@bec...with all due respect, a court decision...especially a Supreme court decision, holds more weight when trying to support or disprove a theory, than do any of our 'opinions' on the law. And backhanded comments don't do much to advance any 'investigation', nor does 'emotion'.<br /><br />Funny enough, when I looked back at some older posts...you (bec) had some really strong points against the dummy theory while trying to support the live MJ theory. Those points are still valid against the dummy theory...yet DO support the hospice theory.<br /><br />I don't remember exactly what pages the posts were on that I'm thinking of...but I got as far as page 60 when I began rereading...so probably somewhere between page 50-60 of this thread.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
I think I remember hearing that the insurance policy was "cashed in"...that's not the same thing as paying out a death claim. Not sure if that was established or if it was another rumor though. A policy that builds a cash value can be cashed in at any time during the life of the insured once the value has been established. Whole life policies usually have a cash value component...term policies don't.
Sure, Supreme Court trumps everything... once a case has been brought before them and ruled on. And each state has it's own Supreme court. California Supreme Court has not yet had a case brought before them regarding DWD. Therefore, the statute stands in that state. Again, that's how the law works in the USA. California law is very clear on the subject of assisted suicide, it's not vague or murky in the least.<br /><br />
California Penal Code Section 401<br />Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages<br />another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.
<br />http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/401.html<br /><br />Keep in mind that the US Supreme Court does not have the power to force individual states to comply. State sovereignty rules in the US. For example, the US Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal in the US, yet each state has the right to decide whether or not abortion services are legal within their state. There are several states in the union which do not allow abortion. If a resident of one of those states wants to have an abortion, they must travel to a state where it is legal and have the procedure performed, even though the US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of legal abortion. Make sense?<br /><br />I still support Live MJ theory. But if it is more or less agreed upon that he couldn't be on the stretcher, then something else was, and dummy makes more sense with the info that we have then any other scenario, as illustrated by information collected and presented by several members.
<br />The live MJ theory still works, it hasn't been properly debunked in my opinion. The biggest hurdle I believe, was risk and determining whether or not MJ went to the hospital or to an aiport. I agree with bec that he probably wasn't on the stretcher, possible but not probable...but not totally ruled out.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The date is incorrect, mistakes happen, but no big deal, right? Or is it? Is it 8/25/09 - van video leak date, or 6/25/09 - the day MJ went to the hospital and posed for the photos? Because the autopsy took place the next day on 6/26/09... does trial evidence count for nothing because we are being led to believe a real body was used? Is every single agency who dealt with the body so inept that they can't fill out a single form related to the death properly? Or photo date in this instance?
<br /><br />La Toya also mentions seeing and handling the body 10 weeks after death in her book and said he looked amazing and just like he was sleeping.
MJ looking pretty alive in that pic. Good color in those cheeks. <br /><br />Agreed, Live MJ has not been ruled out.<br /><br />I thought the biggest hurdle to Live MJ was that the staff was dismissed before bringing the stretcher down. If it was Live MJ, they could have seen that because that's exactly what they would expect to see. A dummy with Live MJ in accompaniment in disguise, on the other hand, they might notice, considering they worked in close proximity with this man every day. A different dead person, again, they might notice.<br /><br />However, how would they notice anything that emergency personnel wouldn't notice either? All staff would see was a stretcher surrounded by 3 bodyguards, 4 paramedics, and 1 Murray being hurried down the stairs, out the door, and into the waiting ambulance. It's not as if they would be allowed to "say goodbye". I've been in situations where I have been at the scene where someone is being taken away on stretcher into an ambulance, and with all the paramedics around and med equipment, I haven't been able to get a good long look at what's on the stretcher, even when I KNOW what's on the stretcher.<br /><br />Regardless, staff being dismissed is alleged via rumor and supported by brief clip of a person walking out of Carrolwood gates on Hollywood TV video @the scene. So rumor suggests it and brief clip of a woman walking out of gates leads us to believe that what TS says is true, and therefore we accept that this is a giant hurdle that negates entire theories?<br /><br />Hmm.
