<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. <br />
<br /><br />Thanks to HIPAA laws, that information is unattainable to us.
<br />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"? <br />
<br /><br />It would not be. The date would be confirmed. Someone REALLY died on that date.
@Bec, I really don't believe that this hoax is just a "creative vision"... I don't think the purpose of the hoax is ONLY to better his image in the public...there is more to the story. I think it's a question of justice, not for his own personal benefits but for OUR benefits.<br /><br />We all are well aware of the fact that Michael is God Fearing, would never support the idea of suicide and, as per the song, also abortions. But aren't we limiting the capacity of the man with our assumptions. If Michael is taking the pains to do all this planning, set-up this hoax, decide to go against the institutions, all for the public (which also includes his haters), wouldn't there be a point of sacrifice...and Michael isn't telling someone to die, rather he's only making a person go down in 'history', a part of the greatest demonstration of freedom. He's only appointed a person, who 'really' wants to die, into the hoax...not for his purpose, but 'our purposes'. <br /><br />I think when need really arises, a person has to set aside the emotional factor to some extent and think practically what will be better...Michael always and always emphasized on healing the world...this is all a part towards the betterment.<br /><br />I firmly believe that this hoax is not for Michael's personal gains...maybe in the process, he might gain public confidence, but there's just more to the story...
The 'alleged' victim statement followed the charge of manslaughter...so it would be accurate IF a DWD patient was involved because 1) they were not a victim of manslaughter, and 2) they weren't a victim of anything under DWD since that is a self-made choice.<br /><br />I'm still not understanding the logic of using the autopsy or DC as proof of anything. By this reasoning...in support of a dummy having been used, then anyone who filled out the forms would've had to be in on it obviously, since there would've been no body. Conclusion: the documents would be fake. Likewise, anyone who came in contact with the dummy, including Dr. Cooper, would also have to be in on it...therefore, any and all testimony and documents would've had to be 'fake', since there would've been no real body that was worked on. <br /><br />We are just assuming 'who', if anyone, that saw and/or worked the 'body' had to be fooled...we don't know that this is, in fact, true (i.e. that someone had to be fooled that actually saw the 'body'). For all we know, those that saw the body were in on it....and the purpose of using it was to cover any possible unexpected people seeing the body. As TS pointed out...but it seems to not be taken into account by some...IF a dummy was used and someone who was NOT in on it showed up and saw the dummy...how would it be explained away as it being just a distraction? That would mean that MJ just happened to have a dummy on hand in case he died on June 25th? I don't think that would fly...not at UCLA and most definitely NOT at Carolwood. In a supposed emergency situation...when seconds matter and when MJ is supposedly near death...how would a dummy be explained away if someone not in the know saw it? Instead of looking after Mike, they moved his real body to another room in the house, went and found a dummy that just so happened to be there, put the dummy in Mike's bed and actually pretended to work on it? That makes no sense in trying to keep it as real as possible nor does it fulfill covering all bases in case something/someone unexpected happened to show up.<br /><br />As for the 'legalities' of a DWD patient choosing to take the 'lethal dose' somewhere other than OR or WA, I can't find anything in the DWD Act that explicitly states that this is NOT legal (I think it was Adi who suggested this may be a loophole in the law itself)...so the argument about it being murder and/or illegal if it occurred in CA may very well be a non-issue.<br /><br />I still have some questions/things I'm unsure of as far as the hospice theory goes...but I have been and remain open to it, perhaps because I, personally, don't see a terminally ill person choosing how, where and when they are going to die, as 'murder' or 'assisted suicide' or 'suicide' or any other negative connotation. I'm actually surprised that a country that has elected a 'pro-choice' government back-to-back doesn't have more states with DWD, considering the beliefs underlying both are very similar. <br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
@Thriller4ever, no, but it's a PART of the hoax, and as Front said re: back's prophecy, it's a "major part of the hoax"; removing the stain on MJ's name. <br /><br />@BTC, under California law, in TS's scenario, the patient committing suicide IS a victim... of murder.<br /><br />Also, our personal feelings are irrelevant, right? California law is what's relevant and it states that assisted suicide (legal wording, not mine) occurring within the state is considered murder. That's the law. And the FBI has to work within the law, even while catching bad guys. They HAVE to. If they don't, the prosecution of said bad guy goes up in smoke, bad guy is off the hook, mistrial.<br /><br />Also, realistically, who's going to come into contact with the body who isn't supposed to? The stretcher is surrounded by body guards and doors have LOCKS.
