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.<br />
<br />I agree, especially because of all the emphasis put on Murray being out of the room when Michael died (in the bathroom, on the phone with his girlfriends). The official story is that Michael was still alive when Murray left the room, Michael self-administered the drug to himself (according to Murray, who is probably the only one there that day who we can all agree is 'in on it'), and then Murray came back and found him not breathing. This would fit with the DWD theory in that the patient self-administered the fatal dose alone. Therefore this would not qualify as assisted suicide because there was nobody in the room to assist. <br />
Anatomization of the Living Dead: Part 4<br />This part contains yet the most shocking & inconsistent information & is strong proof that Mr. Michael Joe Jackson did not participate in this clinical study!!!<br /><br />Case Report: Page 16<br /><br />Cardiovascular System:<br /><br />1- The arteries are normal; there are no abnormalities or blockage along the aorta.<br /><br />2- The heart is normal & weighs 290 grams [this is a perfect weight for heart & means that it was in great shape]<br /><br />3- All the heart chambers & its connecting blood vessels are in perfect shape<br /><br /><br />Respiratory System: <br /><br />1.- Minimal secretions are found in the upper respiratory passages (i.e. nose, oral cavity, chamber below the throat & the voice box)[this means that at the time of death the deceased was not suffering from any infections in his upper respiratory passages]<br /><br />2- The lining of the area known as the voice box has suffered some bruising & undersurface bleeding. [This might have been cause by the ETT being pushed down the throat.]<br /><br />3- An abnormal respiratory noise can be heard from the lungs. [the coroner tries inflating & deflating the lungs to see if the deceased was suffering any lung conditions. In this case it seems that the deceased was suffering from a long condition due to the abnormal noise made by the lungs, further analysis is done which will be discussed later]<br /><br />4- There is congestion is the lungs<br /><br />5- It is mentioned that the left lung weighs 1060 grams & the right lung weighs 940 grams. <br /><br />[This is one of the most bizarre statements made in this autopsy report. In all humans the right lung weighs more than the left lung, simply due to the position of human heart, which is in most humans on the left side. In few cases which are very rare, some people have their heart on their right side as opposed to the left side & hence their left lung weighs more than the right one. But there’s no mention of it on the cardiovascular analysis of the report nor anywhere else on the autopsy report that his heart was on his right side. So I don’t know really how to justify this outrageous statement by the coroner]<br /><br />6- The thin tissue that covers the lungs looks normal & smooth & its veins are without clotting.<br /><br /><br />Case Report: Page 17<br /><br /><br />Gastrointestinal System:<br /><br />1- The gullet (food tube) is intact throughout.<br /><br />2- There is no swelling in the stomach [this is sign that there was no drug abuse, as people who abuse drugs usually suffer from distended stomach syndrome]<br /><br />3- It is mentioned that the stomach contains 70 grams of dark fluid [alright why this fluid hasn’t been analyzed? What good is an autopsy if they’re going to live substances unknown & unanalyzed?!]<br /><br />5- No tablet or capsule portions are seen in the stomach contents [very interesting comment, this can help to establish a timeline, considering the average time each medication’s metabolism takes, why wasn't further analysis done! If the timeline given by Murray is correct there must be some trace of medications in the stomach content especially considering the rumors that have been floating around about Michael being an addict. Considering the timeline given by Murray & the time of death there must be some trace in the stomach content, unless the body has been metabolizing after death!!! ]<br /><br />6- Both the small intestine & the colon look good & normal inside & out.<br /><br />7- After cutting open both the small intestine & colon a 2mm polyp (the kind that is attached to the tissue like a skin tag) is seen close to the rectum area. The polyp is pink in color, which means it’s not of a dangerous type. <br /><br />8- The appendix is present.<br /><br />9- Everything about the pancreas looks normal<br /><br /><br />Urinary System:<br /><br />1- Left kidney weighs 120 grams & right kidney weighs 140 grams. [Although the numbers are well within the normal range, the issue is that in humans the left kidney is slightly bigger & heavier than the right kidney, here again we see a different pattern. Seems like the person who wrote this report had their left & right confused!]<br /><br />Genital System:<br /><br />1- The prostate is moderately enlarged but aside from that there are no abnormalities. This moderate enlargement is not dangerous. <br /><br /><br />Case Report: Page 18<br /><br />Hemolymphatic System:<br /><br />1- The lymph nodes in body are all small & normal [being small is a very good sign; it means that the body didn’t have any autoimmune problem. This is another bizarre statement by the coroner. It is a well known fact that Michael was suffering from Lupus. Lupus is an autoimmune disease. In Lupus the lymph nodes are enlarged because they have become over active.Therefore we can conclude that this body belongs to someone who wasn't suffering from any autoimmune disease. Stay tuned for my post on Lupus & Michael Jackson.]<br /><br /><br />Endocrine System:<br /><br />1.- The Thymus is not identified. [this report gets bizarre page by page, apparently the coroner was not able to find the thymus, so the dead body is missing his thymus. The thymus is a specialized organ of the immune system. In lupus patients the whole immune system becomes over active attacking the body’s tissues & organs. However in HIV AIDS patients the thymus will be damaged to the point that it cannot be identified in the body. Another cause for missing the thymus is a very rare birth defect called the Digeorge Syndrome, however people suffering from this syndrome have certain facial features that make them stand out, very much similar to Down Syndrome. We know Michael didn’t have Digeorge Syndrome, there’s no mention of the deceased body having HIV, so why is the thymus missing? I can’t find a medical explanation for it!!!!