<br />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.<br />
<br /><br />Perhaps MJ had a loan against the life insurance money...that is legal, many do that. Yes, of course, everyone dies and if there is life insurance, it will be paid out....eventually. Supposedly, Michael's life insurance was/is with Lloyd's of London (a UK company)....the FBI is a domestic bureau, with jurisdictions within the US borders. The CIA has international jurisdiction. If anyone were going to "snap their fingers" with Lloyd's, it would have to be the CIA. However, I really don't think the CIA is involved. So barring any pay-out from Lloyd's, the insurance policy is still in place. AEG tried to sue, but ended up dropping......we all remember that just back in September. What interests me is what insurance policy are we talking about? MJ had the one with Lloyd's.....the one mentioned here. It was put into place for TII and the concerts etc. What personal insurance did/does he have? Surely he had private life insurance. It's that policy which I am not too sure about....if there was one, was it paid out. I haven't heard. Lloyd's probably operates as a non-admitted policy and therefore subject to different laws anyways. Typically, in the US, if a policy goes uncollected it eventually goes to the state.....like a bank account with uncollected funds. But, with Lloyd's it is most likely different. I am wondering if there was another policy....does anyone know? Did/does Michael have personal life insurance? He could have made a loan against that to "fund" this hoax, we'd never know. I don't think those are public records. The initial funding would have been the first few months, probably till TII came out. All in all, I believe Michael to have been and still very much, financially fit. He probably didn't need to find funding in the first place. We have mentioned some big company names with potential involvement. The risk of being accused of insurance fraud would be the last thing he needed. Wouldn't it be ironic if the research we have done here, finding out exactly "what went to UCLA" actually caused any life insurance policy to be voided completely? Therefore negating the entire "death" publicly once and for all......ah, the stuff of dreams. <br />I guess only time will tell....there are so many avenues of thought to explore....I find myself going in all directions....sorry for the meandering post. <br /><br />Blessings Always
<br />MJ looking pretty alive in that pic. Good color in those cheeks. <br /><br />Agreed, Live MJ has not been ruled out.<br /><br />I thought the biggest hurdle to Live MJ was that the staff was dismissed before bringing the stretcher down. If it was Live MJ, they could have seen that because that's exactly what they would expect to see. A dummy with Live MJ in accompaniment in disguise, on the other hand, they might notice, considering they worked in close proximity with this man every day. A different dead person, again, they might notice.<br /><br />However, how would they notice anything that emergency personnel wouldn't notice either? All staff would see was a stretcher surrounded by 3 bodyguards, 4 paramedics, and 1 Murray being hurried down the stairs, out the door, and into the waiting ambulance. It's not as if they would be allowed to "say goodbye". I've been in situations where I have been at the scene where someone is being taken away on stretcher into an ambulance, and with all the paramedics around and med equipment, I haven't been able to get a good long look at what's on the stretcher, even when I KNOW what's on the stretcher.<br /><br />Regardless, staff being dismissed is alleged via rumor and supported by brief clip of a person walking out of Carrolwood gates on Hollywood TV video @the scene. So rumor suggests it and brief clip of a woman walking out of gates leads us to believe that what TS says is true, and therefore we accept that this is a giant hurdle that negates entire theories?<br /><br />Hmm.<br />
<br /><br /><br />Just a quick thought before I head out for a while.... the staff being dismissed from the house works for any of the theories. Assuming that not all household staff is in on it, the fewer witnesses the better, no matter what was on the stretcher. The more people who see the activity, the more statements needed, police interviews, etc. Best just to get them out of the way before it's go time.
