<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 /><br />TS is speculating that the alleged patient took a suicide pill which results in a rather more punctual and predictable time of death.<br />
<br /><br />Meaning, TS points out that real hospice patient died as MJ which is backed up by DWD law that somewhat explains/justifies hoax? <br />Not sure even what I say makes any sense. :icon_rolleyes:
<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. <br />
<br /><br />Don't take my words as truth. I am not a lawyer, I am not in the Americas. I just give my understanding on this delicate matter from a distance. There are many questions left to answer.<br />Assisted suicide in California would - according to my understanding - include information and counseling, first, and it would apply to health care facilities only, not to a private home (except a "congregate living health facility" which requires a license).<br />Assisted suicide in California would primarily refer to stop current disease targeted treatments for a patient but not refer to order barbiturates for a patient who wants to die from them. That's a different category IMO.<br />In the proposed combination of DWD covered by WA law, a WA doctor could prescribe the required barbiturates and the hospice patient may take them in in California with no consequences for the Californian physicians if they only gave appropriate and required information and counseling and did not partake in getting the drugs and administering them.<br /><br />That's my take on it. It's as always the details that make the balance go down on the right or left side. <br /><br /><br />The amended text reads as follows:<br />
This bill would provide that when a health care provider, as<br />defined, makes a diagnosis that a patient has a terminal illness, the<br />health care provider shall, upon the patient's request, provide the<br />patient with comprehensive information and counseling<br />regarding legal end-of-life options, as specified, and provide for<br />the referral or transfer of a patient , as provided, if<br />the patient's health care provider does not wish to comply with the<br />patient's request for information on end-of-life options.
means any<br />facility, place, or building that is organized, maintained, and<br />operated for the diagnosis, care, prevention, and treatment of human<br />illness, physical or mental, including convalescence and<br />rehabilitation [...] to which the persons are admitted for a 24-hour <br />stay or longer [...]
When a health care provider makes a diagnosis that a<br />patient has a terminal illness, the health care provider shall ,<br />upon the patient's request, provide the patient with<br />comprehensive information and counseling regarding legal end-of-life<br />care options , upon the patient's request and <br />pursuant to this section. When a terminally ill patient is in a<br />health facility, as defined in Section 1250, the health care<br />provider, or medical director of the health facility, if the patient'<br />s health care provider is not available, may refer the patient to a<br />hospice provider or private or public agencies and community-based<br />organizations that specialize in end-of-life care case management and<br />consultation to receive comprehensive <br />information and counseling regarding legal end-of-life care options.<br />[...]<br />Information that is helpful to patients and<br />their families includes, but is not limited to, the availability of<br />hospice care, the efficacy and potential side effects of continued<br />disease-targeted treatment,<br />and withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments.<br />[...]<br /> (f) "Refusal or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment" means<br />forgoing treatment or medical procedures that replace or support an<br />essential bodily function, including, but not limited to,<br />cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, artificial<br />nutrition and hydration, dialysis, and any other treatment or<br />discontinuing any or all of those treatments after they have been<br />used for a reasonable time.
(i) (1) "Congregate living health facility" means a residential<br />home with a capacity, except as provided in paragraph (4), of no more<br />than 12 beds, that provides inpatient care, including the following<br />basic services: medical supervision, 24-hour skilled nursing and<br />supportive care, pharmacy, dietary, social, recreational, and at<br />least one type of service specified in paragraph (2). The primary<br />need of congregate living health facility residents shall be for<br />availability of skilled nursing care on a recurring, intermittent,<br />extended, or continuous basis. This care is generally less intense<br />than that provided in general acute care hospitals but more intense<br />than that provided in skilled nursing facilities.<br /> (2) Congregate living health facilities shall provide one of the<br />following services:<br /> (A) Services for persons who are mentally alert, persons with<br />physical disabilities, who may be ventilator dependent.<br /> (B) Services for persons who have a diagnosis of terminal illness,<br />a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness, or both. Terminal illness<br />means the individual has a life expectancy of six months or less as<br />stated in writing by his or her attending physician and surgeon. A<br />"life-threatening illness" means the individual has an illness that<br />can lead to a possibility of a termination of life within five years<br />or less as stated in writing by his or her attending physician and<br />surgeon.
@TS comments<br /><br />you don't say that hospice patient was "delivered" from WA to CA to die "with dignity" as Michael Jackson, do you? Would MJ allow that happen? I highly doubt it. As for FBI, true one memb. said, they have power to do make things simple, not bothering ill people.<br />Just stop right there...