If the DWDA doesn't specify upon the patient's location during death, what should we be concluding upon? For me, it is to stay in the country itself as it has been repeatedly stated in all the DWD related websites that the patient must be a resident of OR/WA irrespective of how many years he's been a resident...<br />and according to my thinking, this cancels the DWD theory...<br /><br /> :Pulling_hair:
<br />And the FBI has to work within the law, even while catching bad guys. They HAVE to. If they don't, the prosecution of said bad guy goes up in smoke, bad guy is off the hook, mistrial.<br />
<br /><br />This is simply not true.<br /><br />From Wiki:<br />
<br />Sting operations are fraught with ethical concerns over whether they constitute entrapment. Law-enforcement may have to be careful not to provoke the commission of a crime by someone who would not otherwise have done so. Additionally, in the process of such operations, the police often engage in the same crimes, such as buying or selling contraband, soliciting prostitutes, etc. In common law jurisdictions, the defendant may invoke the defense of entrapment.<br />
<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation<br /><br />Yes, sting operations are 'tricky' because of the entrapment issue potentially used as a defense...but I'd think that the FBI has been around the block a few times in these situations. <br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
If this was a legitimate DWD patient then he would be an “alleged victim”. He died from a drug overdose which is what was supposed to happen in these cases. But was he a victim or a willing participant? <br /><br />The court case was obviously not about the “death", but about the "circumstances surrounding the death” by doctor assisted drug overdose in an unauthorized/unequipped setting. The testimony given in court appeared more about proving or disproving how ethically the procedure was handled. It was never asserted that no one died, but why and by what means. <br /><br />Seems to me that Murray was relying on testimony to show that he was following the patient’s wishes when he kept insisting that the patient injected and/or ingested himself while he was out of the room. I also believe that Murray believed he would be exonerated at trial - the reason he wasn’t interested in a plea bargain had he been able to testify on his own behalf and expound on the premise that he did not do anything the patient didn’t want him to do . So bit by bit the DWD piece is looking more plausible. Still watching though. But this is very interesting and apparently an important piece of the puzzle. However, I am still a little reluctant to accept this theory entirely based on the info I posted earlier where it states explicitly that to carry this out in California is against the law, a felony. I’ll keep researching that one.
1. Michael's image will not be cleared by death hoax.<br />2. FBI does not stage hoax abusing DWD law.<br />3. Hospice patient from WA died at Carolwood CA according to DWD law has NO logical connection to death hoax that will clear MJ's name.<br />4. Murray was tried for negligently killing patient aka involuntary manslaughter, has no dots to DWD.<br />5.Michael took lethal dose of propofol statement by defense has nothing to do with DWD.
<br />And the FBI has to work within the law, even while catching bad guys. They HAVE to. If they don't, the prosecution of said bad guy goes up in smoke, bad guy is off the hook, mistrial.<br />
<br /><br />This is simply not true.<br /><br />From Wiki:<br />
<br />Sting operations are fraught with ethical concerns over whether they constitute entrapment. Law-enforcement may have to be careful not to provoke the commission of a crime by someone who would not otherwise have done so. Additionally, in the process of such operations, the police often engage in the same crimes, such as buying or selling contraband, soliciting prostitutes, etc. In common law jurisdictions, the defendant may invoke the defense of entrapment.<br />
<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation<br /><br />Yes, sting operations are 'tricky' because of the entrapment issue potentially used as a defense...but I'd think that the FBI has been around the block a few times in these situations. <br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />Read it again. <br /><br />"the police often engage in the same crimes,"<br /><br />So you believe the FBI was trying to catch a murderer by murdering someone else? I respectfully believe that makes no sense at all.<br /><br />The FBI can't go around murdering people in the United States of America. In any case it is considered murder in and by the state of California. State of California says this person would be a victim very clearly, not at all an alleged victim.<br /><br />What does murder have to do with MJ? A major goal of this hoax, says Front and says back, is to remove the stain caused by the false allegations of 1993 and 2005. How is MJ being involved in someone's murder going to vindicate him of child molestation allegations?
And again, the million $$ question, who is this alleged real dead person supposed to be fooling? Because this theory needs a linear progression so let's go there.