<br />It is worth mentioning that removal of Thymus is highly unconventional & dangerous, the only time that a surgeon might decide to remove a thymus is in infants with sever heart defects that require heart surgery, the thymus in these cases sometimes have to be removed in order for the surgeon to have an unobstructed access to the heart. however this is not the case in older children or adults. Another very rare case that requires removal of thymus, which again I insist is very rare & it's a tough choice for a surgeon to make, is if a patient is suffering from Myasthenia gravis. Myasthenia gravis is a neuro-muscular disease leading to severe fluctuation of muscles & weakness & fatiguability. Again not all the cases of Myasthenia gravis require removal of thymus. Removal of thymus bears sever neurological side effects & it is a contributing factor in death of HIV patients. So why is the body missing the Thymus?]<br /><br />Head and Central Nervous System:<br /><br />1- There is no hemorrhage on the surface or below the surface of the scalp<br /><br />2- All the tissues covering the brain are intact & without hemorrhage [the deceased suffered from cardiac arrest, which means his brain was left without oxygen for a good while, so there must be some hemorrhage on the interior tissue, the tissue closest to the brain, but the coroner indicates that all tissues are spotless!!!!!]<br /><br /><br />Neuropathology:<br /><br />1- The brain was placed in formalin at the time of autopsy to be fixed, in order to undergo further examination.<br /><br />2- Selected areas of the brain is preserved by the neuro-pathologist on 7/8/09<br /><br />3- The rest of the brain was released to the mortuary on 7/8/09 [Therefore the whole thing about the delayed burial because theydidn’t have his brain is untrue, the mortuary had the brain on July 8, one day after the memorial]<br /><br /><br />Case Report: Page 20<br /><br />Not going to post everything, just some examples<br /><br />1- 1 photograph taken at the Forensic Science center on 6/25/09 [Why would they take any picture at the Forensic lab? Did they take a picture of the specimen sent to be examined?]<br /><br />2.- 61 photographs taken before & during autopsy on 6/26/09 documenting resuscitative injury & prostate enlargement whiting the urinary bladder [does this mean that they only photographed the mentioned parts & procedures & not the entire course of autopsy?!]<br /><br />3.- 3 photographs of a silver BMW 645 Ci taken on 6/29/09 [what does this photo do at the coroners?! This has nothing to do with the autopsy]<br /><br />4.- 13 photographs taken at the scene on 6/29/09 showing the dressing room with closets where additional medical evidence was collected. [I want to pay close attention to this detail. Many of you thought that the news published by TMZ regarding the hidden closet that contained a plastic bag full of medications (i.e. Propofol) was a new discovery. This is not true. As you can see by the time they wrote this report those evidences had been recovered. Bear in mind that many of the information released/published later in the media was recycled news. Any body who would have taken the time to read the 51 pages of the autopsy report & the 43 pages of the released affidavit would see that all the things that have been mentioned recently in the media already exist in those reports. meaning that there are not new discoveries. What amazes me is the role of media in unfolding this whole case. They're completely relying on the fact that general masses haven't taken the time to read through the pages & chose to publish little sound bites of the released information. But if we all take it upon ourselves to read through these supposed official documents, we'll be able to see through the many inconsistencies surrounding this case & the fact that the District Attorney's office doesn't have a lot to go with for a conviction. The rest is all media hype & how they chose to feed the information to the public. I hope you manage to see through their schemes. Just like Michael said: "Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on the TV screen don't make it factual!"]<br /><br />5.- 4 photographs of the stokes litter (it’s the kind of stretcher they use in rescue missions) from Sherriff’s Air 5 helicopter used in transporting decedent. [you have all seen the infamous body transfer footage, no body bags used, just wrapped in white sheet,no wonder they had to go back & photograph that…you just don’t transfer a dead body without a body bag! It’s a high risk, you might lose body fluids that could be crucial to the case.]<br /><br />***NOTE: the witness to the autopsy is LAPD detective Smith.<br /><br /><br />Case Report: Page 21<br /><br />Coroner’s Final Opinion:<br /><br />Although we don’t have the actual toxicology report attached with this autopsy report, but the coroners have made their final opinion about the cause of death based on mostly the toxicology report. The coroner states, based on the toxicology results, high levels of Propofol & benzodiazepines were found in the victim’s blood. Please read my previous post on the Propofol calculation & the amount needed to achieve full anesthesia for a grown male of Michael's size & age. In that post I have explained that the amount of Propofol found in Michael's body couldn't have been fetal, even the anesthesiologist's consult proves my conclusion. Therefore the proper cause of death must have been diagnosed as Central Nervous System failure which causes respiratory & cardiac system failure. <br /><br />It is mentioned that the autopsy did not show any trauma or natural diseases which could contributed to the death.<br /><br />It is decided the manner of death is “HOMICIDE” which means death by the hands of other, based on the following:<br />a) The propofol & benzodiazepines found in victims system was administered by another & there’s no evidence for self-administration of Propofol.<br />[There's no way they can prove that the victim has self administered. There are many medical & scientific facts that oppose this idea. ]<br />b) The propofol was administered outside of a hospital setting & without appropriate medical & monitoring equipment & does not meet the standard of administering the Propofol.<br /><br />***********************************************************************************************************************************<br />Source: http://xscapemj.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html<br />
<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:<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."
