<br />.................... Do we think for ourselves or what TS tells us to think...........<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?<br />
<br />Ah, there's the rub, when do we believe him and when not...?<br /><br />Voice, interesting bunny trail, and …strange thing MJ said to Peter Guber.<br />Also, is Muscles/Michael going after his prey who is/are shaking in their boots; is he too enjoying the game? I mean just look at him. :affraid:<br /><br /><br /><br />I have long thought MJ is behind this hoax as a story-teller, knowing how to keep us craving to know more. That is also TS, hmm... :Michael_Jackson_dancing_smile<br /><br />Bec, yes that part of what TS said seems to be very open for his slippery excuses later. But he wants us to know that 2 DWD patients were totally ready and available to be part of the hoax death for MJ, even if they ultimately were not used in the end. So there again story-teller is making sure we know the story could surely go in either direction, which heightens our desire to know what will happen. But what would have been the clincher for the FBI to make the decision--only if both DWD's backed out? MJ was known to have helped heal many people even incurable cancer; could he not have brought healing to the intended replacement, and the man started feeling stronger. Aww shucks, both patients got better and didn't want to take their meds, so the FBI went with plan B-- dummy! Well, you never know! Wouldn't that be a twist to the story!
<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.<br />
<br /><br />So which bit do we believe, the bit about MJ BAMMING by 1/1/2013 or do we believe the fact that he won't. Or, do we not believe TS when he says if MJ doesn't BAM by 1/1/2013 then he is a fake informer....AHAHAHA...but nar, looking forward to the next few weeks, I believe in a BAM, but I don't expect it to be the BAM we are all hoping for.
MY THEORY<br /><br />Ok new take. I’m going to go back to the day of June 25th 2009, just that day without taking into account the days before June 25th or the days after, besides testimony. I have let go of all perceptions as to not make way for assumptions. For example, like how it was said MJ used a dummy for his ambo prank, where a dummy would ride in the back of an ambulance. Usually I’d assume that a dummy was used as if MJ was giving us a clue or something but I’m not going to base my theory on things such as that. In saying that though, I don’t discount a dummy either, maybe MJ did all these things, like using a dummy to set up clues or he is experimenting with different possibilities to make the hoax airtight, so he could see what would work and what wouldn’t. I mean it’s better to play out the possibilities then to just theorise. <br /><br />Anyway so in my NO MJ approach I believe the Illusion took effect on June 25th 2009 (meaning Live MJ left that day and whatever was on the stretcher was taken in the ambo). To me it would seem easier for MJ to leave on June 25th then to go before or after, because as we know MJ would probably eventually have to leave Carolwood as his children moved out and he couldn’t really leave before because I don’t think MJ would trust a double to stay at the house, let alone trust that no one would know the double wasn’t MJ. <br /><br />But also another possibility is the tunnel. I remember a discussion a long time ago about a tunnel going from Carolwood to Elvis’ L.A home, is that true? I mean it is possible, MJ had secret compartments inside Neverland. This also begs the question why did he decide to stay at Carolwood. I don’t know why he chose Carolwood, was it because Elvis’ house was across from it and he wanted to make a correlation between the two of them (in terms of the death hoax)? Or because there was a secret tunnel that he could use to get out without having to actually walk out of the house.<br /><br />CORPSE THEORY<br /><br />Now in my theory I think a corpse would be the way to go, it has less risk whether the medics were in on it or not. The only two problems I could think of from that is. <br /><br />-Rigamortis and <br />-Paramedics or others not recognizing MJ. <br /><br />A corpse theory is basically the same scenario as MJ ACTUALLY DYING. Also I think I remember the medics saying that MJ was DOA, even though Murray said he felt a faint pulse. So MJ did kind of die (or someone died), instead it was a patient that maybe died from similar circumstances, that were brought out in the trial.<br /><br />Now if you can somehow combat Rigamortis and the corpse appearance to look like MJ (maybe through Prosthetics), then medics, UCLA staff and Coroner wouldn’t need to be in on it, maybe just the Coroner at the most.<br /><br />Now that I think of it maybe Murray was not late in calling 911, maybe he had to time it right so it would appear that the time of death was accurate (Rigamortis of the corpse). I mean Ambulance 71 station is close to MJ’s Carolwood house and not too far from UCLA so MJ would need a house that would be quick in getting to Carolwood and quick in getting to UCLA so the corpse would still be somewhat ‘fresh’.<br /><br />But what I don’t get is, how did they get the corpse in without anyone knowing, before June 25th or on the day? Maybe paramedics are in on it and brought it to Carolwood. They left the corpse in the ambo, went up to get MJ, then they took MJ him down on the stretcher (as the corpse), then he could get away to his destination or disguise himself as one of the medics, then the paramedics could take the corpse on the stretcher to UCLA. Or maybe Live MJ went to UCLA, but they did a switch of a real corpse to go to the Coroner and helicopter.<br /><br />Ok let’s look at the corpse theory a little bit more in terms of potential risks such as Rigamortis and appearance. Can you somehow delay or manipulate the time of death? In relation to the appearance, MJ staff and fans would be able to tell if the person in the stretcher was MJ or not. But again who knows what MJ looked like, I mean in the media MJ is renowned for changing his face all the time, from black to white, his nose etc. as they say…so why would it be a surprise if he was skinny, pale or looked different (without the supposed wig, makeup and tattooed eyebrows the media has claimed MJ had). Even in the life of another celebrity, one day you seem them all glammed up with makeup then the next without any makeup they are barely recognizable. Even with the Marilyn Monroe autopsy photo, you couldn’t even recognize her, it didn’t look like her, even though this was obviously maybe a few days to weeks after she died. <br /><br />Why I wouldn’t use a dummy<br /><br />If this was my hoax and I used a dummy on the way to the hospital, I’d be very very worried; you don’t know what could happen on the way. If MJ had contingency plans then why would he use a dummy? What if something happened, like some car crashing into the ambo, it would be GAME OVER.