I forgot to mention. I still do not think that hospice or not hospice patient or DWD was the main interest.<br />I think main interest was to legally get a patient to enter UCLA and to monitor what happened then. <br />Why this patient officially had to be Michael Joseph Jackson does not enter my brains though. <br />There is a link back to MJ's accusations and illegally sedating people for third party interests is what got stuck in my head. <br />The FBI was said to have found evidence about third party's crimes when checking MJ's case.<br /><br />IMO we are dealing with a multiple criminal sting situation - on the medical / agency side and on MJ's side.<br />Joint interests, win-win situation.<br /><br />This gives an idea on criminal activities in the medical field: http://www.havocscope.com/tag/organ-trafficking/<br />UCLA being a teaching hospital, needing many corpses for teaching purposes, may have other difficulties.<br />The Coroner facing severe financial issues since quite a while could have seen some creative ideas. I really don't know and may be waaaaaayyyyyy off.<br />There was a reason why it was not Cedars but UCLA.<br />
One of the biggest accusations against Murray was that he was administering propofol in a private home, that should only be given in a hospital setting where the proper equipment and adequate staff for constant monitoring are in place. Similar to this situation of DWD.<br /><br />Curls<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 />Good question.<br /><br />Just thinking about Elvis, who supposedly said that a hospice patient was used for his fake death, and Elvis was afraid the doctor may have had to pull the plug a few days earlier, or something like that. They had brought it in the night before and it was brought down to the bathroom where Elvis spent the night. Then just before his girlfriend (was it Ginger?) came down, he hid in the closet the whole time of discovery and medics coming. I think he was already involved with the FBI or Secret Service. <br /><br />
It is the terminally ill patient who is prescribed the medication. <br /><br />This terminally ill patient is the one who ultimately decides to administer it to themselves. A doctor or other health practitioner does not hold them down and force it down their throats. <br /><br />After satifying the laws pertaining to DWD in either Oregon or Washington, once the patient has the medication in their possession, in theory could they travel wherever they want within the borders of he USA with the medication in their checked luggage or even just by road transport? could they go to a hotel in Las Vegas/California/any other state within the USA and administer it to themselves with no other person knowing or being present? or DOES a doctor have to be present when the patient decides to take the medication? <br /><br />Does any one else need to be there?<br /><br />I presume, just as in Australia, people in the USA are able to transport medication for personal use which has been legitimately prescribed in a different state - such as sleeping pills/anti-depressants/pain killers/insulin - over state borders to another state ? Once a DWD patient is in possession of the medication to end their life - what would stop them going to another state (if they were able and had the means) and doing this all alone if they are solely responsible for the administration of the "fatal dose"? They are not travelling to a different country nor are they transporting illegal drugs such as cocaine or heroine.<br /><br />Just a thought anyway.
<br />It is the terminally ill patient who is prescribed the medication. <br /><br />This terminally ill patient is the one who ultimately decides to administer it to themselves. A doctor or other health practitioner does not hold them down and force it down their throats. <br /><br />After satifying the laws pertaining to DWD in either Oregon or Washington, once the patient has the medication in their possession, in theory could they travel wherever they want within the borders of he USA with the medication in their checked luggage or even just by road transport? could they go to a hotel in Las Vegas/California/any other state within the USA and administer it to themselves with no other person knowing or being present? or DOES a doctor have to be present when the patient decides to take the medication? <br /><br />Does any one else need to be there?<br /><br />I presume, just as in Australia, people in the USA are able to transport medication for personal use which has been legitimately prescribed in a different state - such as sleeping pills/anti-depressants/pain killers/insulin - over state borders to another state (if they were able and had the means)? Once a DWD patient is in possession of the medication to end their life - what would stop them going to another state and doing this all alone if they are solely responsible for the administration of the "fatal dose"? They are not travelling to a different country nor are they transporting illegal drugs like cocaine or heroine.<br /><br />Just a thought anyway.<br />
<br /><br />it's stated in the Wikipedia article that the patient can ingest drug/medication without any assistance. <br /><br />
In 1991, the similar initiative 119 was rejected by Washington voters by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent. I-119 would have allowed doctors to prescribe a lethal dosage of medication, and also to administer it if the terminally ill patient could not self-administer.[4] Unlike that initiative, I-1000 requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.[5]
@MJonmind<;br />It may not feel right if you look only at hospice. But what if this hospice scenario is actually not only touching the biggest taboo of a potentially unpleasant death that could become reality for each of us but is only intermediate storey required to go after and stop yet another dimension of "unpleasant cruel and unethical"?<br />Of course, discussions and wildest accusations of "unethical" and whatever may be heard for MJ like we heard them already for CM.<br />However, I am absolutely convinced that the cause that made Michael "want to die for it" in this project is the right one.