<br />I found those links about Michael Jackson life insurance policy.<br /><br />http://www.godirect.co.uk/insurance-news/michael-jacksons-insurance-policy-settled.php<br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance policy was taken out in 2002.<br /><br />Life insurance is recommended for people with dependants as an ideal way of ensuring their financial futures are protected in the event of their death.<br /><br /><br />http://www.hollyscoop.com/michael-jackson/michael-jacksons-life-insurance-to-pay-out-3-million.html<br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance company has agreed to pay his estate $3 million dollars.<br /> <br />John Branca and John McClain, who are the temporary administrators of Jackson's will, are said to have cashed in the contract, winning $3 million for the Michael's estate.<br /> <br />Initial reports indicated Jackson's policy was worth up to $20 million, but according to TMZ, Branca and McClain were in a rush to finalize the deal, so they settled for just $3 million.<br /> <br />They were in a rush to settle because they were reportedly worried that the insurance company would refuse to pay anything if an autopsy report determined drugs were the cause of death.<br /> <br />And it sounds like they settled just in time. On Friday new toxicology reports surfaced and according to multiple law enforcement sources, Propofol wasn’t the only drug found in Michael Jackson’s system at the time of his death.<br /> <br />The report indicted that alprazolam, which is better known as Xanax, was also found. This drug is commonly used to treat patients with anxiety.<br /> <br />But it’s still believed that Propofol, according to a source, the "front and center in terms of why [Jackson] died."<br /> <br />In related news, if it is eventually concluded that drugs were in fact the cause of Michael’s death, it may mean bad news for AEG as drugs were not covered in the life insurance policy.<br /> <br />They took out a $17.5 million life insurance policy with Lloyd’s of London on Michael Jackson for his London comeback. His estate would only get a payout if his death was deemed "accidental." So it sounds like Branca and McClain settled his personal life insurance policy just in the nick of time! <br /><br /><br />http://www.metrolyrics.com/2009-michael-jacksonaposs-life-insurance-policy-paid-out-news.html<br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance policy paid out<br /> <br />Added July 13, 2009<br />Taken July 13, 2009<br />Copyright Splash News <br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance policy has already been paid out, court documents show.<br />Court filings state the administrators of the pop king's estate have received his life insurance proceeds. The filings were made on Friday in Los Angeles but are redacted and do not indicate how much the policy paid out. The filings state that Jackson's three children have received funds earmarked for them by way of a trust being handled by special administrators of the estate.<br />The filings concern funds for the children on top of a petition for a monthly stipend for them. Another filing indicates Katherine Jackson is also eligible for benefits from the life insurance policy. The estate's administrators are also seeking an allowance for Katherine, who was granted custody of the children by a Los Angeles court on Monday.<br /><br /><br />http://www.probatelawyerblog.com/2011/06/michael-jackson-estate-faces-175-million-insurance-fight.html<br /><br />http://backseatlawyer.blogspot.ro/2009/06/michael-jacksons-death-what-about-life.html<br />
CA law is complicated, not always interpreted the way people read because there is always opposite meaning backed up by different case. <br />It's just "awesome" to read how many "experts" are here of criminal, civil, insurance, etc. laws that build theories and make statements based on those laws yet they have no clue about.
<br /><br />I found those links about Michael Jackson life insurance policy.<br /><br />http://www.godirect.co.uk/insurance-news/michael-jacksons-insurance-policy-settled.php<br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance policy was taken out in 2002.<br /><br />Life insurance is recommended for people with dependants as an ideal way of ensuring their financial futures are protected in the event of their death.<br /><br /><br />http://www.hollyscoop.com/michael-jackson/michael-jacksons-life-insurance-to-pay-out-3-million.html<br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance company has agreed to pay his estate $3 million dollars.<br /> <br />John Branca and John McClain, who are the temporary administrators of Jackson's will, are said to have cashed in the contract, winning $3 million for the Michael's estate.<br /> <br />Initial reports indicated Jackson's policy was worth up to $20 million, but according to TMZ, Branca and McClain were in a rush to finalize the deal, so they settled for just $3 million.<br /> <br />They were in a rush to settle because they were reportedly worried that the insurance company would refuse to pay anything if an autopsy report determined drugs were the cause of death.<br /> <br />And it sounds like they settled just in time. On Friday new toxicology reports surfaced and according to multiple law enforcement sources, Propofol wasn’t the only drug found in Michael Jackson’s system at the time of his death.<br /> <br />The report indicted that alprazolam, which is better known as Xanax, was also found. This drug is commonly used to treat patients with anxiety.