<br />But with a dummy you don’t need to worry about the risk when using a corpse. As you can make a dummy appear however you want it to and Rigamortis will obviously not be a downside to using a dummy. But this will allow more hoax players, which is fine, it TAKES OUT MOST OF THE RISK WHICH WOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT TO MINIMIZE THEN MINIMIZING THE HOAX PLAYERS. But if MJ wants a contingency plan at EVERY HAZARD a dummy wouldn’t make that possible. He only gets ONE day, ONE chance, ONE opportunity and NO ROOM for error.<br /><br />WHAT I DO BELIEVE<br /><br />Using more than one ‘MJ’ (Dummy, corpse or MJ) would be extremely risky if used on the same day, one could only be used at a time especially going in the ambo, like how would you get rid of the other bodies if you continuingly swapping? But having said that, I do believe a dummy was used ‘the other da…’ and Live MJ and corpse was used on June 25th 2009.<br /><br />But who has to be in on the hoax if a dummy or corpse was used? Anyone who saw or came into contact with ‘MJ’?<br /><br />LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT SCENES<br /><br />If we look at the different scenes;<br /><br />House - Using anyone (Dummy, Live MJ, Corpse etc would be fine, even though it would require 0-ALL paramedics to be in on it).<br />Ambo trip to UCLA - No body would definitely not work<br />Coroner and helicopter ride – No body and Live MJ would not work<br /><br />STING COURT<br /><br />Why does it need to be a sting? I mean the only thing that seems like the sting could be about, is the pharmaceuticals/drugs sector. I know that these issues are a big deal, but why is it MJ’s ‘Vendetta’? Did MJ make a deal with the FBI? Like a trade of something, e.g. FBI wanted to use MJ for a big sting that only MJ could make happen since he is this big famous celebrity and in turn he gets resources and legal coverage from the FBI for his hoax.<br /><br />Anyway when a sting happens isn’t it usually something that involves getting the perpetrator/offender in the process of the incident? I mean this trial started and finished without any sting, without the arrest of a perpetrator/offender. <br /><br />I mean why did MJ fake his death? It couldn’t have been for a sting or for reasons other than he was in danger. The sting seems to me like a roadblock for MJ in order to get what he wanted and in order to carry out this hoax. I mean anyone is allowed to fake their death (I don’t mean disappear) but MJ made it look like he died, the only reason he could ‘die’ is if he was in danger, I mean why the sting? He could easily go to the FBI and say he’s in danger, fake his death, do Thriller II in the middle and then make a comeback without having a sting. MJ faked his death for multiple reasons, TPTB being I guess one of the most important, so I don’t see how a sting is appropriate/fitting/warranted?<br /><br />What is the target, I can’t seem to even slightly put my finger on it, maybe the target has nothing to do with the sting court maybe this sting is a fake sting, like a diversion? Is it a sting hoax? I mean if anything you’d think MJ would carry out a sting on corruption, something to expose TPTB (in relation to when he was put on trial, including the police brutality he experienced). I also do agree that clearing his name is one of the focal points of the hoax, of course TPTB, EOW, NOW is the most important, globally, but clearing his name is personal for MJ and the most important in his mind.<br /><br />Maybe the hoax court/sting is intertwined together on the same people media and fans, but I mean a sting is used in criminal activity so it seems unlikely, not so much for the media though, but targeting the media or fans in a sting wouldn’t work, you would need to target certain individuals. Or maybe this is somewhat a sting where no one will get charged criminally but it is more of a eye opener?<br /><br />THE PARAMEDICS<br /><br />If they waited 40 min before they left Carolwood that would mean the EMT’s would have to be in on it. Their job is to provide medical assistance and get to the hospital as fast as they can, waiting 40 minites doesn’t seem right.<br /><br />Ok so Sean Mills roster got swapped on June 25th 2009 only? I mean If Blount had to be on that shift (because he is in on it) then wouldn’t Sean Mills need to be in on it too, what was the excuse of taking him off the shift, which just so happens to be the day MJ died?<br /><br />Why did 2 other paramedics arrive in the room before Blount? So if he is on it, they would be too. The only purpose I would see for Blount to be in on it would be to kind of guide the scenario/script for the house/ambo bit. But I still don’t clearly see the reason for Blount to be in it at all. <br /><br />I also don’t understand how Senneff went back into the room to get the equipment and Murray was still up there (http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,18688.msg323739.html#msg323739) I mean think about it, Senneff has to go get the equipment which he could of done when they took MJ down, or the other personnel could of done it, but then he goes up, sees Murray picking things up. <br /><br />Was it the plan for Murray to go to the hospital? Because paramedics could have left him there, he was still in the room packing things up, why would they wait for him when there is a patient to attend to. And why didn’t Murray just go downstairs with the stretcher, why was he still up there, he could of packed things up before the paramedics came or when the paramedics were there (which wouldn’t of mattered because the storyline had to be that Murray would take the fall, plus Blount already said Murray was acting strange and erratic). If all this happened or not either way the medics would still need to be in on it.<br /><br />Also I find it strange when Blount was talking about the tongue compressor he didn’t spell the word when asked and the he kept stumbling on his words, like all the technical things, unlike Senneff who seemed relaxed and professional, I don’t know if this is just nerves but it just seems to me that he isn’t a paramedic.<br /><br />TS was saying that making it happen in real time would help with recall, nice flow without sounding scripted, but maybe this real time was to help someone like Blount with a 101 course on the basic routine of what a paramedic does when they have to save a life.