Yes- I know the DWD law requires that the patient must take the medication unassisted, but I am wondering does a doctor HAVE to be present when they do so - or can they do it whenever they decide without anyone else having to be there? <br /><br />If a doctor, or in fact any other person, legally does NOT need to be present, then I do not see why they could not travel to another state if they were able and ingest the medication wherever and whenever they feel the time has come.<br /><br />Do we know for a fact that there was even anyone present in the house that day/night of June 24th 2009? or more precisely in the bedroom where "Michael" "died" ? what time did Dr M arrive at the house that night of June 24th - wasn't it after MJ returned home from the rehearsals at the Staples Centre? how do we know the kids were really even staying there overnight that night? why was the security footage "coincidentally" erased?
<br />Yes- I know the DWD law requires that the patient must take the medication unassisted, but I am wondering does a doctor HAVE to be present when they do so - or can they do it whenever they decide without anyone else having to be there? <br /><br />If a doctor, or in fact any other person, legally does NOT need to be present, then I do not see why they could not travel to another state if they were able and ingest the medication wherever and whenever they feel the time has come.<br /><br />Do we know for a fact that there was even anyone present in the house that day/night of June 24th 2009? or more precisely in the bedroom where "Michael" "died" ? what time did Dr M arrive at the house that night of June 24th - wasn't it after MJ returned home from the rehearsals at the Staples Centre? how do we know the kids were really even staying there overnight that night? why was the security footage "coincidentally" be erased?<br />
<br /><br />Adi, you brought up some good points, I'll have to search a bit to know the presence of any medical personnel during the patient's death, and also to know at what time Dr Murray drove into Carolwood.<br /><br />But the point Bec had brought up was, one state's laws may not be applicable to the other states. DWD is only accepted in oregon and washington. And on the other hand, California law states it is illegal to assist or abet any suicide. I've been searching for information on patient's location at the time of death, but didn't find anything at the moment. <br /><br />And another thing, if TS is right about DWD, then the CCTV footage of the patient consuming drug to die might have been erased/destroyed...
"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 />Regarding this quote from TS, I guess we DO have to bear in mind that what WE consider the most likely, least risky, 'best' option may not be the one that MJ/FBI/whoever decided upon, no matter how complete and clear it may be to US.
<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 />Regarding this quote from TS, I guess we DO have to bear in mind that what WE consider the most likely, least risky, 'best' option may not be the one that MJ/FBI/whoever decided upon, no matter how complete and clear it may be to US.<br />
<br /><br />that's true curls, the least risky may not be the best option. If the hoax has to be completed in the most successful way possible, then risk is something that should not be considered as a hurdle. The FBI and MJ might have come up with several alternatives to overcome the risk but removing/eliminating risk altogether is impossible.<br /><br />All major undertakings involves risk. I think in this hoax, the last of all the risks would be the public acceptance. I still am unsure of how the public is going to perceive everything that has happened. Because I think most of them would be half-knowledged. And half-knowledge is dangerous. We believers have been investigating, searching and knowing for a REALLY long time. But how many of the non-fans would really look into this very information? And how many of them would believe the explanations being given, by Michael and his associates?<br /><br />A person will believe something truly when the institution he's been believing proves to be false. And that's what the purpose of the hoax, IMO, is. Michael, with the help of FBI, will have to prove the present institutions as 'false' and 'misleading' to gain public's belief. <br /><br />TS's post does make a LOT of sense, if we ignore certain factors (which we can't). The reason why the death certificate did not have the mention of the terminal illness is quite questionable. But i thought of something.<br /><br />Isn't it possible that there was another death certificate (the truly original) published with all the necessary requirements mentioned in the Law of Death With Dignity? Whatever death certificate we are exposed to might be the fake... (wasn't the death certificate signed by LaToya ? and not by any doctor?)<br /><br />And this pretty much explains the private burial/ceremony that was held on July 6th, 2009 [ link: http://x17video.com/celebrity_video/michael_jackson/x17_xclusive_aerial_video_of_j.php ]<br /><br />and then the fake burial was held on September 3, 2009 with the Liberian Girl Theme... and this might also explain the 'alleged victim' in the verdict <br /><br />But i'm STILL not sure that whether a person is allowed to die in California despite the legal approval of DWD act by Washington...