<br /> <br />But it’s still believed that Propofol, according to a source, the "front and center in terms of why [Jackson] died."<br /> <br />In related news, if it is eventually concluded that drugs were in fact the cause of Michael’s death, it may mean bad news for AEG as drugs were not covered in the life insurance policy.<br /> <br />They took out a $17.5 million life insurance policy with Lloyd’s of London on Michael Jackson for his London comeback. His estate would only get a payout if his death was deemed "accidental." So it sounds like Branca and McClain settled his personal life insurance policy just in the nick of time! <br /><br /><br />http://www.metrolyrics.com/2009-michael-jacksonaposs-life-insurance-policy-paid-out-news.html<br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance policy paid out<br /> <br />Added July 13, 2009<br />Taken July 13, 2009<br />Copyright Splash News <br /><br />Michael Jackson's life insurance policy has already been paid out, court documents show.<br />Court filings state the administrators of the pop king's estate have received his life insurance proceeds. The filings were made on Friday in Los Angeles but are redacted and do not indicate how much the policy paid out. The filings state that Jackson's three children have received funds earmarked for them by way of a trust being handled by special administrators of the estate.<br />The filings concern funds for the children on top of a petition for a monthly stipend for them. Another filing indicates Katherine Jackson is also eligible for benefits from the life insurance policy. The estate's administrators are also seeking an allowance for Katherine, who was granted custody of the children by a Los Angeles court on Monday.<br /><br /><br />http://www.probatelawyerblog.com/2011/06/michael-jackson-estate-faces-175-million-insurance-fight.html<br /><br />http://backseatlawyer.blogspot.ro/2009/06/michael-jacksons-death-what-about-life.html<br />
<br /><br />when people read pieces of info from here and there, it is confusing and not always correct. People need to understand what "life" insurance policy is being talked about.<br />Life insurance policy has not been paid by Lloyds rather is in a lawsuit agaist AEG and Michael's Estate for drug related condition, not signed by MJ, etc. reasons. This is a "key" person life insurance we are talking about that is different from "personal" type of life insurance. To distingush those two, the question is WHO IS THE BENEFICIARY on the policy.....
<br />http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/76713/#ixzz1K83jWxpH<br /><br />Positive: get closer to self-determined death keeping dignity in mind.<br />Negative: this could be a first step towards euthanasia.<br />Drug the depressed, then starve / dehydrate them to death. Take involuntary detention and involuntary treatment in a neuro-psychiatric clinic first and connect the dots.<br />
<br /><br />I remember this news report about dr. Jack Kevorkian on dr. Conrad Murray :<br /><br />
Dr. Kevorkian: Michael Jackson "Got What He Wanted" <br /><br />First Posted: 10/19/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:00 PM ET <br /><br /><br />Dr. Jack Kevorkian defended Michael Jackson's doctor Conrad Murray, who is the sole target of the investigation into the late pop star's death by injection.<br /><br />On Wednesday the now-paroled Kevorkian, 81, told Neil Cavuto, "I don't think he was malicious. Murder is defined as malice aforethought... Did the doctor have forethought? I doubt it."<br /><br />Murray says he injected Jackson with heavy sedatives including the anesthetic propofol at the singer's request.<br /><br />"Maybe Jackson craved these things so much he pestered the doctor until he got it." Kevorkian added, "The patient got what he wanted. He is the one who said yes or no to take a drug." <br /><br />As for his own life, Kevorkian says he has "no regrets." The Jackson part begins at the 9:30-remaining mark in the second video below, which is his entire interview over two segments.<br />
<br />Ethicist: Mass. should legalize physician-assisted suicide<br /><br /><br />By Art Caplan, Ph.D.<br /><br />Of the numerous ballot initiatives that will be decided at the state level on Tuesday, none is more hotly contested than the Massachusetts bill to decide whether to legalize physician-assisted suicide. The citizens of Massachusetts, my home state, should vote to legalize.<br /><br />The proposed measure allows terminally ill patients to be given access to lethal drugs. A terminally ill patient is defined as someone with six months or less to live. The patient’s terminal diagnosis and mental competency must be attested to by two doctors. Patients would have to make a request to their doctor twice orally and once in writing. The written request would have to be witnessed. <br /> <br />Yet even with such restrictive conditions, opponents of the proposal say doctors should never, as a matter of professional ethics, intentionally hasten the death of one of their patients, even one who is terminally ill. The codes of medicine and nursing ethics reject helping patients die.