A hospice patient or equivalent takes a fatal dose of something anytime starting around noon on June 25th, while Murray steps out of the room to go pee, according to the doc’s story. He comes back to find this person with his eyes open and not breathing but there is a faint pulse so he administers CPR, on the bed. This claim could show that he did NOT want to revive the body, if the person was supposed to die, hence why he didn’t administer CPR properly, on a hard flat surface as opposed to the bed, and with one hand instead of two. The use of a dummy could also explain Murray’s improper CPR, for the official story and recollection. The immediate cause of death was reported to be cardiac arrest which would make it impossible for Murray to have felt a faint pulse as the heart would not be beating. The propofol bottle the patient allegedly used to self-administer is laying on the floor.<br /><br />If a real body was being used to fool paramedics then a genuine 911 call would be needed, to get a response from paramedics who have no idea what they’re about to encounter. So then Alberto would dial 911, from an entirely different location mind you, precisely at 12:21. He doesn’t name the patient – that argument could go either way with the dummy or corpse scenario. The 911 call doesn’t follow normal 911 protocol and didn’t hit the scanners so it seems very likely that the call wasn’t real, that it was staged and recorded for the purpose of the hoax. Again, if you have a real body to fool paramedics, they’re not going to know to go to Carolwood if a fake call is placed. You can’t have only one paramedic in on it, let’s say Senneff, in this scenario because the rest of the team would still need to think they’re responding to a genuine emergency via a real 911 call. <br /><br />The paramedics then work on MJ unsuccessfully for 42 minutes (wiki), there’s THAT number again, Murray refuses to call the death so they bring the body down to the ambulance where it backs out of the drive way in super slow motion to allow for the infamous ambulance photo to be taken. Even the though the photo was fake, there had to be an opportunity for it to apparently be taken. If there was a real body and a real 911 call placed to get the clueless paramedics there and the call hit the scanners and more paps/lookie loos showed up to see what was going on, the ambulance could’ve turned around on the Carolwood property (as per the roundabout behind the gates) and left the property much quicker. There wouldn’t be a need for the ambulance to stop (camera snap snap) when going from reverse to drive, it would just drive straight out, sirens wailing and lights flashing so people would get out of the way quickly. But the need for the ambulance photo opportunity had to be there – which shows the ambulance driver’s compliance for that. <br /><br />The ambulance gets to UCLA at about 1:14 pm and the stretcher is wheeled in, completely surrounded and the fire alarm is pulled and people start streaming outside. TMZ is now reporting that MJ has gone into cardiac arrest, saying “it’s looking bad" and a family member tells them MJ is “in really bad shape”. The doctors then work on the body for over an hour, possibly reviving the body, then death is pronounced at 2:26 pm. Meanwhile, it’s absolute chaos on the hospital grounds with crowds of people screaming for Michael to be saved. UCLA has no part whatsoever in announcing the death. Normally the attending physician would make the announcement but UCLA’s silence hints at their compliance as well their not signing a death certificate. A second death certificate and autopsy report for a real patient is pure speculation with absolutely no evidence to support that. And we all know the body wasn’t properly identified and autopsy report reflected that the person who died was MJ himself and not someone else, then it was finalized on a hoaxy date, 9/9/09, coincidentally enough. Not to mention the 'dead' body photos used in the trial show someone who definitely looks like Michael.<br /><br />I do understand the DWD info and reasons but every step of the way shows, to me, that the people who came into contact with what was on the stretcher, (from outside agencies – paramedics, doctors, coroner) were in on it. If the FBI HAD to use a real dead body, then we are missing a huge part of the story as to WHY it was necessary. Going with the evidence we DO have, a corpse still doesn't make sense to me.<br /><br />
TS, i'm asking again, where did you find or how do you know that the patient (ingesting the drug) need not be present in OR/WA at the time of ingestion?
Yes we know that Michael believes in God but as far as I can see his personal beliefs aren’t involved as this is not about his life but the one of a dying patient who makes an informed decision to end their sufferings with or without the hoax. Now only Michael himself can tell us about that, we weren’t present during the planning phase so we miss many important details.<br /><br />Here is a description of what it is not about, it can help better understand and maybe make it less alarming:<br /><br />
What it's not:<br />Assisted Suicide is a term used by opponents to scare people. Assisted suicide more accurately refers to criminals like this guy. "Suicide" is also inaccurate. A terminally ill patient making a request under the Oregon or Washington law is doing so to hasten an already inevitable and imminent death; therefore, the act cannot properly be equated with "suicide". None of the moral, existential, or religious connotations of "suicide" apply when the patient's primary objective is not to end an otherwise open-ended span of life but to find dignity in an already impending exit from this world. Individuals who use the law may be offended by the use of "assisted suicide," because they are participating in an act to shorten the agony of their final hours, not killing themselves. It's cancer (or other underlying condition) which is killing them.<br />Euthanasia often refers to the act of painlessly but deliberately causing the death of another who is suffering from an incurable, painful disease or condition. It's commonly thought of as lethal injection.