Legal Status of Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia in the United States<br /><br /><br />State<br />California<br />Current State Statutes<br />California has a law which specifically prohibits assisted<br />suicide. Cal. Penal Code §401. Euthanasia is prohibited in<br />California under the general homicide laws.<br />Past Legislation & Ballot Initiatives<br />In 1992, the citizens of California defeated Proposition<br />161, a ballot measure to legalize euthanasia and<br />physician-assisted suicide by a 54%-46% margin.<br /><br />
<br />http://www.nightingalealliance.org/pdf/state_grid.pdf<br /><br />This scenario of a hospice patient committing suicide by ingesting prescribed pills from a doctor in Oregon or Washington would be against the law in California. Not for the patient (suicide itself is not against the law in CA anymore), but any of the following is against the law in California: knowing someone is about to commit suicide and not reporting it (failure to report), facilitating someone to commit suicide by making it easier for them to do so, or encouraging it ("yes we NEED someone to DIE so MJ can hoax his death", that's pretty encouraging for an MJ fan). MJ and AEG at least would be guilty of encouraging it, all would be guilty of failure to report, and MJ and Murray could both be found guilty of facilitating it (here, lie in this nice bed with this nice fire with this nice, convenient end table and this nice juice, or water if you prefer, within easy reach, while you take those pills right on time for my numbers to all fit in the numerology, ok? Enjoy!).<br /><br />How was the body ID'ed as MJ from MJ's driver's license?<br /><br />How did real paramedics know to go to Carrolwood? Did they just go on an emergency call not coming through dispatch but just because one guy on the team said they needed to go? Including the fire chief? Really?<br /><br />Was the driver the only one in on it? If not then why did he back out? Why did they all forget to close the ambulance doors at UCLA? Two guys are just walking along, not pushing the stretcher, not rushing ahead. Everyone forgot to close the doors? Where's the IV drip for this real body they already worked on for 42 minutes? Why no IV? Is he not in need of fluids? There's already a port in place (supposedly from paramedic testimony), you've done everything to try n save his life for 42 minutes yet no IV fluid drip?<br /><br />Could Dr. Cooper restart the heart of a patient that had been dead for at minimum 42 minutes after ingesting a suicide drug? (And hasn't gotten any fluids since). Because if she's not in on it, then she's telling the truth.<br /><br />The FBI may be involved in snuffing out enemies of the state for the (perceived) public good (which I too said 2 or 3 pages ago, along with mentioning it's the CIA's job overseas, and they do most of the snuffing as well..., FBI is internal mainly), but the FBI arranging the death of a terminally ill patient to pose as a pop singer?<br /><br />It's ok to be unfamiliar with the law, I don't think any of us are lawyers here, you just look up the statute, like I did above. California law is very clear on the matter of assisted suicide, the state considers it a felony to aid and/or abet a suicide.<br /><br />For the record, I don't have a problem with assisted suicide at all. If it ever came up on a ballot in my state I would vote for it. That is not my problem with this theory. My problem is that it doesn't make sense, and any loose ends invariably get tied up with the universal FBI involvement explanation. <br />
I bolded my replies within the quote. I hope that's ok and easy to understand.<br /><br />
on 1353777184:
<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.<br /><br />The jury found Murray guilty of manslaughtering this man, so legally, yes, they were a(n) [alleged] victim of manslaughter. As if that makes any sense.If this were FBI authorized assisted suicide in CA, why was Murray charged and tried for Involuntary Manslaughter?<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 />Exactly. That's the point. If a dummy is used, then the documents are fake, which we know them to be. Conversely, IF a real body is used, THEN the documents ought to be real. A real body with fake documents doesn't make sense, considering they don't match MJ either. So why fake documents if you have a real body to autopsy? I have laid out in several posts how ~10 people have to be in on it if they used a dummy. Out of the ambulance and into the ER, it's surrounded by 3 bodyguards and 4 paramedics (3+4, nice), 1 Murray, and (eventually arriving) 2 ER docs. Add a regular old lock on the door of a room to wheel the stretcher into and who's going to come into contact with the body unauthorized?<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 />If those ~10 people are in on it, or most of them, or even some of them, the million dollar question: why use a real body in the first place? Also, the emergency responders could go through all the motions on a dummy (without actually following through, in case of injections, specific procedures, etc), pretend to give an injection, pretend to insert a balloon pump, pretend to give cpr), and this would serve for realism in recollections later, because they did actually draw the injection, they did actually prepare the balloon pump, they did actually get tired from giving cpr, etc. <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 />You won't find it because it is implied; that's how the laws work in the United States. Each state has a penal code that applies to persons and entities within their boarders. A state's laws do not apply across the boarder in another state unless the second state's penal code contains a similar statute to the first. One state's laws do not apply in another state and no state may not profess that it's residents receive carte blanche across jurisdictions, ie, Washington cannot state in it's penal code that it is legal for it's residents to act in a way that is illegal in California, Washington has no jurisdiction in California. US citizens do not abide by the laws of their residency, they abide the laws of their location. <br /><br />Which doesn't really mater anyway considering the charges for participating in the suicide of another person would be brought against MJ, AEG, and possibly Murray depending on the circumstances, for aiding and abetting a suicide. If the death was found to be euthanasia, it would be a murder charge. They don't have to be standing in the room to be found guilty of these charges in California because simply aiding and abetting a suicide is a felony in the state, CA penal code 401. <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 />I don't see it negatively either. That's not my problem with the theory. My problem is that it doesn't make sense with the information we have.<br /><br />
What if the patient self-administered the drug in Oregon that morning and the body was frozen to delay rigor mortis/decomposition? Then the body could have been flown via private jet to LA (about a 2:30 hour flight) and that's why Michael went to the airport? Maybe the room was especially warm that day to speed up the thawing process? I'm just trying to think of every possibility regarding the corpse issue. :Pulling_hair:
<br />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 /><br />Andrea brought up a lot of hard challenges to the dead body theory that proponents have largely ignored. <br /><br />Ps. Andrea: <br />
saying “it’s looking bad" and a family member tells them MJ is “in really bad shape”.
I prefer to remain silent on this DWD issue. But please guys, just take a minute and pray for that guy who died on June 25th. He could have committed a sin by taking those pills!!<br /><br />Blessings
My understanding of what TS said is the following: Everyone (or mostly everyone) who came into contact with the body that day was 'in on it' so a corpse was not needed to fool anyone (with the exception of possibly the targets of the sting which I'm not quite clear on yet). HOWEVER, a corpse was used instead of a dummy as a sort of plan b in case anything unexpected occurred. What if for instance, the ambulance broke down on the way to the hospital or there were a number of real emergencies and the paramedics or doctors had to be called away to attend to those? Any number of unforeseen circumstances could have happened that day and after 20 plus years of planning, it would be a shame if the hoax was compromised because someone discovered it was actually a dummy or something. If I were planning a hoax of this magnitude I'd make damn certain I had several safeguards in place just in case. A kind of a 'better safe than sorry' approach, if you will.<br /><br />As for the autopsy report, death certificate, etc., why would the documents have to be real if there was a real corpse? If there really was a DWD patient there might not be a need for an autopsy. Even so, who's to say there aren't real documents somewhere filed with the proper institutions? For example, the will we saw was clearly fake, but that doesn't mean that Michael doesn't have a real will somewhere. I believe TS stated long ago that the coroner was definitely in on it, so either way (dummy or corpse) there would be fake documents for hoax purposes.