<br /><br />Many professional organizations, including the American Medical Association, agree. The AMA "strongly opposes any bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide" because the practice is "fundamentally inconsistent with the physician's role as healer." The Massachusetts Medical Society also opposes the bill. “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good,” Dr. Lynda M. Young, the society’s past president told Massachusetts legislators earlier this year. “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer."<br /><br />Some disability groups and religious organizations are fighting hard to get a "no" on the “Question 2,” initiative as well. They believe that the terminally ill who are disabled deserve better palliative care and emotional support rather than a prescription of deadly medicine. They also worry that people may feel compelled or coerced into choosing death because their care is expensive, they see themselves as a burden to others or because relatives are thinking that they do not want to spend the grandchildren's college tuition to keep grandpop going in a nursing home or ICU. Given the current push to contain medical costs, the biggest fear is that the vulnerable will get the bum’s rush to the hereafter.<br /><br />These objections are concerning, but not convincing. Two states have already enacted legislation very similar to that proposed in Massachusetts. The disturbing scenarios against legalizing physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill are not supported by what has happened in Oregon and Washington.<br /><br />Although there are requests from the dying for lethal pills, few ask and almost no one takes them. In Washington in 2010, 68 physicians wrote lethal prescriptions for 87 patients, 51 of whom took the pills and died. The rest never took the pills. That is an incredibly tiny number relative to all those who are terminally ill in Washington. The Oregon experience is the same.<br /><br />The critics are worrying about a shift to mass suicide inspired by heartless doctors and families pressuring dying patients to end it. That has simply not happened in Oregon or Washington. There is no persuasive evidence that the dying are being rushed, duped or bullied to die by anyone. <br /> <br /><br />The interesting thing is that many people find it more empowering to have the ability to end their lives if they want to do so. Many say the ability to choose gives them the strength not to do so. <br /><br />The question about a doctor’s involvement can be overcome by giving each physician the right of conscience to be involved or not. Some doctors will want nothing to do with assisted suicide. Others will. Given the polarizing nature of physician-assisted suicide, the decision ought to be each physician’s to make. Medicine does not have to be all in or all out.<br /><br />The proposed Massachusetts law is very restricted and contains important safeguards. Experience in other states shows little reason for worry about abuse or misuse. Instead the more people who are going to die know they can end their lives sooner if they choose, the more many of them fight harder to live. Making assisted suicide possible in Massachusetts rightly puts a choice in the hands of a very few who may not use it, but value having it<br />
About it being a rumour that the house staff were told to leave that day of June 25th....I thought it was Kai Chase who testified at the trial that they were told to leave? However I will have to go back and rewatch her testimony to check.<br /><br />
<br />About it being a rumour that the house staff were told to leave that day of June 25th....I thought it was Kai Chase who testified at the trial that they were told to leave? However I will have to go back and rewatch her testimony to check.<br />
<br /><br />Ok - I found the part of the testimony of Kai Chase and it is NOT a rumour that the house staff and her were asked to leave. <br /><br />Security asked her and the house keepers to leave. Here is the part where she is talking about it from around 12:47 to about 13:13 in the video:<br /><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 /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I don't know what to think, but I drew the attention this part of the autopsy report, the thymus gland and the sick with AIDS<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. [size=14pt]However in HIV AIDS patients the thymus will be damaged to the point that it cannot be identified in the body.[/size] 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?]
from TS post, I read all the posts up here, all laws and reports provided by law DWD and note that many members doubt the use of a real body.<br />IMO using a dummy could not be sustainable. TS we said, you use a real body, this fits the verdict of "alleged victim" as they "assumed" that the person is MJ.<br />The UCLA has on staff Dr. Lance Becker specialist in emergency medicine, A world-renowned surgeon at the UCLA Medical Center has pioneered a way to revive people That Would Have MOST doctors long written off, Including a woman Whose heart had stopped for 2 1/2 hours.<br />If UCLA has this professional because MJ did not address?<br />in an interview asked Dr: Michael Jackson could have been saved?<br />to which the doctor responds: It is impossible to know. Doctors at the hospital worked on him for an hour. The UCLA expert, cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Gerald Buckberg, said he was not personally involved in the treatment of Jackson, and little is known about what preceded it.<br />"We have no idea when he died versus when he was found," Buckberg said in a telephone interview.<br />or just was not in the plan to save it.