<br />http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2011/04/05/just-what-are-death-dignity-laws-anyway<br /><br />TS also stated that it would be the FBI’s requirement, so I understand that probably there wasn’t a wide room for choices for Michael if he wanted the FBI to help him. They maybe could have refused to go along with the hoax if this wasn’t included.<br /><br />Again as said before the OR and WA law doesn’t specifically say where the patient must be located while ingesting the drugs. The only requirement that is specifically mentioned is that the patient must be a resident from one of these 2 states. The rest remains open to possibilities as we cannot disprove the possibility that this law covers the patient wherever he is located at the moment he decides to ingest the medication. The CA law doesn’t specifically say that a DWD patient from OR or WA cannot ingest his medication in CA. Maybe someone from the USA should give a call to one of these organizations and see what they have to say about this?<br /><br />
The 'alleged' victim statement followed the charge of manslaughter...so it would be accurate IF a DWD patient was involved because 1) they were not a victim of manslaughter, and 2) they weren't a victim of anything under DWD since that is a self-made choice.
@bec...any in-depth research done on the history of high levels of government, US or other, would reveal many instances where 'murder' was carried out by the FBI, CIA, and/or other high-ranking agencies....both on US soil (JFK, MLK, 9/11, etc) and on foreign land (if you believe in the 'official' story of Bin Laden, and many other assassinations across the globe). The point of my previous post was that a statement suggesting that the FBI HAS to stay within the bounds of the law (i.e. cannot break the law that the rest of us have to follow) is not supported by history. Nor does 'engaging in the same crimes' always apply, as history has also shown. I am not a lawyer and my knowledge of CA law is limited...so I don't know if any laws were broken IF a DWD patient died in CA. But I'm pretty sure that IF this was needed, for whatever reason, and considering the 'key' people Mike HAD to have to pull all this off, including high-ranking officials/agencies and lawyers....that it had prior approval. Whether or not this is what actually took place is anyone's guess....all we can do is try to piece it together with what we have, while keeping in mind that we don't have all the pieces just yet.<br /><br />Andrea:<br />
<br />If the FBI HAD to use a real dead body, then we are missing a huge part of the story as to WHY it was necessary.<br />
<br /><br />I agree...there are still several pieces missing in order for the hospice theory to make complete sense. Perhaps, and hopefully, 7c will shed light on that. <br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br />And again, the million $$ question, who is this alleged real dead person supposed to be fooling? Because this theory needs a linear progression so let's go there.<br />
<br /><br />Bec, you said "alleged real dead person". There's also the "alleged victim". So maybe there's no victim because there is no murder,manslaughter or suicide at the house or in the ambulance. If a DWD patient was used, maybe it wasn't at the house or the ambulance ? Maybe the DWD patient was at the hospital ? IDK. Just thoughts. <br /><br />
Jesus! My mind is on the verge of exploding just seeing the amount of posts and "versions"/interpretations on this thread I quit trying to read all the comments...I feel like losing it.... loolll<br /><br /><br />I was floored while reading the long post by TS! <br />It's the first time I feel the mystery of "that day" starts getting unveiled...slowly... but surely!<br />I agree with @mj4ever777: we will never know what/how/where/when the "magic trick" was done "that day" , until TS and/or Michael explain everything step by step! Can't wait!! :icon_bounce:<br />
<br />@Bec, I really don't believe that this hoax is just a "creative vision"... I don't think the purpose of the hoax is ONLY to better his image in the public...there is more to the story. I think it's a question of justice, not for his own personal benefits but for OUR benefits.<br />
<br /><br />I agree Thriller, and I believe it's much more complicated than for an artistic purpose and to clear his image. So many pieces of the puzzle are missing. <br /><br />TS<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 />Whatever they decided it was a successful illusion and legal...in order to carry out a sting operation. <br />All for - Justice. <br /><br />So TS is pointing to DWD not dummy, I agree Bec... it wouldn't make sense at all. <br /><br />
<br />So you believe the FBI was trying to catch a murderer by murdering someone else? I respectfully believe that makes no sense at all.<br /><br />The FBI can't go around murdering people in the United States of America. In any case it is considered murder in and by the state of California. State of California says this person would be a victim very clearly, not at all an alleged victim.<br />
<br /><br />In the article about the nurse assisted suicide “palliative sedation” was another option. So maybe that's why the use of propofol with a doctor present. <br /><br />This reminded me of BACK's last post about Conrad Murray to Avoid Murder Charge? <br /><br /><br />
Etch it to stone.......They will face accountability!<br /><br />Perhaps the FEDs will feel so inclined to lend the LAPD another one of its "hands" in a matter that actually warrants it.<br /><br />perhaps.......<br />
Concerning the question of what a body would be needed for, here is what TS said about it:<br /><br />
on 1304316315:
<br />To be more specific: if it’s hoax court, then there would be little if any need to use a corpse; but if it is sting court, then the corpse theory has a strong case. This would not only reduce the people who would need to be in on it, but it would also allow witnesses to testify truthfully in real court under oath (both witnesses who are in on it, and those who are not).<br />
<br />http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,18964.0.html<br /><br />So maybe that's the point? And in trying to keep things as real as possible, because if the whole court was involved then the word would have spread easily lol, so only a few key people needed to know. Most probably the trial served different purposes. It could be there as a way to show Michael's enemies that he really died (at least some of them) and certain things could be investigated behind the scenes. Of course we can't dismiss the high probabilty that they figured out it was a hoax that's why I think this trial must have served several purposes in regards to the sting. It's difficult to really know as we don't have information about the sting real targets, we can only speculate, therefore it shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the real body theory because of lack of information.
