death for MJ, and therefore requiring a person to really die, in order to create a media scene to satisfy MJ's artistic vision. As it was also stated, MJ could have died privately with a pic or two posted and the memorial/funeral/news articles all could have conveyed to MJ's "enemies" that he was dead just as well as that ambulance/helicopter/coroner van parade of nothing but implied images did. What did that show us (and the "enemies")? Nothing, really, nothing at all. As we have proven after 3 years, it could have been anything or nothing on that stretcher for all the media consuming public could tell. So why was it done? Seems obvious, for show, as a display, an illusion, performance art for the media and the public and the fans. <br /><br />Because someone brought it up, there was only 1 ambulance at Carrolwood.<br /><br />@mjj4ever777, if I were working on the same team as TS I'd agree with him more often, don't you think?
<br />I found the article about California approving nurse-assisted suicide. Remember, Dr.Murray was there to assist. But he's also doing time. :icon_e_confused:<br />http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/76713/<br />
<br /><br />That's turning off a feeding tube which is not applicable to the terminally ill patient theory, due to it being a death that can take hours or weeks, with no way of knowing when the person will die. It's also an option only considered for mentally ill patients or vegetative/confused state patients, not someone who seeks out the treatment, rather patients who are not mentally "there" at all. <br /><br />TS is speculating that the alleged patient took a suicide pill which results in a rather more punctual and predictable time of death.
Sometimes it is really a pity that links are not clicked and read when they are provided. We found that hospice subject so early.<br /><br />A hospice patient resident from WA would be covered by WA law. In addition, if he travels to CA to die there, he (and assisting medical staff) would be legally covered since 2008. Opponents to the Californian Act argue that rather doctors are required to assist than nurses. There was a doctor available at Carolwood.<br /><br />What was not mentioned by TS is that 2 of the participants in the DWD Act in WA in 2009 did NOT die, that none had a heart disease and that those who died died from intake of barbiturates and not Propofol.<br /><br />There are two medications in use for DWD: Secobarbital and Pentobarbital. <br /><br />Secobarbital (marketed under Seconal) is used for treatment of epilepsy, temporary treatment of insomnia and as a preoperative medication in short surgical, diagnostic, or therapeutic procedures which are minimally painful.<br />Seconal is available in the U.S. only in 100 mg. capsules, as a sodium salt. The salt is a white hygroscopic powder that is soluble in water and ethanol. <br />
Secobarbital was widely misused in the 1960s and 1970s, and accidental overdose was associated with the drug. Consequently, prescription of Seconal decreased greatly beginning in the early 1980s, by which time benzodiazepines had become increasingly common.
<br /><br />Pentobarbital is used in animal euthanasia and in human euthanasia and is applied either (assisted by a physician) intravenously or (non-assisted) in a concentrated oral solution. Pentobarbital is FDA approved for sedation e.g. <br />
The US state of Texas executed its first death row inmate with a single lethal injection of the sedative pentobarbital on July 18, 2012. [...] The Danish manufacturer of pentobarbital, Lundbeck, expressed displeasure at this use of their product, and on July 1, 2011, announced they would block sales of the drug to U.S. prisons that carry out the death penalty.