<br />What if the patient self-administered the drug in Oregon that morning and the body was frozen to delay rigor mortis/decomposition? Then the body could have been flown via private jet to LA (about a 2:30 hour flight) and that's why Michael went to the airport? Maybe the room was especially warm that day to speed up the thawing process? I'm just trying to think of every possibility regarding the corpse issue. :Pulling_hair:<br />
<br /><br />I was thinking of this same scenario earlier today SIC. What if a DWD patient had ingested the medication in WA or OR and had died there, but had left in their last wishes to be buried in California (perhaps they had family there or were originally from California?) After all the necessary paperwork was completed satisfying the DWD Laws in which ever state they were in, their body could have been released and then transported to California and kept at low temperatures until burial day in the meantime making a detour via the home of Michael Jackson. <br /><br />I presume it is not illegal to die in a different state than California and then be buried in Cali as long as all the required legal procedures & paperwork etc are met?
There are too many contradictions in the reported events of June 25th for a real body to have been used. The DWD scenario is just too hypothetical and doesn't fit with the events/actions/documents of those who handled the 'body', especially when considering they're the ones this body is meant to fool. All we have to go with is what they've said and recorded on paper. The DWD theory is also fraught with ethical and legal concerns, not to mention public backlash no matter how good the intentions were. If we are to accept the DWD patient theory, we need more than 'maybe' or 'could'. I do think it's totally possible there is an FBI sting involved with the hoax but using a vague FBI-involvement excuse for using a DWD patient isn't enough to debunk the dummy theory, it's not a strong enough point. We are lacking details to support the need for a real dead body - what is it's purpose?
<br />There are too many contradictions in the reported events of June 25th for a real body to have been used. The DWD scenario is just too hypothetical and doesn't fit with the events/actions/documents of those who handled the 'body', especially when considering they're the ones this body is meant to fool. All we have to go with is what they've said and recorded on paper. The DWD theory is also fraught with ethical and legal concerns, not to mention public backlash no matter how good the intentions were. If we are to accept the DWD patient theory, we need more than 'maybe' or 'could'. I do think it's totally possible there is an FBI sting involved with the hoax but using a vague FBI-involvement excuse for using a DWD patient isn't enough to debunk the dummy theory, it's not a strong enough point. We are lacking details to support the need for a real dead body - what is it's purpose?<br />
<br /><br />inarguably, the California law will be a barrier to the DWD theory...<br /><br />At this point after a LOT of 'thinking' I finally decided that DWD theory is not possible, solely because of Ca Law...<br /><br />If the patient died in OR/WA and was brought to Carolwood, maybe the day before (Probably on 24th June), it would be too risky ( as far as success of the hoax is concerned). So he might have been brought DAYS earlier into the state of California...and if that is the case, the patients under the 'unknown' category are the ones who have NOT been used for this hoax...and the rest of them would have been.<br />As mj's public image is one of the main concerns in the hoax, then this DWD theory would help the public to create yet another negative image of MJ...as a murderer.<br />We know that the ambulance backed out on June 25Th( for the ambo pic) so the driver was definitely in the hoax, and the other paramedics would have to be in on it (success of the hoax) because they're in direct contact with the body. If they anyways are in direct contact with the body, a corpse is in now way necessary ( I mean, why take the pains to have a dead DWD patient transported from one state to another, and make sure the body is in good condition)...<br />A dummy would've been way easier to get the things done. <br /><br />It's very important for the hoax to be legal all the way..MJ has no chance of leaving any kind of loopholes and if this is really the case...<br />I'm now voting for dummy.
I had another thought; what if we can't figure out whether it was a corpse or dummy because it was both??<br /><br />http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/27/michael-jacksons-body-hold-the-plastic/<br />I'm not sure how the Institute for Plastination's Body Donation Program works or if a body can be plastinated with the skin intact (I don't have the time to look it up right now), but if a body was donated and then plastinated, would it then be both a corpse and a dummy, since some dummies are made out of plastic? Would this be considered a very life-like dummy? Sorry for all my random rambling ideas tonight, I'm just trying to make sense out of this.
I come back to so much good discussion bringing up many points. An awesome read! <br /><br />Bec<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 />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...
<br /> :screaming-7365:<br /><br />Bec<br />
This scenario of a hospice patient committing suicide by ingesting prescribed pills from a doctor in Oregon or Washington would be against the law in California. Not for the patient (suicide itself is not against the law in CA anymore), but any of the following is against the law in California: knowing someone is about to commit suicide and not reporting it (failure to report), facilitating someone to commit suicide by making it easier for them to do so, or encouraging it ("yes we NEED someone to DIE so MJ can hoax his death", that's pretty encouraging for an MJ fan). MJ and AEG at least would be guilty of encouraging it, all would be guilty of failure to report, and MJ and Murray could both be found guilty of facilitating it (here, lie in this nice bed with this nice fire with this nice, convenient end table and this nice juice, or water if you prefer, within easy reach, while you take those pills right on time for my numbers to all fit in the numerology, ok? Enjoy!).