<br /><br />Why the need for 5 paramedics in the room? It seems a little bit risky to have them all there without one of them being in on it, I mean having 5 medics at a workplace seems normal but having 5 paramedics at a house does sound a bit excessive.<br /><br />Senneff said he only recognised the patient later but surely he would have known when he was pressing Murray for answers on the patient.<br /><br />The dummy theory would need all paramedics in the room to be in on it, and if that was the case, having 5 medics is a little unnecessary, I’d say have 2-3 in on it at the most (in the hoax and only ones in that room). Why are there so many people in each shift, is it usually two people who answer a call and go to a residence?<br /><br />I think the reasons for Blount recognizing MJ and Senneff not recognizing MJ was because, like TS said, Blount assumed it was him because of the house, it’s automatically implied. Also Senneff probably didn’t recognize him because that is not how he thought MJ looked like. <br /><br />I don’t think it’s a really big deal in the hoax about the fake ambo pic, people fake things all the time, the paramedics probably said nothing because it was not their place to say, they are just doing their job, they probably don’t get into that sort of ‘politics’. I mean the photo won’t raise suspicion if it was proved fake (like it already has) it’s just something that happens unfortunately. Also Blount was in the back of the ambo on the way back right? But we don’t see him in the photo. And who drove the ambo?<br /><br />Just to clarify Jeff Mills who is the Cap. was in the room I think remember Senneff testified that he was there to provide assistance where need be, so I assume he was up there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zrccoOTZt7Y) Starting at 5:05, Also Seneff mentioned all the names of the paramedics and what they did like Blount, the Captain and Heron, but he doesn’t mention Goodwin, all he says is the paramedics is hooking up the EKG, he didn’t mention Goodwin’s name.<br /><br />Maybe the reason why all the paramedics were not on the stand was because perhaps the DA office interviewed all paramedics but only needed the two because the other paramedics had pretty much the same story as Blount or Senneff, or what they said wasn’t as important or even the fact that they cannot be shown since they are FBI agents or one of them was MJ.<br /><br />Maybe that’s why staff had to leave, MJ was in that room getting ready, to come down into the ambo, if the staff saw this extra man then they would be suspicious (because we don’t know for certain how many paramedics CAME to the house, all we know is who was AT the house).<br /><br />Ok so just say Blount is definitely not FBI, now he happened to change shifts to that day, as could anyone of the other paramedics, which would mean if the paramedics or at least some were in on the hoax then we wouldn’t have a SHIFT CHANGE, MJ would make sure ALL paramedics where ready and available for June 25th 2009, but since Blount just happened to change shifts, is it ok to assume none of the paramedics are in on it?<br /><br />Ok my post is all over the place, because these ins and outs of the hoax are so complicated I don’t know whether I’m coming or going...LOL<br /><br />@TS will we know by November 29th, what happened on June 25th 2009, or at least the basics or will we know all of that and more after the BAM?<br />
<br />.................... Do we think for ourselves or what TS tells us to think...........<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?<br />
<br />Ah, there's the rub, when do we believe him and when not...?<br />
<br /><br />That is the million, kazillion, gazillion dollar question MJonline, especially since many (including myself) have asked for the silver platter recently, and this thread has been ongoing for over a year now, and we believed TS last year when he said it would be finished no later than November 29th even if he had to finish it himself (ahhhh....but I didn't say what year).... :icon_cool: I mean TS could have just as easily supported a dummy theory and the whole "game" would be completely different.<br />...<br />UYI...awesome post....have to re-read tomorrow - it's late here......I gather your uni exams have finished now as that must have taken you a while to compose? :icon_e_wink: :icon_albino: :icon_e_biggrin:
<br />.................... Do we think for ourselves or what TS tells us to think...........<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?<br />
<br />Ah, there's the rub, when do we believe him and when not...?<br />
<br /><br />That is the million, kazillion, gazillion dollar question MJonline, especially since many (including myself) have asked for the silver platter recently, and this thread has been ongoing for over a year now, and we believed TS last year when he said it would be finished no later than November 29th even if he had to finish it himself (ahhhh....but I didn't say what year).... :icon_cool: I mean TS could have just as easily supported a dummy theory and the whole "game" would be completely different.<br />...<br />UYI...awesome post....have to re-read tomorrow - it's late here......I gather your uni exams have finished now as that must have taken you a while to compose? :icon_e_wink: :icon_albino: :icon_e_biggrin:<br />
<br /><br />Thanks Adi :icon_razz:, yeah finished a week and a half ago, I'm so happy, finally get to celebrate, I've FINISHED my course :multiplespotting: feels so surreal. I'll probably celebrate after I get my results to make it more official, BAM would be a pretty good celebratory intro though :icon_e_wink:
I'm wondering if someone other than the TS we're used to actually wrote that DWD post. The more I read it the more it seems that he let his guard down or wrote it quickly, allowing in assumptions and un-thought-through arguments (these have been brought up already so I won't go into them all again), or it's someone else's style. I don't know, something just doesn't feel right.<br /><br /><br />
I am still confused about which policy paid out the - one from 2002 or the Lloyd’s policy? If Michael had a policy from 2002 no matter how he died it would pay face value. There is usually a 2 year rider on suicide, drug overdose, etc. So if the 2002 policy is what we’re talking about, Branca would have no need to accept a lesser figure than the policy was written up for no matter what the autopsy showed. If it was Lloyd’s policy, I don’t see them paying out at all since it was supposed to be a performance policy for Michael going into effect once the tour started, which it never did. So if the Estate got 3 million dollars from a life insurance policy, something stinks.