<br />Yes- I know the DWD law requires that the patient must take the medication unassisted, but [size=10pt]I am wondering does a doctor HAVE to be present when they do s[/size]o - or can they do it whenever they decide without anyone else having to be there? <br /><br />If a doctor, or in fact any other person, legally does NOT need to be present, then I do not see why they could not travel to another state if they were able and ingest the medication wherever and whenever they feel the time has come.<br /><br />
<br /><br />I think I just found an answer to my own question:<br /><br />2009 Death with Dignity ACT Reporthttp://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2009.pdf on page 9:<br /><br />Circumstances when medication ingested <br /><br />Health-care provider present: Number %<br /><br /> Prescribing physician 3 8 <br /> Other provider, prescribing physician not present 17 47 <br /> No provider12 34 <br /> Unknown 4 11 <br /><br />Once a DWD patient is prescribed the medication - according to these statistics from 2009 - there were quite a few cases when there was no provider present (also an unknown number) when the medication was ingested. I take from this it is not a legal requirement for anyone to be present, including the prescribing physician. So in theory a person could leave the state of Washington or Oregon (if they were able) without the doctor being aware once they have been provided the medication.<br /><br />Also this from the wiki page on DWD: <br /><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 />May sign the death certificate .... not must.
@Adi - the wiki page did say 'may" but the certificate "must" have a mention of terminal disease..<br /><br />which makes me think of the possibility of another authentic death certificate, for the patient...
<br /><br />Thanks for bringing this up again.<br /><br />The title to the video says:<br />
X17 XCLUSIVE!!! Aerial Video Of Jackson Family Arriving At Private Ceremony
<br /><br />Which Jackson family was it? MJ's?<br />1990 census revealed that 666,125 persons with the surname Jackson were living in the U.S., making "Jackson" #18 in a ranking of the most popular surnames.<br />http://names.mongabay.com/data/1000.html<br />
<br /><br />Thanks for bringing this up again.<br /><br />The title to the video says:<br />
X17 XCLUSIVE!!! Aerial Video Of Jackson Family Arriving At Private Ceremony
<br /><br />Which Jackson family was it? MJ's?<br />1990 census revealed that 666,125 persons with the surname Jackson were living in the U.S., making "Jackson" #18 in a ranking of the most popular surnames.<br />http://names.mongabay.com/data/1000.html<br />
<br /><br />if you look at the tags of the video, you'll know it is Michael Jackson's family :<br /><br /><br /><br />
<br />@Adi - the wiki page did say 'may" but the certificate "must" have a mention of terminal disease..<br /><br />which makes me think of the possibility of another authentic death certificate, for the patient...<br />
<br /><br />I agree that there must be a legitimate DC listing the terminal illness as the cause of death for a patient who died a DWD patient. However, my point is that in the documents I have been reading relating to DWD, nowhere does it state that the prescribing doctor MUST be present during ingestion (the statistics in the link I provided above support this) and that the use of "may sign the Death Certificate" indicates that it is not a legal requirement that they do sign it or in fact need to be present whilst the patient ingests. So once the patient has the medication physically in their hands what is to stop them from crossing a state border to ingest it elsewhere if they themselves are the sole person responsible for the administration of it? <br /><br />About that funeral on the same day as the Memorial - I raised that video a few days ago - http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,21319.msg429532.html#msg429532 about half way through to the end of it might be Michael Jackson's family I think - hard to tell from that height - but the beginning around the green marquee looks like someone else's completely.....but again it's hard to tell from the height it was being filmed.<br /><br />Peace out - I can't discuss terminally ill patients and dying anymore for today. I know what I believe and I am comfortable with it. However it's raised some pretty raw emotions for me and I am drained so I have to stop for while now.