<br />Yikes!<br /><br />Paula, what comes to mind with the autopsy report and seeing MJ's larger left lung and left kidney, is 'man in the mirror'. It's like an autopsy of MJ's reflected image, reflecting MJ's healthy body, but certainly not a terminally ill patient. And did he really die of cardiac arrest if there was no brain hemorrhage? <br />
5- No tablet or capsule portions are seen in the stomach contents [very interesting comment, this can help to establish a timeline, considering the average time each medication’s metabolism takes, why wasn't further analysis done! If the timeline given by Murray is correct there must be some trace of medications in the stomach content especially considering the rumors that have been floating around about Michael being an addict. Considering the timeline given by Murray & the time of death there must be some trace in the stomach content, unless the body has been metabolizing after death!!! ]
<br /><br />Well, it seems TS claims that this thing happened, in spite of us saying it is illegal in California, and whether or not we have emotional qualms about it. Whether we think it makes sense or fits with the story-line of going to UCLA that day with 'in' or 'not-in' participants, doesn't seem worrying to TS.<br /><br /><br />BUT, perhaps using a DWD patient is a clue to something else coming that is very very serious on a planetary scale. And meanwhile, "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die", is happening here for us hoaxers. Front said we should loosen up a little and laugh. Perhaps there is a sense in which we as humans all have less than 6 months to live (MJ was said by the tabloids to have 6 months to live), and need to prepare for this EVENT coming our way. There was The Sign (TS)'s statement that 'none of us will grow old unless we're already old', enters in to this. Jermaine changing his name to Jack SUN. The Eggbury crop circle formation of 2008 includes the 12/21/12 prediction, the coming of planet X or the second SUN which will wreak havoc on earth, and the lining up of the planets as MJ sang about -- literally Revelation fulfillment. It is related to the return of the Annunaki who were involved with the Old Testament stories, the winged sumerian symbol which Michael (Archangel) wore on many occasions. Maybe this Ark of the Covenant of RW and the one in the heavens (atmosphere) is connected to a form of escape from earth's coming cataclysm. And TS/ Michael knows a way of escape just as Noah was commanded to build a boat for any who believed his warning that a flood was coming. Someone linked this video a week or so ago, and it is excellent!<br /><br /><br /><br />I thought it was interesting how TS offered his sympathies when some members here talked of recent deaths in their families:<br /><br />TS on Nov 4<br />
Quote from: angel on November 03, 2012, 10:17:21 AM<br />
@Souza, MaryK, reveron1958, and applehead123, I'm so sorry for your loss. May God send His Comforter to you and your families. Love
<br /><br />My sympathies also, to those who are going through a time of grief and loss. <br /><br />Revelation 14:13, "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them."
<br /><br />See what verses follow this verse he picked out. It's the coming of the Messiah, I think in a UFO (cloud), followed by major death and destruction on earth. Could this be soon coming scenario TS is telling us about? There's so many other verses he could have picked out. The Daniel 12:1-4 verses say the same thing--"Michael stands on the earth" and then major destruction of life on earth follows. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel 12:1-4&version=KJV<br /><br />Revelation 14:13-20<br />
King James Version (KJV)<br />13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.<br />14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.<br />15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.<br />16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.<br />17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.<br />18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.<br />19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.<br />20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.
<br /><br />So this DWD person is giving us a message, and in the big picture, it is good (I think...). Remember Bec, how TS said the horses that drowned in the Red Sea were not dying in vain but giving a message for us today.
Anatomization of the Living Dead: Part 4<br />[...]<br />you just don’t transfer a dead body without a body bag! It’s a high risk, you might lose body fluids that could be crucial to the case<br />[...]<br />Source: http://xscapemj.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html<br />
<br /><br />“What” was transported to where? Again the transport question is coming up. I’m trying to answer it backwards, starting with the transport from UCLA to the coroner and revising my idea on my “project map”.<br /><br />The mentioned sheets are not the answer for “no corpse” being transported from UCLA to the coroner. <br />There are several videos about the coroner’s facility, e.g. this one:<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MqVBM7AUsSE<br /><br />They use white sheets for covering dead persons on scene and the coroner’s staff seems to double wrap corpses into these sheets that need to be unwrapped upon arrival / examination (0:52). These sheets are knotted during transport / storage as can be seen in this video (0:40):<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74HN0V8KUYc&feature=relmfu<br /><br />In comparing the above videos to the video of “MJ” arriving with the helicopter<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lC90CfHBeA<br /><br />however one can notice that the “what” that was transported has no arms. The body on the stretcher is entirely flat. It was neatly wrapped and much care was applied – the feet were stretched out and explicitly fixed by a band to make identifiable where was top and where was end of the body inside. <br />However, this is not usual in the coroner’s world – at least this “dress-up” is not visible in the video material in the web.<br />Arms are usually crossed over the chest and the upper knot is executed between head and arms to prevent them from falling down when rigor mortis loosens up. Feet are standing up and not stretching flat. We cannot see anything of the “real life” coroner videos in the video about the stretcher with “MJ” coming out of the helicopter.<br /><br />No arms means: the “what” on the transport from UCLA to the coroner was a dummy.<br /><br />This would also explain why the coroner’s staff met in the van to hold a mini conference for the “how to proceed further”.<br /><br />If a dummy arrived at the coroner, the coroner is at some point and with some person “in”. We assumed earlier from Craig Harvey’s public statements on Twitter and Facebook and his record as a technical advisor for movies that he was “in”. However, Craig Harvey is not the Chief Examining Coroner but only one employee at the office.<br /><br />(Add: the coroner put together / published an AR that is clearly describing a different person than MJ (from what we know about MJ’s health records). The coroner could pull any existing AR about a male corpse out of his archive drawer, modify it here and there and declare it to be the AR of MJ – given he’s “in” and covered by the sting. He could have used an AR of an unidentified male e.g. of which the morgue knows many, irrespective of what or who entered the office.)