The Live MJ theory for me doesn't work...MJ either has to lay on the stretcher acting, which is highly risky (if someone happens to look at him, i mean that slight blinking movement even though his eyes are closed, and other things like coughing or sneezing...they can't be ignored)<br />Or the other alternative is that MJ takes some sleeping pills, and then lays on the stretcher, now for me it's highly impossible cause Michael will have to escape to some place else once he reaches the hospital (or any place)..he can't be sleeping all the way!<br /><br />Talking about corpse theory...the appearance of the corpse wouldn't really be an issue (as long as the corpse doesn't look ENTIRELY different) as discussed by many here.<br />What I'm thinking right now is how they could've brought in the corpse. If they had brought it inside the home the previous day (after it was thawed by the UCLA) how could they manage to keep it in a good condition? that would pose a challenge!<br /><br />Now the dummy theory... it's very well known there were reports of 'e-Casanova' dying because probably the some news channel mistook e cas as being MJ...but can it be pointing out to the dummy theory? E-Casanova is an impersonator, I mean not intending to sound rude, he is a living 'dummy' and his news of 'dying' might even represent that a dummy was taken to UCLA<br /><br />I don't remember which channel it was, I even don't have the screen-shot right now but this pic was used in the inset, while they were reporting MJ's 'death'<br /><br /><br /><br />
@curls, yes, very out of character for a person who is usually so methodical and logical... to make such wild assumptions and present such vague connections as "proof"... <br /><br />"Leftovers" indeed.<br /><br />I eagerly await TS's reappearance on this thread. <br /><br />To get silly for a minute,<br /><br />"Are you ready for a real good time now,<br />are you ready for a real good treat,<br />they're'll be so much dancing/singing..."<br /><br />Not sure where a dying hospice patient fits in there...
<br />I'm wondering if someone other than the TS we're used to actually wrote that DWD post. The more I read it the more it seems that he let his guard down or wrote it quickly, allowing in assumptions and un-thought-through arguments (these have been brought up already so I won't go into them all again), or it's someone else's style. I don't know, something just doesn't feel right.<br />
<br /><br /><br />That may have been done deliberately. TS' logic is usually pretty sound but not in this case. I think the DWD theory was put in place to finally debunk the corpse theory.
Live MJ theory actually still works for me.<br /><br />You figure, one problem with a dummy is if someone not in on it discovers that it's not real.<br /><br />One problem with the corpse theory is if someone not in on it discovers that it's not MJ.<br /><br />One problem with both theories is how does MJ escape Carrolwood when he's supposed to be dead/dying at UCLA?<br /><br />Live MJ would be exactly where he was supposed to be/reported to be at all moments in time on 6/25/09 in a condition that can't be confirmed as not dead/dying unless someone got down to business of examining him (and surrounded by 8 people who really HAVE to be in on it-- how could someone unauthorized do that? Does anyone accept that all these people are going to stand down and allow that just because a DOCTOR shows up and says "ok let me at the patient!" Come on... at LEAST you have 3 bodyguards who's daily profession it is to keep unauthorized people away from their employer...)<br /><br />Live MJ erases the need for any body or dummy or double, and all the risks associated with each option.<br /><br />Live MJ erases the need for MJ to escape the scene under cover.<br /><br />All this talk/discussion/debate almost strengthens the Live MJ theory come to think of it...<br /><br />The biggest problem TS had with Live MJ is the "risk". Then he comes on here a year later and chastises us for evaluating risk and explains that isn't our job to determine.<br /><br />Hmmmmmm.
<br />I am still confused about which policy paid out the - one from 2002 or the Lloyd’s policy? If Michael had a policy from 2002 no matter how he died it would pay face value. There is usually a 2 year rider on suicide, drug overdose, etc. So if the 2002 policy is what we’re talking about, Branca would have no need to accept a lesser figure than the policy was written up for no matter what the autopsy showed. If it was Lloyd’s policy, I don’t see them paying out at all since it was supposed to be a performance policy for Michael going into effect once the tour started, which it never did. So if the Estate got 3 million dollars from a life insurance policy, something stinks.<br />
<br /><br />It must have been the 2002 policy because the Lloyd's policy is still under litigation with the estate if I have my "facts" straight. You're right about the 2 years rider regarding suicide, OD, etc. contained in most policies so it does seem much more like a cashing in of accumulated cash value rather than paying out an actual death claim. Unless there were additional waivers/riders...there seems no legal reason to accept anything less than the full face value of the policy. As I said before...filing a death claim for the full face value of the policy on an insured who is still living is what constitutes fraud...cashing in a "cash value" does not. I've just never heard of a representative ONLY requesting the cash value equivalent on a 7 year old policy when it's been the lead story all over the international media that the insured has supposedly died...LMAO. Then again...I'm sure they were thrilled and/or relieved to only have to cover the FAR lesser amount...after all that was Michael's own money anyway...paid in with premiums paid over time...and nothing extra from their precious coffers...SMH. I'd imagine the insurance company did a "happy dance" after that transaction.
<br />Live MJ theory actually still works for me.<br /><br />You figure, one problem with a dummy is if someone not in on it discovers that it's not real.<br /><br />One problem with the corpse theory is if someone not in on it discovers that it's not MJ.<br /><br />One problem with both theories is how does MJ escape Carrolwood when he's supposed to be dead/dying at UCLA?<br /><br />Live MJ would be exactly where he was supposed to be/reported to be at all moments in time on 6/25/09 in a condition that can't be confirmed as not dead/dying unless someone got down to business of examining him (and surrounded by 8 people who really HAVE to be in on it-- how could someone unauthorized do that?)<br /><br />Live MJ erases the need for any body or dummy or double, and all the risks associated with each option.<br /><br />Live MJ erases the need for MJ to escape the scene under cover.<br /><br />All this talk/discussion/debate almost strengthens the Live MJ theory come to think of it...<br /><br />The biggest problem TS had with Live MJ is the "risk". Then he comes on here a year later and chastises us for evaluating risk and explains that isn't our job to determine.<br /><br />Hmmmmmm.<br />
<br /><br />i strongly disagree when TS said that risk factor shouldn't be decided by us...Risk is ONE important factor that will lead us to decide what actually went to UCLA...how are we supposed to speculate when we remove that whole risk issue..<br /><br />Anyways, how would you explain Live MJ being able to lay on that stretcher without being noticed? the paramedics will have be in on it, but still anything unexpected could've had happened...
With a corpse or without he, I still do not understand why that was not declared dead in the house, the trip to the hospital means more people involved, go of once to the morgue significantly reduces the involved.