<br />CA law is complicated, not always interpreted the way people read because there is always opposite meaning backed up by different case. <br />It's just "awesome" to read how many "experts" are here of criminal, civil, insurance, etc. laws that build theories and make statements based on those laws yet they have no clue about.<br />
<br /><br />Yes, you are right, of course, when it really comes down to it. We ought to just give up n throw in the towel on this because none of us are qualified to accurately speculate on the information we have at hand. But we have been asked to do this, so we try our best.<br /><br />If TS gave specifics and facts perhaps we could take his word for it a little better. All he offers us is speculation and conjecture that seems contradictory to the available information. It doesn't seem right... but what do we know? We are just lay people who happen to (still) give a shit.<br /><br />All I know for sure is if TS is guessing, we can kiss closure happening on this anytime soon goodbye.
Okay - after putting aside my personal beliefs on DWD I still cannot find this as a plausible scenerio. And as skeptical as I've been with TS maybe he's just putting that out there in order to get conversation flowing again. Going back to UCLA...<br /><br />I cannot get out of my mind that UCLA is a multifaceted Organization. On their website ucla.edu their tab selection is as follows:<br />
ABOUT<br /> ACADEMICS<br /> ADMISSIONS<br /> UCLA IN THE COMMUNITY<br /> THE ARTS<br /> CAMPUS LIFE<br /> HEALTH SYSTEM<br /> RESEARCH<br /> ATHLETICS<br />
Jackson's mother, Katherine, told Roberts that her son took film-making classes with Prince. "We had a teacher from UCLA come to our house and we would do film classes there," Prince said. And when we were in Ireland, we would film a couple of movies with him, too."
<br /><br />Further back is Peter Guber. Mr Guber wrote the book Tell to Win". It was released March 1, 2011.<br /><br />The following is an excerpt from the book, ‘Tell to Win’ by Peter Guber: <br /><br />
Once you’ve got your hero, what gets the emotion moving? What holds us spellbound, begging for more? Michael Jackson taught me in no uncertain terms, the answer is drama.
Michael Jackson story<br /><br />in the 90s he was phenomenally successful, and he wanted to produce a movie. Everybody knew he was a great musician, but he wanted to produce a movie. But the question they asked Michael Jackson was: Well, we know you are the best in the world when it comes to music, but what do you know about drama? Michael Jackson replied: “Well, come over to my house.”<br /><br />Guber went to his house. And MJ showed him large snake in a terrarium. And there was a little white mouse trembling in the corner. And MJ said: “The snake only eats alive food. You can’t feed it dead food.” And Guber asked: “Well, why doesn’t it strike?” and MJ replied: “Well, it likes the game, it likes the process, it likes the drama.”
<br /><br />That whole article on the snake was fascinating even though I've read it before. What caught my attention this time was that the meeting between Jackson and Guber was in 1991 which is around the time some of us believe MJ started his hoax project. Mr Guber first worked at Columbia pictures and successfully released several films. He also worked at Casablanca Record and Filmworks. In addition to film he also produced several television shows. He became Chairman of the Board and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment until he was asked to resign in 1994 after what seemed like a successful and profitable stint with Sony. It was during this time that he went to MJ's house and had the conversation about Michael wanting to produce films. Mr Guber is also a long time teacher at UCLA:<br /><br />
“It’s like a Seurat painting. Lots of dots,” said Mr. Guber, who talked of his wildly eclectic life in the sports and movie industries, as well as a decades-long commitment to teaching at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the dawning realization that something more than nervous energy held it all together.<br /><br />“But the logic of it is clear to me now,” he said. That logic has to do with story, and how we are wired to organize our lives around it.