<br /><br />Given that no corpse but a dummy was transported to the coroner, any sting requiring a corpse took place at UCLA. <br /><br />That indicates to me in a linear concept that the transport from Carolwood Dr. to UCLA could not have taken place with a dummy and continue with a dummy to the coroner. There is no real and sound reason I could see to create a transport sequence of that scale for a dummy only. Using an ambulance and switching to a helicopter as a means of transport is a dramatic crescendo of triggering emotions. Filming all of that from several perspectives with “proof of” pictures and several camera crews may serve a “Dr. James’ Beverly Hills Clinic” reality show but is neither necessary for a real transport of a corpse nor for a hoax transport of an Annie. It may be required, though, to pull attention off the actual real focus of interest and is once more a basic element of illusion for spectators and a potential key element of the make.believe to quietly execute a sting. I think they exchanged the arriving corpse by a leaving dummy which would not have been a great deal since resuscitation dummies are usual for training purposes at a teaching clinic.<br /><br />We have the “proof of” picture from Carolwood Dr. / NPG. We have the “proof of” second video from the tourist bus. We were given a third “proof of” video of Ben Evenstad when they followed the ambulance to UCLA (in an Escalade SUV). Now why do we need so much “proof of” elements if the person in the ambulance would really be MJ? They wouldn’t be required except if there was a question in the room or feared whether the dead person would truly be MJ. In providing those “proof of” elements when needed, early and recurring doubts were silenced. Actually those three proofs didn’t prove anything but were only more of the same material from a different camera angle - this however was not noticed then.<br /><br />Why use a helicopter from UCLA to the coroner if it was only about a dummy?<br />A helicopter transport could be justified if there is a kind of a risk for the transport or if time is critical. Neither argument applies from my perspective. I could agree on “a helicopter is faster in getting away from paps and unwelcome witnesses”. But was it then necessary to fly westwards and provide a tour over L.A.’s hills when the coroner’s office is located in the east of L.A. (not too far from where “Thriller” was produced btw)?<br /><br />So who was to be fooled by this corpse to UCLA with multiple “proof of” that it was really MJ’s body who came into UCLA? Only the media?<br /><br />There are indications from the past to think about a potential sting at UCLA.<br />In 2003, suspicion arose around UCLA for criminal activities.<br />In 2004, the director of the body donation program at UCLA was arrested.<br />http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/07/ucla.cadaver/index.html<br />In 2007, the full scandal was revealed at UCLA about selling body parts of donated corpses.<br />http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/03/08/the-body-parts-bandits.html<br /><br /><br />I found this video in which Lieutenant David Smith presents the coroner’s office to Sky News. It is cut together material where sound and image don’t always fit. Interesting part: Ltn. Smith talks about the standard procedure when a corpse enters the coroner’s office: taking finger prints and handing information over to the FBI.<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GhKh9NXEdk&feature=related<br /><br />The FBI would have been informed at that moment at the latest.<br />
As mentioned by myself and others, there are still several missing pieces needed in order to fully be able to support the hospice patient theory. One of those pieces would be the 'legalities' of it....whether or not it would be legal for a DWD patient to die in CA. Knowing this would greatly help because I think most of us would agree that it would've been in everyone's interest (Mike's and those helping him) to not break any laws in achieving his goals. It also seems to be a main reason why many are against the hospice theory....because of the assumption that it would've been illegal. I say 'assumption' because laws are interpretive...it's not just a matter of 'reading' laws as they are stated, laws are interpretive and can, and have been, interpreted differently by judges and courts...especially when dealing with, what may be, a constitutional right.<br /><br />Here's an excerpt from a lecture given showing how different courts interpreted someone's 'right to die':<br />
<br />...In the first of these two cases, Compassion in Dying v. Washington, the Ninth Circuit held that any statute which prohibits aiding another to commit suicide is contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In deciding whether there was a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Ninth Circuit found that a liberty right existed to determine the time and manner of one's death. The existence of such a liberty interest, however, did not mean that the State of Washington could not regulate that liberty. The court balanced the competing interests of the State of Washington's power to regulate with the liberty of the terminally ill plaintiffs' right to die. The court determined that while the State of Washington had legitimate interests in protecting life, preventing suicide, and in regulating doctors, those interests were substantially reduced in the case of a terminally ill adult who wished to end his life in the final stages of an incurable and painful degenerative disease.<br /><br />...The other case argued before the Supreme Court was Quill v. Vacco. Dr. Quill and two colleagues brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of New York statutes that were very similar to those in Washington. The district court ruled against both a due process argument and an equal protection argument. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court, finding there was no liberty interest, unlike the Ninth Circuit had found. They also determined that there was no fundamental right and no suspect classification involved.<br /><br />....Earlier this year a state judge in Florida ruled that a terminally ill patient had the constitutional right to terminate his suffering and to determine the time and manner of his death. The state judge recognized, for the first time in any state court, a<br />constitutional right to die.<br />
If a corpse was required for the agency sting, there is no way around a DWD scenario as this was the closest option to legally obtain a body for a sting, whether MJ would like or disliked the idea. Combined interests and forces. <br /><br />What would be an alternative to a DWD scenario?<br />Put an ad in the newspaper like "Casting: would you donate your body? we want to know you", make a contract and wait until one of these person really dies - meanwhile having alerted the targets and risking the sting?<br /><br /><br />
<br />Over the years, there has been and still is a great deal of excellent investigation in this forum—not only in these seven levels, but in all other areas as well. With only one week to go for Level 7, though, it’s time for me to bring out the Thanksgiving leftovers on a silver platter. :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br />It seems that at least some here have not looked very much into Death with Dignity (DWD). It is only for those who have already been diagnosed with less than six months to live, and who personally initiate the request for the process; and the law “requires the patient to ingest the medication unassisted.” {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act}<br /><br />This means that DWD is not murder. There are some who call it suicide, and there are some who argue against it being suicide; but there is no basis to argue that it is murder, or anything similar to murder. It is a matter of historical fact that the majority of voters in Oregon (OR) and Washington (WA) do not even think that it’s suicide, much less murder. And for those who do think it is suicide: “Those whose spiritual beliefs include opposition to physician-assisted dying are free to not use the Oregon or Washington law.” {http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/questions; see http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2012/02/23/myth-4-its-suicide; http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2011/04/25/death-dignity-isnt-suicide; http://tinyurl.com/ck2nnuf}<br /><br />So if the FBI cooperated with someone in the DWD program: it would be someone who had already voluntarily enlisted in the program, who did not think that it was suicide, and who would be dying anyway within a limited time window—the only question would be where, and exactly when. No doubt many would consider it an honor and privilege to be allowed in MJ’s home for their final hours—especially if it was someone who had no close relatives or friends, to be with them at the close of their life. If we wanted to use emotional arguments: we could easily claim that it would be very cruel and coldhearted, to deny someone this privilege and opportunity.