<br /><br />Barbiturates will lead to respiratory depressant effects: "he's not breathing". The symptoms of barbiturate intoxication include respiratory depression, lowered blood pressure, fatigue, fever, unusual excitement, irritability, dizziness, poor concentration, sedation, confusion, impaired coordination, impaired judgment, addiction, and respiratory arrest, which may lead to death.<br />Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Jean Seberg, and Kenneth Williams died from barbiturate overdose.<br />All of the above may be deepened on http://en.wikipedia.org.<br /><br />A hospice patient is a realistic picture and would explain why many elements we were told would not fit to an MJ death but to another person's death (e.g. identification via driver's license by the family - how would they know the person if they never met before).<br /><br />Still, there are quite a lot of questions remaining open.<br />CM being hired by AEG for a hospice patient who would die in MJ's place to enable a hoax? Not very plausible.<br />So CM had to be hired by MJ (or an agency) and not by AEG.<br /><br />A corpse requires a lot of additional care, time, transport, security etc. <br />The second the bodyguards showed up at UCLA, it was clear that the corpse belonged to a celebrity and was not a John Doe. Questions for identification. An emergency team will for sure not be pleased to welcome a football team aside a stretcher when the patient alone would do. This means trouble and is hindering regular procedures.<br />So why were the bodyguards with a corpse that was not MJ's, if it was not for make.believe and the paps and only an additional burden to the situation?<br />There are many more questions but I'll leave it at that for the time being.<br />
I think TS is misleading us(?) when he stated that "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."<br /><br />Though it's true that the Wikipedia article has not stated anywhere that a patient needs to be present in WA, but it's matter of common sense. Beyond my country's borders I cannot do things which are only acceptable in my country. TS, if what you are saying is true, can you send the link so that we can all refer? But the death certificate DOES NOT mention any terminal illness which makes this DWD theory false. <br />If the hoax is happening in California, it has to be according to the Californian laws. It won't make sense if some other state's laws are brought in between. And, what are the chances that the patient happens to admire (if not a fan) Michael Jackson and is willing to assist him in death hoax by dying.<br />A fan, if given an opportunity, will definitely give his/her all to be of any help to Michael. But what is the guarantee that the particular patient is willing to help Michael. It's an assumption. And it's highly hypothetical if it's said that the other patient ALSO is willing to help Michael, if the first patient retracts his DWD decision. What if these both patients believe the media lies of Michael just as the general public does? What's the proof that the death of the patient took place in California in the first place...it was only written 'unknown', wasn't it?<br /><br />That again makes us question, so what really went into UCLA.<br /><br />I am still not sure whether it was a corpse or dummy. Because as far as 'realism' is concerned, a corpse would be apt, and as far as 'success of the hoax' is concerned, it would be better if all the paramedics are involved. And if all the paramedics are involved, why need a corpse? to meet unforeseen circumstances?<br /><br />Another point I want to put forth is that what is the reason that FBI would team up with Michael. Do they have their own purposes, that somewhere matches with Michael's purposes?<br /><br />makes me think of this:<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 />[size=14pt]This answer is close enough, for our purposes.[/size] 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 />So, I really wonder what reason FBI would be helping Michael for...
<br />A hospice patient resident from WA would be covered by WA law. In addition, if he travels to CA to die there, he (and assisting medical staff) would be legally covered since 2008. Opponents to the Californian Act argue that rather doctors are required to assist than nurses. There was a doctor available at Carolwood.
<br /><br />Thankyou Grace for explaining this so clearly...this is how I understood it from TS' post when reading it also.
TS hasn't convinced me either but there are a couple of things in your post Bec, that he'll pull you up for, so allow me to do it first!<br /><br />From TS's post:<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. "<br /><br />So could it be argued that this is a test case, using this loophole in OR and WA law, challenging CA law? Or, as ellyd has just posted, it is not an issue anyway, as the patient would still be covered by WA law.<br /><br />Then you said:<br /><br />"Besides, look at that list of qualifications paula posted. All those people the patient is required to consult and notify and counsel with and we are to accept that this is fewer people in on it then the ~10 we listed and their corresponding supervisors? No way."<br /><br />As I understand it all those people are only required to set up a patient in the DWD program - not necessarily to follow them through to the end (hence the many listed 'unknowns', not only for 'place of death'). They would not have to be in on the hoax.<br /><br />There are several bits of TS's post that don't have his usual trademark precision e.g. "Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California." ( That's a tad presumptive don't you think?); "So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program...." ('cooperated' - strange word to use IMO); "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?" (So did the ambulance pic look like 2009 MJ?)<br /><br />But ultimately he is asking us to believe that a whole bunch of professionals were in contact with a dead body that they simply assumed, or were told, was Michael Jackson - and not one of them took a really good look at the most scrutinised face of the last 30 odd years, and questioned the identity of their patient. And if they did they were either silenced by the FBI or told it was a decoy. Is that it?<br /><br />I'm left asking WHY? IF this IS what happened I don't see how it can have been just about the procurement of a 'body' for 25th June realism purposes - the reasons why this wasn't necessary hoax-wise have been gone over many times by those of us who think this way, so IF it really did happen as TS is now implying, why?<br /><br />Does this by TS give me my answer:<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 />And I ask again, whose hoax is it anyway? Michael Jackson's or FBI's?