<br />I am still confused about which policy paid out the - one from 2002 or the Lloyd’s policy? If Michael had a policy from 2002 no matter how he died it would pay face value. There is usually a 2 year rider on suicide, drug overdose, etc. So if the 2002 policy is what we’re talking about, Branca would have no need to accept a lesser figure than the policy was written up for no matter what the autopsy showed. If it was Lloyd’s policy, I don’t see them paying out at all since it was supposed to be a performance policy for Michael going into effect once the tour started, which it never did. So if the Estate got 3 million dollars from a life insurance policy, something stinks.<br />
<br /><br />It must have been the 2002 policy because the Lloyd's policy is still under litigation with the estate if I have my "facts" straight. You're right about the 2 years rider regarding suicide, OD, etc. contained in most policies so it does seem much more like a cashing in of accumulated cash value rather than paying out an actual death claim. Unless there were additional waivers/riders...there seems no legal reason to accept anything less than the full face value of the policy. As I said before...filing a death claim for the full face value of the policy on an insured who is still living is what constitutes fraud...cashing in a "cash value" does not. I've just never heard of a representative ONLY requesting the cash value equivalent on a 7 year old policy when it's been the lead story all over the international media that the insured has supposedly died...LMAO. Then again...I'm sure they were thrilled and/or relieved to only have to cover the FAR lesser amount...after all that was Michael's own money anyway...paid in with premiums paid over time...and nothing extra from their precious coffers...SMH. I'd imagine the insurance company did a "happy dance" after that transaction. <br />
<br /><br /><br />Exactly my assertion of what happened also. This is probably a return of premium policy that goes up in premium after a certain age, usually 50. Michael only had the policy for 7 years (the magic number :icon_cool: - HOAX EXPENSE POLICY :thjajaja121:) and probably had paid in premiums about the amount the estate got back. Heaven knows they were probably charging him more than they would anybody else for his policy so it seems feasible that he could have paid 3 million for that coverage.<br /><br />Return of Premium Life Insurance is a newly introduced term life insurance policy that provides both death benefit protection and a return of premium insurance feature. It?s simple to understand: If you keep your policy for the term period, at the end of that time whether 15, 20 or 30 years, the life insurance company that issued the insurance with the return of premium policy returns all of the premium that you paid for the life insurance. There also is some partial return of premium for policies canceled before the end of the term (depending on the year it?s canceled ? the longer it?s kept , the higher the amount of the return.)<br /><br />Return of Premium Insurance is aimed right at one of the greatest objections to traditional term life insurance: I am probably not going to die, and my money will have been wasted." When you buy insurance with a return of premium option, you do not have to waste your money. Unlike regular term life insurance, Return of Premium term life insurance rewards you for living by offering a guaranteed return of your total cumulative premium paid on the policy during the level term period.
<br />With a corpse or without he, I still do not understand why that was not declared dead in the house, the trip to the hospital means more people involved, go of once to the morgue significantly reduces the involved.<br />
<br /><br />Not allowing the pronouncement at the house likely would have kept many from being able to show up and possibly set up camp for many hours. It's possible that if coroners reps had come (which they would if death occurred in the bedroom) and relayed any suspect activity to local law enforcement they would have swarmed the place and kept the "victim" on scene for hours. Not to mention the hordes of gawkers outside. It would have meant a loss of control of the situation. I'm sure that's not what one wants to happen if he's trying to pull off a hoax...lol. Refusal to "declare" at the house effectively removed any immediate investigation/suspicion/lockdown of the premises and may have allowed someone time to set things up as they needed to be before prying eyes arrived. Just a thought :icon_e_wink:
<br /><br />Anyways, how would you explain Live MJ being able to lay on that stretcher without being noticed? the paramedics will have be in on it, but still anything unexpected could've had happened...<br />
<br /><br />The paramedics have to be in on it in any of these theories for several reasons.<br /><br />Again, the driver backed out of Carrolwood. The driver was NOT Blount or Senneff, but a third paramedic we cannot determine. He must be in on it. Blount and Senneff must be in on it, as both testified to being in direct contact with the patient.<br /><br />The 911 call never hit the scanners so it was placed privately (not real), necessitating them all to be in on it, as unless their supervisor simply authorized them to go, they aren't going to go to Carrolwood otherwise, and their supervisor is the only one who *might* not be in on it, as he stayed with the firetruck and was seen on the video placing road cones outside the residence. So we know the paramedic team had to be pre-arranged-- just from the 911 call not being real.<br /><br />A dead body isn't going to fool the paramedics. A dummy isn't going to fool them. With either theory they have to play along.<br /><br />If the ambulance breaks down or gets into an accident (minor risk during a 5 mile trip, but a risk present nonetheless, it's true), the same protocol as used in a real situation would be followed. The paramedics would send out the call for another ambulance to arrive. The patient would be transferred to the other ambulance, the same team would be attending the patient, just a different driver would be at the wheel. That driver need not be aware of who the patient is/what his condition is, that driver would simply arrive, wait for transfer, and then drive to UCLA, with no reason to believe they were transporting anything other then a real dying patient. That driver would have NO reason to attend the patient, that job is already covered. So where's the problem?<br /><br />With Live MJ on the stretcher it doesn't matter if he is "noticed". It's supposed to be MJ lying there, so if he is "noticed", the notice-r is going to see exactly what they are expecting and supposed to see. In order to see Live MJ blink or eye movement or breathing, the notice-r would have to have several uninterrupted clear viewing seconds in order to evaluate visually that MJ isn't dead, and how is any unauthorized person going to gain several seconds of uninterrupted viewing time in an "emergency" situation with a patient surrounded by bodyguards? Even IF somehow, unauthorized notice-r gains several uninterrupted seconds of unauthorized viewing time and sees MJ breath/blink/cough, MJ reportedly "had a pulse" and "was alive at UCLA", so what's the problem if notice-r sees he isn't dead... yet? The official story would explain this event anyway. No reason for unauthorized viewer to get suspicious. Nothing they see would deviate from the official story. No risk there.<br /><br />Again, with bodyguards hovering nearby, no unauthorized person is going to get their hands on Live MJ. This is what the bodyguards do every day for MJ. 6/25/09 at a hospital is no different then any other day. Bodyguards guard a body, it's their job. Hands off the client, period.<br /><br />I've said it several times but there are locks on hospital doors, locks that get engaged from the inside (deadbolts). Everyone has been in a doctor's office exam room and seen these locks on the door while waiting to be seen by doctor. No one unauthorized is going to come into a room if the door is locked. Turning that lock cancels that risk, as within the exam room would be the most risky time for Live MJ at UCLA, not traversing the halls (emergency emergency, hurry hurry, get out of the way, patient coming through!). Once the body is wrapped up in the sheet, however, the risk is again reduced to *zero* as it will not be untied (standard operating procedure) until it arrives at the coroner.