<br /><br />Nevertheless, good investigators should leave feelings out of the formula, and stick with facts as far as possible. And it is a simple fact that DWD is not illegal. In fact, both OR and WA have laws against calling DWD suicide, or homicide, etc. “Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” {http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx} “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide.’” {https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/Documents/I1000-Text%20for%20web.pdf}<br /><br />And these laws provide a very clear explanation for the word “alleged” in the verdict. It would be inaccurate, if not illegal, to state that the DWD patient was a “victim” of manslaughter (which is a type of homicide); but the wording “alleged victim” made it perfectly accurate and legal. On a side note: a dummy would not have any date of death, much less any need for an “alleged date” of death.<br /><br />It’s true that under the OR and WA laws, the DWD patients must be residents of those states; however, there is nothing in the laws that specifically require the patients to physically be in OR or WA, when they ingest the medication. It is also an interesting fact that during the first 13 years of the OR law (1998 to 2010), not even 1 case listed the location of death as “unknown”; but during the first 3 years of the WA law, 2 listed the location as “unknown”—both of which were in 2009.{http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14-tbl-1.pdf; http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2011.pdf}.<br /><br />Most likely at least one of these 2009 “unknown” location deaths, and maybe both of them, were in California. Since the DWD program is entirely voluntary, and the patient is free to back out at any time for any reason: having a second patient readily available would still allow everything to go as planned, even if one of the two changed his mind. And in the very unlikely chance that both patients backed out simultaneously, when there was not enough time left to bring in a third DWD patient, a dummy could still be used with no greater risk than what many on this thread already think is a very low risk method.<br /><br />Speaking of risk: it would be the FBI four years ago, and not members of this forum now, who would decide the risks of using a dummy versus a DWD patient. Our investigation job here is not to decide the risk factors for the FBI, but rather to investigate the evidence pointing to whether they decided in favor of DWD or a dummy.<br /><br />Nevertheless, although I have never worked for the FBI in any capacity, yet it is my personal assessment that DWD is a much lower risk than a dummy. I have already gone over the appearance confusing factors with MJ, as well as with the DWD patient, so I won’t repeat them now; and I have already mentioned that reports of a patient, who does not look like MJ, would not spoil the hoax—since that actually happened, and nobody cared. And even if someone had a serious problem with a real patient, that did not look like MJ, it would be easy to explain that the real patient was a distraction factor—since real patients are readily available at UCLA, any time of any day.<br /><br />On the other hand, any unexpected discovery of a dummy at Carolwood or UCLA would’ve most likely raised huge suspicions, at the very least. To claim that a dummy could be explained away, by saying it was merely a distraction, can only be sustained by attempting to support a preconceived idea against common sense. Such an explanation would only raise far more suspicions, regarding who knew in advance that MJ would die on this very day—and had a 2009 MJ dummy already made, and handy, just for a distraction tactic??? Also, for those who think that an old MJ dummy would’ve been used on 6-25-09, why? All the years and money spent preparing for this hoax, and then not bother to make and use a new dummy that looked just like MJ in 2009?<br /><br />Both OR and WA statistics show that about 80% to 90% of DWD patients were also hospice patients {see links above, for “unknown” statistics}. Didn’t the paramedics say that it looked like a hospice patient? If these paramedics were not in the hoax, then we can be certain that it was a real patient (a dummy would not look like a hospice patient, nor would a dummy fool many if any paramedics). And if they were in the hoax, what would be the motive for lying? To give a clue that it was NOT a dummy, when it really WAS a dummy? If that were actually the case, it would seem reasonable to ask who is dumber: the dummy itself, or the dummy giving so-called clues?<br /><br />And now for yet another amazing hoax koinkidink: “The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, codified as RCW 70.245, passed on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.” {http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct.aspx} The OR DWD law had already been around for about ten years; so even if the law in WA had not passed, OR patients could’ve been available. Once the WA law passed in November, however, it was only a matter of waiting the 120 day period for it to go into effect. It is essentially certain that the FBI was aware of DWD laws both in OR and in WA, and so they would’ve known when the WA law would go into effect. What is the likelihood, then, that the FBI said nothing to MJ about this—either before or after MJ planned, by koinkidink, to have the London press conference on 3-5-09?<br /><br />Finally, WA is the state which not only went into effect on 3-5-09, but is also the state that had the two DWD patients which died in an “unknown” location in 2009; and yet no other “unknown” death locations before or since with WA patients, and zero “unknown” death locations with OR patients from 1998 to 2010 (3 in 2011). How many koinkidinks must line up, before we remember that koinkidink is the same excuse which people use to claim that there is no hoax at all?<br />
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 />Maybe MJ was notified of the rule of law that day. So perhaps showed an uncommon attitude and his message sounded like goodbye?<br />Not if the ad was already scheduled for that date or was another koinkidink. :icon_question:<br /><br />
Did TS mention Sharon Sydney in one of his posts? I seem to remember her name coming up at one time. From the followers, we know that things were different on the night before June 25th. Sharon was camped out front of the Carolwood mansion all night and she said there were a lot of cars there and something covert looked to be going on. Other follower fans have reported that MJ's security was increased and seemed to be calling the shots of when and where he could stop and chat with the followers in the day(s) before 'that' day. Sharon seems to have beat the ambulance to the hospital and she happened to see the body on the stretcher, and realized it was too short to be Michael. She had a conversation with Blount about it and he agreed with her then changed his story on the witness stand to her dismay. She states she was threatened with arrest by the security detail accompanying the stretcher. That is if we can believe her testimony. But what would she gain from going public with this? Besides ridicule, and most of us know what that feels like. <br />The reason I'm bringing this up is that we are looking at the events that transpired on the 25th June, when if we take Sharon's tale into account, clearly something was going down at Carolwood the night before. <br /><br />Anyone interested can read Sharon's story here<br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tanya-young-williams/michael-jackson-trial-dr-conrad-murray-week-2_b_1002886.html<br /><br />A body can also fit with MJ's metaphorical hoax journey we've been experiencing these last 3+ years. Patterned not only after Elvis' hoax death, but after many biblical types (thinking of Front and the Red Sea crossing also Jermaine in an interview saying Michael was like Moses and he was his mouthpiece as Aaron was...just to name a few examples] Just as Yeshua also had a real body that died and was buried, I think there was a real body, but that tomb at Forest Lawn is empty as well. <br /><br /><br /><br />