<br />@Adi - the wiki page did say 'may" but the certificate "must" have a mention of terminal disease..<br /><br />which makes me think of the possibility of another authentic death certificate, for the patient...<br />
<br /><br />I agree that there must be a legitimate DC listing the terminal illness as the cause of death for a patient who died a DWD patient. However, my point is that in the documents I have been reading relating to DWD, nowhere does it state that the prescribing doctor MUST be present during ingestion (the statistics in the link I provided above support this) and that the use of "may sign the Death Certificate" indicates that it is not a legal requirement that they do sign it or in fact need to be present whilst the patient ingests. So once the patient has the medication physically in their hands what is to stop them from crossing a state border to ingest it elsewhere if they themselves are the sole person responsible for the administration of it? <br /><br />About that funeral on the same day as the Memorial - I raised that video a few days ago - http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,21319.msg429532.html#msg429532 about half way through to the end of it might be Michael Jackson's family I think - hard to tell from that height - but the beginning around the green marquee looks like someone else's completely.....but again it's hard to tell from the height it was being filmed.<br /><br />Peace out - I can't discuss terminally ill patients and dying anymore for today. I know what I believe and I am comfortable with it. However it's raised some pretty raw emotions for me and I am drained so I have to stop for while now.<br />
<br /> i understand your point Adi, you are saying that if death is in their hands, they must also have the right to take at any place they want to.<br /><br />But what I am saying is that the California Laws does not accept suicides, and as DWD is not present in CA, this particular act might be considered as some form of suicide. <br />Anyways, we still do need confirmation whether the DWD Act of Washington covers this aspect, that whether a patient can administer drugs even though he is not present in the state.<br /><br />I searched for that info but didn't find it anywhere...Maybe TS could give us the confirmation...
I guess I am getting all of this. I am trying very hard. :icon_e_confused: It makes sense to some extent if it is true that the procedure can be legally transferred to another state to culminate this procedure. Brings to mind Murray’s insistence that “Michael” self administered.
<br />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 /><br />I completely agree that it is a pity and unfortunately happens quite often. And yes, the hospice/corpse theory is not 'new'...many researched this possibility long ago and could not write it off (i.e. there's never been solid proof showing it's NOT what happened).<br /><br />Also, I'm not sure why/how people are now using the autopsy report and/or death certificate as 'proof' against the hospice theory. Among the many things we've learned throughout this whole thing, one has been that documents can, and have been, altered/manipulated/doctored/falsified/etc....including legal documents. It should be obvious that if Mike is alive...both the autopsy report and the death certificate are 'fake', regardless of whether a dummy or corpse was used. If either of these documents is now gonna used to try to 'discredit' the corpse/hospice theory (and I don't understand the logic behind that)....I don't see how either document can be used to support the dummy theory, as some are claiming now.<br /><br />I do believe there is a real death certificate out there if a DWD patient died 'that day' (there are guidelines/laws in the DWD Act that address that)...and maybe an autopsy report (however, this may not have even been necessary, requested, or required if it was a DWD patient that died). <br /><br />@Adi...based on what I've also read, the prescribing doctor does not need to be there at the time of ingestion, nor is any doctor required to be there (although it is recommended). There are some 'Death with Dignity' forms at this link which address this https://public.health.oregon.gov/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/pasforms.aspx. See 'Reporting Physician Interview Form' which also lists several options as to where the patient ingested the 'lethal dose' and one of the options is 'private residence'.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
@Thriller4ever, X17 online assigned their video to "the" Jacksons.<br />Does not mean this is right. <br /><br />The video does not give any evidence but blurry pictures only. Those "I'll write anything for $$$" and paps were high on adrenaline in those days, trying to catch whatever they could and making something out of anything. Not to forget that they were fed and directed in addition, however without realizing this fact.<br />
<br />@Adi - the wiki page did say 'may" but the certificate "must" have a mention of terminal disease..<br /><br />which makes me think of the possibility of another authentic death certificate, for the patient...<br />