<br />I am still confused about which policy paid out the - one from 2002 or the Lloyd’s policy? If Michael had a policy from 2002 no matter how he died it would pay face value. There is usually a 2 year rider on suicide, drug overdose, etc. So if the 2002 policy is what we’re talking about, Branca would have no need to accept a lesser figure than the policy was written up for no matter what the autopsy showed. If it was Lloyd’s policy, I don’t see them paying out at all since it was supposed to be a performance policy for Michael going into effect once the tour started, which it never did. So if the Estate got 3 million dollars from a life insurance policy, something stinks.<br />
<br /><br />It must have been the 2002 policy because the Lloyd's policy is still under litigation with the estate if I have my "facts" straight. You're right about the 2 years rider regarding suicide, OD, etc. contained in most policies so it does seem much more like a cashing in of accumulated cash value rather than paying out an actual death claim. Unless there were additional waivers/riders...there seems no legal reason to accept anything less than the full face value of the policy. As I said before...filing a death claim for the full face value of the policy on an insured who is still living is what constitutes fraud...cashing in a "cash value" does not. I've just never heard of a representative ONLY requesting the cash value equivalent on a 7 year old policy when it's been the lead story all over the international media that the insured has supposedly died...LMAO. Then again...I'm sure they were thrilled and/or relieved to only have to cover the FAR lesser amount...after all that was Michael's own money anyway...paid in with premiums paid over time...and nothing extra from their precious coffers...SMH. I'd imagine the insurance company did a "happy dance" after that transaction. <br />
<br /><br /><br />Exactly my assertion of what happened also. This is probably a return of premium policy that goes up in premium after a certain age, usually 50. Michael only had the policy for 7 years (the magic number :icon_cool: - HOAX EXPENSE POLICY :thjajaja121:) and probably had paid in premiums about the amount the estate got back. Heaven knows they were probably charging him more than they would anybody else for his policy so it seems feasible that he could have paid 3 million for that coverage.<br /><br />Return of Premium Life Insurance is a newly introduced term life insurance policy that provides both death benefit protection and a return of premium insurance feature. It?s simple to understand: If you keep your policy for the term period, at the end of that time whether 15, 20 or 30 years, the life insurance company that issued the insurance with the return of premium policy returns all of the premium that you paid for the life insurance. There also is some partial return of premium for policies canceled before the end of the term (depending on the year it?s canceled ? the longer it?s kept , the higher the amount of the return.)<br /><br />Return of Premium Insurance is aimed right at one of the greatest objections to traditional term life insurance: I am probably not going to die, and my money will have been wasted." When you buy insurance with a return of premium option, you do not have to waste your money. Unlike regular term life insurance, Return of Premium term life insurance rewards you for living by offering a guaranteed return of your total cumulative premium paid on the policy during the level term period.<br />
<br /><br />Big business always finds a way to use the little guy...all the while making him think they are doing him a great service LOL...SMH. What interest rate (if any) is guaranteed to the policyholder for the insurance company's use of HIS funds over those years to fatten their portfolio? Unfortunately the bottom line with life insurance is that you only really "gain" if you die and the proceeds prevent your heirs from having to suffer.
@UYI...great post! And congrats on finishing your course :th_bravo:<br /><br />I've been working on putting my thoughts down too and some of what I'll write will probably mirror some of what UYI and others have already said. (This is gonna be a bit long lol).<br /><br />It is true that TS has 'tested' us in the past to see if we think for ourselves...and he could very well be 'testing' us even now by giving us 'false' leads. However, much like any jury...we can only 'think' about the information we either have at our disposal or information that is available to be found with some research. In this case, and still much like the jury (if they weren't in on it)...we are limited because we do not have all the pieces, nor are all the missing pieces out there to be found even with research (I'm sure there's probably some out there that we've missed along the way...but chances are that some 'key' pieces have been held back). Still, there have been enough pieces IMO to at least be able to 'think' about each theory...and determine which sounds more plausible and which can be supported with at least 3 strong points, and/or which are 'weaker' theories because they have 3 strong points against them....while acknowledging that risk would've been involved in ANYTHING that happened on 'that day'.<br /><br />I've always wondered about the breakdown of Level 7 and why TS chose the 3 areas of investigation that he gave us...as we know, not much that TS has done has been without meaning. Out of all possible areas or factors that Level 7 could've been about...he narrowed it down to a) was there an ambulance used from Carolwood to UCLA on June 25th, b) what or who was in the ambulance (on the stretcher), and c) was it a hoax or sting court. TS has commented a few times in roundabout ways that ALL 3 are interconnected...i.e. not only are all 3 important 'pieces', but also that 'a' affects 'b' affects 'c'...or better yet, 'c' affects 'b' affects 'a').