I never contributed in this thread, but I've read all of it. The DWD theory doesn't convince me, I must say. IF FBI is involved in the hoax, I believe they would do things nice and simple, and DWA is anything but that, in my opinion. If all the people who were in contact with the "body" were in the know (and on FBI's payroll), the "body" could very well be a dummy. <br /><br />I say IF regarding the FBI's involvement because I'm not totally sure how come is FBI helping Michael achieving his artistic goals. I understand their help in the life-threatening situations, but is it legal for them to assist people in their career endeavors, so to speak ? That said, I'm aware that no matter of Michael's motifs, the hoax cannot be done without the help of some high authority - not sure which one could be, though.
<br />TS hasn't convinced me either but there are a couple of things in your post Bec, that he'll pull you up for, so allow me to do it first!<br /><br />From TS's post:<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. "<br /><br />So could it be argued that this is a test case, using this loophole in OR and WA law, challenging CA law? Or, as ellyd has just posted, it is not an issue anyway, as the patient would still be covered by WA law.<br /><br />Then you said:<br /><br />"Besides, look at that list of qualifications paula posted. All those people the patient is required to consult and notify and counsel with and we are to accept that this is fewer people in on it then the ~10 we listed and their corresponding supervisors? No way."<br /><br />As I understand it all those people are only required to set up a patient in the DWD program - not necessarily to follow them through to the end (hence the many listed 'unknowns', not only for 'place of death'). They would not have to be in on the hoax.<br /><br />There are several bits of TS's post that don't have his usual trademark precision e.g. "Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California." ( That's a tad presumptive don't you think?); "So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program...." ('cooperated' - strange word to use IMO); "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?" (So did the ambulance pic look like 2009 MJ?)<br /><br />But ultimately he is asking us to believe that a whole bunch of professionals were in contact with a dead body that they simply assumed, or were told, was Michael Jackson - and not one of them took a really good look at the most scrutinised face of the last 30 odd years, and questioned the identity of their patient. And if they did they were either silenced by the FBI or told it was a decoy. Is that it?<br /><br />I'm left asking WHY? IF this IS what happened I don't see how it can have been just about the procurement of a 'body' for 25th June realism purposes - the reasons why this wasn't necessary hoax-wise have been gone over many times by those of us who think this way, so IF it really did happen as TS is now implying, why?<br /><br />Does this by TS give me my answer:<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 />And I ask again, whose hoax is it anyway? Michael Jackson's or FBI's?<br />
<br /><br />I'm not really sure about the answer for your question curls, but i think we got a hint of what our next step would/should be.<br /><br />TS wants us to find 'evidence'... 'evidence' that would clearly tell us what went to UCLA<br /><br />how are we supposed to find the evidence and from where?
Wow, what a surprise TS!<br /><br />The only thing is-- I felt a certain level of dismay as I read it. I'm thinking that if we here in hoaxland, who love MJ, you TS and those involved in helping this project, are feeling sickened by the thought of using the very unfortunate person dying and likely in pain to end his life on hoax-death-day-- then what horrible thoughts will the rest of the fans or general public think of this usage. They will most certainly call MJ a murderer and monster, and speculate that if he could do that to a poor dying man, then could he have done other things questionable as well. Given the 2 accusations and trial, it makes it doubly tricky. <br /><br />I know you're saying it's not illegal, and that emotions shouldn't be involved, but we know about human history and even today throughout the world, where it has often been the case that the weak were taken advantage of, whether children, or blacks, or natives, or women, or the poor, or differing ethnic groups. I just don't know what to do with this. If it is really true, I'm sure that everything was done as humanely as possible, but it's weird now that details are brought forward by Andrea, Bec, Ellyd, Everlastinglove that it doesn't feel right. <br /><br />Are you actually wanting us to contend against this, and were you really just testing us? I know you said in the 911 post that a magician never completely reveals his secrets how he created the illusion. Have you simply put this DWD story as another distraction just before Level 7, to send our DH roller-coaster into another plunge and spin?
Comments