<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 />
<br /><br />Adi you just said what I wanted to post.<br /><br />My theory is that if a terminally ill person was used for real then according to the DWD law that person could have gotten the lethal medication in Oregon or Washington bring it in his pocket (as Adi has said) and take it by himself in L.A that would be totally legal, check out the document below:<br /><br />[size=18pt]Death with Dignity in Oregon, Washington & (soon to be) Montana[/size]<br /><br /> <br />The US has a spotted history of law reform on voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted dying. Since the 2008 Presidential election, there are now two states with Death with Dignity laws - Oregon and Washington.<br /><br />Oregon was the first state to pass a Death With Dignity (DWD) Act which it did in 1994 after a Citizen Initiated Referendum. However, this law was not finally implemented until 27 October 1997. (In the intervening period, the Act was subject to legal challenge which prevented it being used; this is why the Northern Territory was the first place in the world to experience VE legislation.)<br /> <br />These Death With Dignity Acts allow people who are terminally and/or hopelessly ill to ask their doctors for lethal medication. Patients must make two verbal requests and one written request that is fully witnessed. Two doctors must agree on the patient’s ‘diagnosis, prognosis and the patient's capability’. [size=14pt]The patient must administer the lethal medication themselves.[/size]<br /> <br />The Oregon and Washington laws explicitly prohibit euthanasia, which is defined as involving someone other than the patient administering the medication. The DWD legislation is reported on annually; in Oregon by the Department of Human Services.<br /> <br />The sixth Oregon review was released in early 2004, revealing that forty-two people used the DWD law in 2003. The law is reported as having had no effect on the overall death rate in that state.<br /> <br />‘Loss of autonomy’, ‘a diminished ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable’, and ‘loss of dignity’ were the three most frequently cited end-of-life concerns by those who used the law. It is ironic that the Oregon Act passed into law in the same year that the ROTI Act was overturned.<br /><br />The Washington law can be found HERE.<br /><br />Breaking News - Dec '09<br /> <br />On 31 December 2009, the New York Times reported that the Montana Supreme Court has said that nothing in state law prevents patients from seeking physician-assisted suicide. This will make Montana the third state that will allow the procedure as soon as the legislature acts.<br /><br />http://www.exitinternational.net/page/USA<br /><br />Nevertheless we have to distinguish between DWD or PAD and EUTHANASIA what entails the physician or another third party administering the medication so I think in this case the administered medication by a physician has to be in Oregon or Washington so the terminally ill person wouldn't be able to receive his meds outside his place of resident .<br />To be honest I would like to say that I don't buy that a DWD or PAD was used in this hoax either but a dummy, Annie are you ok are you ok Annie? :icon_lol:, check out wikipedia below.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States
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 />No Bec because nobody administered him the lethal med, remember CM was hanging with a telephone call so in that very moment the terminally ill person could have taken the pill, that's why CM during the trial was insinuating that Michael self administered the propofol lethal dose.
If a terminally ill patient was really used to stage the hoax I now understand why the surveillance tapes were erased, I think it would be illegal to show it publicly, I don't think Michael would allow to show it either however if a dummy was used I think these tapes are gonna be and have to be showed to prove that MJ's death was just a hoax, an illusion.
<br />I think I said this about 2 or 3 pages ago :icon_e_confused:<br />
<br /><br />Don't worry Hesouttamylife, nothing in this thread that hasn't been repeated over and over again! :icon_lol:<br /><br /><br /><br />This is us^^! :thjajaja121:
Comments