<br /><br />It's always easier for me, personally, (if at all possible) to work backwards when trying to figure out a 'brainteaser'. In this case, that would mean starting with 'c'...hoax vs. sting court. TS has told us it's both hoax and sting....but are there any 'pieces' that can support that so we're not just 'taking his word for it'? Well, we know that Mike is alive...so there HAS to be a hoax element (i.e. the trial was based on a 'hoax' death). The 'sting' aspect is a bit trickier; however, we have some 'pieces' pointing to FBI involvement. Apart from the 333 pages released on an 'interesting' day...the fact that there was a real courtroom with a real judge and real lawyers (and possibly real jury), also points to the fact that Mike got help from some high-ranking govt office in order to get clearance to use these resources for a 'fake'/hoax court. The involvement of the FBI points to some sort of 'sting' (even if we can't figure out 'who' the targets are, which isn't/wasn't required for Level 7 anyway...as what happened once inside UCLA wasn't required either). Since there is some sort of 'sting' going on...we know that there is at least one 'serious' aspect involved. <br /><br />Regardless of 'who' the targets are....ANY FBI 'sting operation's' goal is success in the mission, first and foremost. Irrespective of the FBI's goals, though, we also have Mike's goals....which, no matter what they were/are...would also involve a desire for a 'successful mission'. We are limited in knowing all the goals of either the FBI or Mike....however, there's been several pieces pointing to Mike having been working on his side of things for many, many years. Even without knowing the goals of the FBI in all this....NO sting operation is launched 'off the cuff'....a lot of planning, time, money, and resources go into these operations. June 25th was the 'kick-off' day for the PUBLIC being brought in....there would've been NO do-overs and no room for errors...that day WAS it. If anything went wrong...all the planning, time, money, and resources put in over many years by BOTH the FBI and Mike, would've gone down the toilet. Even if we take the FBI out of the equation (for those not convinced they are involved)...ONE error that day could've meant failure for Mike's goals...whether those goals were simply a movie, to teach a lesson, to play a prank, an ARG, or something much deeper...the hoax would've ended before it even began.<br /><br />With that in mind...the dire importance of success 'that day'...the success of the mission IMO would include: covering ALL known variables and minimizing ANY unknown variables to make it as real and believable as possible, while minimizing/avoiding entrapment.<br /><br />From 'c'...now we jump to 'a'. Most of us agreed that there was a real ambulance used that arrived at Carolwood and went to UCLA.<br /><br />Known variables:<br />- real paramedics <br />- real staff in the house<br />- 'scene' outside the gates<br /><br />Covering known variables:<br />- have paramedics in on it<br />- send staff home<br />- limit the scene outside (i.e. block off street, secure gates, minimize paps/onlooker access)<br /><br />Unknown variables:<br />Much like 'life', it is VERY difficult to plan for something unexpected to happen...things/people/situations are always changing (I can plan my day out in perfect detail and it never goes as planned lol). The events at Carolwood on June 25th, no matter how pre-planned...could've been affected by unexpected happenings, DESPITE a controlled environment. What if one of the paramedics that was supposed to be there (was part of the hoax) and had a 'key' role to play got held up somewhere else and couldn't make it on time or not make it at all? What if the ambulance carrying all the paramedics that were in on it crashed on the way to Carolwood and another ambulance had to be called in/used with other paramedics in order to fulfill hoax 'timing'? Staff wasn't asked to leave until around 1pm (as per Kai's testimony)...what if one of them somehow got upstairs unnoticed by security...in all that flurry of activity...and saw something they weren't supposed to see? What if a police cruiser driving by saw all the commotion and radioed in to the station about it (thereby potentially having all kinds of paps showing up since they monitor scanners)? I could go on and on with 'unknown' variables, unexpected shit happens ALL the time...that's just a fact of life. Doesn't mean ANY of them happened...but the fact remains that ANYTHING could've gone 'wrong' with the scene at Carolwood. I would think that both the FBI and Mike thought out every possible scenario and tried to plan for the worst to ensure success.<br /><br />We know that Blount wasn't on the same shift as the others. That could mean he WAS in on it and was brought in from another shift...or it could mean he was NOT in on it and showed up due to an 'unknown' variable. The point being (as TS mentioned)....the very fact that someone/something could've happened that wasn't supposed to would be a risk, with even the smallest 'unknown' compromising the entire mission. Leaving it all up to chance...and just hoping that everything worked out according to plan 'that day'...is not something I can envision Mike OR the FBI doing. I'm sure ALL bases were covered.<br /><br />Which brings us to 'b'...who or what was in the ambulance....and we had the following options: nothing, living double, live MJ, dummy, corpse.<br /><br />The whole point of having/needing 'something' on that stretcher would be to make it look as real as possible...not for those who are in the hoax, but for those who aren't...or WHY have anything at all? There didn't even NEED to be ANY events at Carolwood 'that day'...the 'bringing the public in' phase could've started at UCLA, with us just learning through the media (leaked by Mike and his team) that Mike was brought to the hospital from rehearsals or wherever, and is close to death or already dead. The fact that Carolwood WAS used...REGARDLESS of the reasons, means that IF all bases were covered, then 'something' HAD to be on that stretcher. The 'nothing' theory, therefore, would be highly risky when considering possible 'unknown' variables (an unplanned EMT showing up, someone getting a glimpse and seeing 'nothing' where a 'body' should be, a crash on the way to UCLA and having to explain why there's no patient in the ambulance, etc).<br /><br />A living double and live MJ theory carries a lot of risk too IMO....both being 'healthy' males...and when considering what was supposedly done to whatever was on the stretcher. Of course, everything we were told was done to the 'body' could be fake, along with all the EMT reports....BUT, either option still doesn't cover the 'unknown' variable of an unplanned EMT showing up. IF there really was work done on a 'body' at Carolwood or if they HAD to work a 'body' to make it look real...it would've been a VERY dangerous thing to do to either a living double OR a live MJ. Not to mention the fact that the 'script' called for Mike (the 'body') to be already DOA or as close to death as possible. ANY 'unknown' variable at Carolwood or enroute to UCLA...something as major as a crash or as small as a sneeze, laugh, or other bodily function lol....could've compromised YEARS of planning. Also...IF there was a live MJ, WHY send the staff home? It would've actually been more REAL to have them SEE Mike laying there and have them tell others that may question the 'official' story what they saw. WHY the need for a 'fake' ambulance' pic of MJ looking 20 years younger IF Mike was really on the stretcher? Wouldn't a real picture of him laying on it looking like Mike in 2009 have been both better and easier to do IF he was there? Why spend all that money, time and resources the 'other da...' IF he was really there 'that day'?