<br /><br />I agree that there must be a legitimate DC listing the terminal illness as the cause of death for a patient who died a DWD patient. However, my point is that in the documents I have been reading relating to DWD, nowhere does it state that the prescribing doctor MUST be present during ingestion (the statistics in the link I provided above support this) and that the use of "may sign the Death Certificate" indicates that it is not a legal requirement that they do sign it or in fact need to be present whilst the patient ingests. So once the patient has the medication physically in their hands what is to stop them from crossing a state border to ingest it elsewhere if they themselves are the sole person responsible for the administration of it? <br /><br />About that funeral on the same day as the Memorial - I raised that video a few days ago - http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,21319.msg429532.html#msg429532 about half way through to the end of it might be Michael Jackson's family I think - hard to tell from that height - but the beginning around the green marquee looks like someone else's completely.....but again it's hard to tell from the height it was being filmed.<br /><br />Peace out - I can't discuss terminally ill patients and dying anymore for today. I know what I believe and I am comfortable with it. However it's raised some pretty raw emotions for me and I am drained so I have to stop for while now.<br />
<br /> i understand your point Adi, you are saying that if death is in their hands, they must also have the right to take at any place they want to.<br /><br />But what I am saying is that the California Laws does not accept suicides, and as DWD is not present in CA, this particular act might be considered as some form of suicide. <br />Anyways, we still do need confirmation whether the DWD Act of Washington covers this aspect, that whether a patient can administer drugs even though he is not present in the state.<br /><br />I searched for that info but didn't find it anywhere...Maybe TS could give us the confirmation...<br />
<br /><br />No we don't really because under California law, anyone who was with the patient at the time the patient took the medication would be subject to arrest and prosecution for murder.<br /><br />Speaking of clicking links, that CA law regarding nurse assisted suicide is completely non-applicable to this topic. It covers removal of feeding tubes/cessation of life saving procedures, NOT ingestion of euthanasia drugs. These are 2 completely different species, one doesn't even come close to describing the other.<br /><br />Side note: people are bringing up the autopsy and DC as proof against the corpse theory because if a person really died, then it was to FOOL someone, that must be the motive, and it becomes a linear theory. If someone is being fooled, that means they accept that the patient was MJ and forms would be filled out, in their mind anyway, accurately. You can't have it both ways. If a real person died, it was to fool emergency workers and therefore their statements/documents they signed off on must be real. If emergency workers are NOT in on it, and therefore statements/documents are fake, a real body is NOT needed.<br /><br />Like Dr. Cooper for example. If she actually believed this person was MJ, and therefore isn't in on it, then her testimony/statements ought to be considered accurate. Therefore, they DID restart this person's heart for a time. After taking a suicide pill? Really?? I don't think so...<br /><br />Besides, we have an alleged victim... not a victim who was allegedly Michael Jackson. What TS is describing is not an alleged victim, it is a confirmed victim. Someone REALLY died in his scenario.
<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 />
<br /><br />And then there's this. This cannot be discounted, evidence that stands up in a court of law or not... if you're talking about public perception... MJ was found NOT GUILTY in a court of law. Whole lot of good that did him in the court of public opinion, YOU KNOW?<br /><br />Besides, one has to consider the country in which the hoax is occurring, and the culture within that country. Americans are NOT ok with the whole euthanasia scenario. We Americans, as a demographic, get super weirded out about the whole thing, spurring heated controversy and strong feelings on both sides of the debate. It's a huge disaster of public opinion, to go down this road, it would be a massive PR hurdle to negotiate. And again... why? To satisfy what purpose? To fool WHO?<br /><br />I call BS on the whole thing.<br /><br />Abortion Papers (aka Song Groove)<br /><br />Those abortion papers,<br />Signing your name against the word of God,<br />Those abortion papers,<br />Think about LIFE,<br />I'd like to have a child.<br /><br />TS, you want us to believe that MJ went along with an assisted suicide in order to launch his creative vision? This man who is God fearing and concerned with all life on Earth? Really? Isn't suicide explicitly against God's will?<br /><br />Maybe TS is just shocking us into the next level of investigation. Last year he wanted 3 good reasons that would stand up in court against the body theory. I think we have offered about a dozen. Either that or maybe TS really IS just guessing himself and he's wrong. In which case, I guess we can kiss the bamsday deadline goodbye. See you all in 2013... :Crash:
<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 /><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?<br />
<br /><br />Thriller4Ever, maybe you have the right idea. We could go around in circles for a while with no real evidence. We need actual evidence and records from ambulance,hospital,emergency room etc. I don't know how to get it either ? I remember something about a patient at the hospital named Soul Sean or something to that effect ? There were also stories at two hospitals (Sinai, and UCLA) on the news that day on June 25,2009. I think we should look back at that. I remember Joe Jackson talking about Seoul Sean years ago. MJ said on BAD25, "my father doesn't lie". Just ideas.
bec: Besides, we have an alleged victim... not a victim who was allegedly Michael Jackson. What TS is describing is not an alleged victim, it is a confirmed victim. Someone REALLY died in his scenario.<br /><br /><br />Very true. And if someone really died, in TS' scenario, why would the date also be "alleged"?
Comments