<br /><br />
Like a Hollywood movie, he figured out, the stories that drive professional life — the narrative that is part of pitches, résumés, introductions and every conversation about business goals and achievements — work best when they are grounded in emotion. By and large, they require a hero. Dramatic tension and even a few props help.<br /><br />One of the most effective pitches he ever fielded, he reports, came from Michael Jackson, who sought to prove he had the chops for movie-making with an exercise that involved feeding a live mouse to a snake.
<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/business/27steal.html?_r=0<br /><br />By the way, several of the movies he's produced we have felt some connection to Michael.<br /><br />Okay - so in that article about the snake Guber says he asked Dan Siegel at UCLA to help him understand from a neuroscientist perspective:<br /><br />
Back at UCLA, I asked Dan Siegel to help me understand from his perspective as a neuroscientist why people are so enthralled by drama. Siegel pointed out that emotions don’t occur spontaneously. Nor, as any actor knows, can they be summoned at will. Emotions have to be aroused. “And arousal gets heightened,” Siegel said, “when you realize, I don’t know if the mountain lion’s still there; I don’t know if the spaceship is going to get back; I’m not sure he’s going to win the race. You have to have tension between expectation and uncertainty. Emotional tension drives you to think it might go this way, but it might go that way, and that makes you wonder, what will happen next?”
<br /><br />Dr Dan Siegel is a hero in his own right and has authored some books on developing the mind. He also has online courses and a section on children:<br /><br />https://www.mindsightinstitute.com/search&field_tags_tid=12<br /><br />http://www.drdansiegel.com/<br /><br />I will just say about this that we all know Michael is a well read and extremely intelligent man. It's not hard for me to imagine that he's crossed paths with this Dr Dan Siegel if only to read his books.<br /><br />Lastly, Dr Richelle Cooper does not have a picture posted on the UCLA Medical website. Why is that? How do we know for sure that she is the real Dr Cooper? Perhaps who we saw on the stand was a fill in. Just thinking out loud.<br /><br />So, in my mind it's highly possible that living in Hollywood some of these participants are also actors on the side. And, it's highly possible that just like movies are made about people and actors are used in their place the same thing happened here. Of course confidentiality contracts would have had to be signed but the UCLA connection goes back a long way and it's possible that the person on the gurney is just a dummy. UCLA knew in advance that this "production" would be taking place which is why they set off the fire alarm to clear the area. They didn't sign any death certificate, didn't stand to confirm MJ's d**th in the interview with Jermaine, and they posted the following - which is not a statement where they confirm MJ's d**th.<br /><br />
Statement on the death of Michael Jackson at UCLA Medical Center<br />By UCLA Newsroom June 25, 2009<br />The family of Michael Jackson made this brief statement available on June 25 at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center:<br /><br />The legendary King of Pop, Michael Jackson, passed away on Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 2:26 p.m. It is believed he suffered cardiac arrest in his home. However, the cause of his death is unknown until results of the autopsy are known.<br /> <br />His personal physician, who was with him at the time, attempted to resuscitate Jackson, as did paramedics who transported him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. Upon arriving at the hospital at approximately 1:14 p.m., a team of doctors, including emergency physicians and cardiologists, attempted to resuscitate him for a period of more than one hour but were unsuccessful.<br /> <br />Jackson’s family requests that the media respect their privacy during this tragic period of time.<br /> <br />Video: Jermaine Jackson reading statement and Michael Jackson's personal physician.<br /> <br />For more news, visit the UCLA Newsroom.
<br /><br />Well, that's all my brain has and it makes more sense to me than the DWD theory. Oh, and we already know that Harvey Levin has had acting parts in films playing a journalist and the coroner has also been linked to acting.<br /><br />Blessings
@voice: nice post!<br /><br />Great point about UCLA being more then a hospital. I never connected all those other UCLA programs with the hoax location of UCLA ER. My brain has been programmed to associate UCLA with hospital exclusively. You really thought outside the box!<br /><br />Great story about the snake! That's certainly an interesting way of looking at the world, to say the least.<br /><br />
You have to have tension between expectation and uncertainty. Emotional tension drives you to think it might go this way, but it might go that way, and that makes you wonder, what will happen next?”