<br /><br />Likewise, a dummy carries some risk (as do all the options). There would be the risk of 'it' being seen by someone who wasn't in the know...it definitely wouldn't fool a trained EMT who wasn't in the know...and it would be very difficult to explain away IF the need arose due to 'unknown' variables taking place, like WHY there is a dummy not only laying there but also being worked on while Mike is supposedly dying or dead somewhere else in the house? Or who had the 'forethought'...in an emergency situation...to go find the 'dummy' to replace Mike for a distraction? Why would there be a need for a distraction at Carolwood, his home, IF he was really dying? Same issue with the transport....ANYTHING going wrong enroute to UCLA could potentially lead to those NOT in the know discovering a 'dummy' in the ambulance. Would Mike or the FBI leave all that to 'chance'? Also, would REAL resources (EMT's, ambulance, doctors, hospital space) have been used for a 'dummy'...while they could've been used for what they are meant to...REAL emergencies?<br /><br />As much as it's difficult, for a few reasons, to consider the corpse theory....if we take the 'emotion' out of it, which includes our personal views on death...IMO, it is the ONLY option that carries the least amount of risk when planning for 'unknown' variables. ANYTHING going 'wrong' would still result in a 'body' that is really dead or close to death...even IF it doesn't look exactly like Mike. We know this to be true because Blount said it didn't look like Mike and no one even paused over it nor cared. They just believed the 'official' story. And speaking of the 'official' story...a real corpse WOULD satisfy keeping the events as real as possible, it would satisfy minimizing those needing to be in on it, it would satisfy playing out the entire scenario in real-time, REGARDLESS of who showed up and/or saw anything, and it would satisfy keeping the testimonies as real as possible, since a real body WAS worked on...thereby, making recollection easier (less scripted) and avoiding a ton of perjury. IMO, no option, other than a real corpse, would cover the most potential 'unknown' variables. <br /><br />That's about where I'm at lol....while FULLY acknowledging that what I/we consider to be 'risky' might actually not have been...or that I'm WAY off on my thinking lol. But taking everything we do have into consideration....EVEN with the ton of questions I still have with the corpse theory...I just don't see something of this magnitude being planned around 'amateurish' scenarios that could compromise the mission. And the success of any mission...does NOT rely on chance, luck, and/or 'known'/planned variables...but rather, success is dependent on designing the mission so that it will work even IF 'unknown' variables present themselves. <br /><br />P.S. There's been like 20 posts since I began writing this...and I haven't read any of them yet, so my thinking may change after I do LOL<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br /><br />If the ambulance breaks down or gets into an accident (minor risk during a 5 mile trip, but a risk present nonetheless, it's true), the same protocol as used in a real situation would be followed. The paramedics would send out the call for another ambulance to arrive. The patient would be transferred to the other ambulance, the same team would be attending the patient, just a different driver would be at the wheel. That driver need not be aware of who the patient is/what his condition is, that driver would simply arrive, wait for transfer, and then drive to UCLA, with no reason to believe they were transporting anything other then a real dying patient. That driver would have NO reason to attend the patient, that job is already covered. So where's the problem?<br /><br />With Live MJ on the stretcher it doesn't matter if he is "noticed". It's supposed to be MJ lying there, so if he is "noticed", the notice-r is going to see exactly what they are expecting and supposed to see. In order to see Live MJ blink or eye movement or breathing, the notice-r would have to have several uninterrupted clear viewing seconds in order to evaluate visually that MJ isn't dead, and how is any unauthorized person going to gain several seconds of uninterrupted viewing time in an "emergency" situation with a patient surrounded by bodyguards? Even IF somehow, unauthorized notice-r gains several uninterrupted seconds of unauthorized viewing time and sees MJ breath/blink/cough, MJ reportedly "had a pulse" and "was alive at UCLA", so what's the problem if notice-r sees he isn't dead... yet? The official story would explain this event anyway. No reason for unauthorized viewer to get suspicious. Nothing they see would deviate from the official story. No risk there.<br /><br />
<br /><br />I can see your point Bec, but I'm still somewhere unsure about MJ himself being there all the time. I understand that with MJ being present in the scenario all the time, it gives him a way to 'listen' to whatever is happening around him, till he reaches the coroner...or maybe UCLA.<br />But no-one really knows what's exactly going to happen on June 25th, even after years of planning...Let's assume that it was indeed MJ who went to UCLA playing 'dead'...we know today, that no one really 'noticed' MJ being alive...but MJ and his team wouldn't know of that on June 25th, that whether or not someone might notice. Maybe blinking, or some movements are all fine, because according to the scenario, this person needs assistance and doesn't necessarily mean that he's dead. That's all fine. But what I wanted to say was that, the news about his death was being spread rapidly like wild fire, some of the stories were true while some weren't. What if the guy (the one who's NOT in it) revealed to the press (for $$$ or whatever reason) that the stories about paramedics not finding the pulse in the Carolwood home itself was not true, he was very much alive while heading towards Carolwood, there's something fishy and all. Not that this guy's suspicions about the whole scenario would matter, but it would still mean that someone who's not supposed to know has/had 'smelt the rat' ...<br /><br /><br />IMO, all of this Live MJ theory is possible if they have another guy/driver set aside (who's involved in the hoax) in case of unexpected events like the breaking down of ambulance...or any accidents. And of-course bodyguards will protect the body...
Comments