Still not weighing in completely on either side of the pros and cons of this scenario...but a few things have crossed my mind.<br /><br />1. If a terminally ill patient has met all of the requirements as set forth in the OR/WA directives...and has been prescribed the necessary medication by the appropriate Doctor...then it follows that he would also have the right to determine where and when he self administers. If that happened to be on 6/25 at Carolwood Drive then that's his right. Since this chain of events originated in a state that views the process as legal I think it would relieve the legal burden that the CA law implies on anyone in the proximity at the time. The process wasn't initiated in CA...it was initiated elsewhere where it was a perfectly legal choice. It could be viewed in the same light as anyone having a directive against life support or heroic measures. It's unethical and illegal for medical personnel to intervene to attempt to save a patient who has such a directive in place. This patient would have already been granted the permission and right to die at the place and time of his own choosing...that's the whole purpose of the OR/WA laws. <br /><br />2. In reading from the data in the links provided it makes a bit more plausible CM's lengthy absence from the bedside. There is data showing length of time from ingestion to unconsciousness and ingestion to death. It just struck me that on average it took roughly the same amount of time as Murray's "abandonment" of his patient. <br /><br />3. The people who would twist this against Michael as some monstrous or selfish act are the same people who's negative opinions of him we've beat ourselves to death trying to convince of his overall innocence and purity. There was much evidence and testimony that seems to support the possibility that "someone" in very ill health was being taken care of at Carolwood for some time and it's clearly always been his intention to care for those in need. Michael may have had an original plan using other means for 6/25 (for timing sake) but this mystery DWD patient may have given a more realistic option. I'm sure if he needed to get this person into the house in advance he could make it so...without risk. It seems anyone on staff takes/took their "orders" seriously (where they could be and where they couldn't...when to be there and when not to) so a simple directive from the top dog would make it happen. One hitch in this thought process though is that Murray was there in the evening/night...who was there during the day to care for this person? :icon_e_sad:<br /><br />4. Using the AR report to try and support or debunk this particular possibility is pointless. Bottom line is that we have all logically determined that the report is fake or we wouldn't all be here. We believe Michael to be alive and therefore the AR is a lie. Since it's a lie it was manipulated to say what needed to be said and it makes no difference in that regard if there was a person or a dummy...either is irrelevant.<br /><br />5. I've wondered as well if this possibility has any bearing on the KF/MLB story of the extensive stay that the mortuary. What was it...like 9 hours??? Sounds like an all day shoot to me :icon_e_confused: I'm thinking this is the point where the dummy was involved. I'm not certain WHY at this point because there wasn't really anyone left to be convinced...or was there?. I think I remember hearing conflicting statements whether or not there was any time that the casket was open for viewing in the private services the night before or that morning. It's obvious that nobody could "work" on someone so long deceased at that point but you could sure work on a replica for hours and hours to get it just right for viewing. The DWD patient could have been buried in July (as rumors/reports suggest) and the dummy got all the attention in September. Who would still need to be fooled at this point though? Maybe a review of the "guest list" for the private services would shed some light. It would have been far simpler to just have a closed casket but if all this work really happened...it must have been needed to suit a purpose.<br /><br />Enough thoughts for the moment...I have more but have to get a birthday dinner organized. Just thought I'd throw some "thought spaghetti" on the wall and see if any of it sticks...LOL.
Some of this brings to mind the little stories floating here and there over the years, one in particular, whereby Janet supposedly delayed the funeral for reimbursement of 40K. First off, if Michael Jackson died one would think he certainly carried more than enough life insurance to bury him where ever he was being buried, even on the moon. So if Janet was reimbursed any money for a deposit made, (as the story goes that the Estate repaid her partially) it most certainly would not have not been money she paid for “Michael’s” burial. I can see her accepting a repayment & causing a stink for not being expediently reimbursed for anyone else in lieu of Michael however.
<br />Some of this brings to mind the little stories floating here and there over the years, one in particular, whereby Janet supposedly delayed the funeral for reimbursement of 40K. First off, if Michael Jackson died one would think he certainly carried more than enough life insurance to bury him where ever he was being buried, even on the moon. So if Janet was reimbursed any money for a deposit made, (as the story goes that the Estate repaid her partially) it most certainly would not have not been money she paid for “Michael’s” burial. I can see her accepting a repayment & causing a stink for not being expediently reimbursed for anyone else in lieu of Michael however.<br />
<br /><br />I remember reading where the life insurance was actually never collected. If it was, it would make everything illegal. It becomes insurance fraud at that point. Does anyone else know if it was collected? I am not sure how to find out. There was that lawsuit with AEG about Michael not performing etc. But, I never paid that too much belief, because if AEG is part of this, that could all be misinformation or so. <br />Anyways.....there is so much information and so many stories we have dissected. Sometimes I think we should be wearing lab coats, not detective hats, lol.<br /><br />Have a beautiful day hoax family.....<br />Blessings Always
there certainly are many gaps between the 'what went to UCLA' and the 'DWD scenario'. These gaps need to be filled (maybe not all but some) which would automatically lead us to the question of what actually went to UCLA. The laws of California definitely seem to be vague in deciding the DWD theory..there must be something else...and my guess is that this clue must relate to Michael in some way...
If laws are all interpretive, why not just go ahead and collect all the insurance money? MJ could use it to fund the hoax. After all, it could be argued that it would have been paid out eventually (everyone dies sooner or later), and MJ/the estate just wouldn't be allowed to collect it twice (the second time being after his real death).<br /><br />Besides, the FBI is involved. They could make it legal to collect the insurance money. They can make everything legal with a snap of their fingers.
Comments