<br /><br />Great great great line! We're there, are we not?<br /><br />You also have an excellent point about Dr. Richelle Cooper's appearance. When she took the witness stand in Murray's trial it was the first time we got to see what she looks like. Which could be very convenient.<br /><br />
UCLA knew in advance that this "production" would be taking place which is why they set off the fire alarm to clear the area. They didn't sign any death certificate, didn't stand to confirm MJ's d**th in the interview with Jermaine, and they posted the following - which is not a statement where they confirm MJ's d**th.
<br /><br />Another great point you made. Jermaine made the statement likely because no doctor wanted to "lie" to the world, or maybe MJ didn't want them to. Maybe he wanted Jermaine to do it because it was more emotional that way. Either way, you made me recall the answer the coroner gave Souza re: no doctor signing the DC, no real doctor would risk their reputation/career over signing a fake document. <br /><br />
And as skeptical as I've been with TS maybe he's just putting that out there in order to get conversation flowing again.
<br /><br />Or push us to do a better job. You're right.
Thanks Bec - means a lot coming from a brilliant thinker like yourself.<br /><br />I have some other connections with UCLA, Michael, and Peter Guber that I'll post tomorrow after work. Right now I must be off to bed.<br /><br />By the way, what hospital did the children donate MJ's art to? And, I remember in the very beginning stumbling upon a myspace account where one of MJ's musicians was friends with the coroner. I found that to be odd. After a while the link was removed.<br /><br />You're right - great answer the coroner gave Souza. He may not have performed any autopsy at all. All we have is a fake photo and fake AR and that doesn't mean a real body was needed for it.<br /><br />Going back real quick to the movie theory. The helicopter on the roof could easily be part of production (explains the open door while in flight) since UCLA is not only a medical facility.<br /><br />After reading about the mouse and snake story as well as Mr Guber consulting with a physician on staff at UCLA pertaining to film and acting I think I will sleep better. Hugs.
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 />Interesting wording, TS.<br /><br />So then, in your theory, what is the motive for using a real dead person? If in the event both dying men backed out, a dummy could be used no problem, then why not just use a dummy in the first place?<br /><br />
on 1353700985:
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 />For that exact reason, and because it's hilarious, and because in 3 years of hoax, everything points to the bad era, why not the dummy too? They used a late 1980's dummy for the ambulance pic so why not use the same one? It already exists and is already on scene. Why bother with 2 dummies? No one is going to really see it anyway, maybe just a passing glimpse. Besides that, we've already seen one late 80's dummy, unless one wants to assume there were two, it's best not to deviate too far from what we are able to witness directly. It's irrelevant anyway whether the dummy was of late 80's MJ or present day MJ.<br /><br />
on 1353700985:
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 />They're not lying. They're acting. I don't follow why it is dumb to hand out false leads. This is a game. Part of the game play is to determine lies from BS. We have been tested many times, by yourself as well, so I don't understand why you would use this line of logic to attempt to debunk a theory.<br /><br />But speaking of motive... the one for using a dead body :icon_question:<br /><br /><br />Ps. @voice; everything about me is far from brilliant but I appreciate the thought behind your compliment. Thanks.
<br /><br />The dead body theory was never thoroughly debunked, I think TS is helping with that in a roundabout way. Do we think for ourselves or what TS tells us to think, no matter how many holes it pokes in the story?
Enriched edutainment & time warp at its finest.<br /><br />
You have to have tension between expectation and uncertainty. Emotional tension drives you to think it might go this way, but it might go that way, and that makes you wonder, what will happen next?”
<br /><br />Looking backwards, we try to determine which way the whole story went, trying to fill the gaps with potentially fitting pieces.<br />Just in addition, we have to find out what the overall title of the story is. LOL<br /><br />Could be looking like this:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />or like this<br /><br /><br />or like this<br /><br /><br />This time the master is enjoying the show.<br />So do I. It wouldn't be as much fun as it is if we wouldn't have many paths through the forest to choose from.<br />Who knows whether we already got pretty close and are chased away from the bounty box for some (our) purposes.
<br /><br /><br />.................... Do we think for ourselves or what TS tells us to think...........<br />
<br /><br />I_deed..........so we should ignore the BAM by 1/1/2013......or perhaps we could just be selective in the "bits" we like to hear or that TS tells us to think.
Comments