<br />Bec and Wish, lol, I guess the answer was WAY too easy, and I missed it! :woohoo2:<br /><br />
<br /><br />Nah, this is TS we're dealing with here - NOTHING is that easy where he's concerned! Without having researched ALL verdict readings in ALL movies, of course I cannot say for certain, but I'll hazard a guess that the purpose of TS's little exercise is to show that Murray's trial was NOT entertainment. We'll be back talking entrapment and sting operations and all fake or part fake and who's in on it and who's not and getting in a right old pickle before we know where we are!<br />
<br /><br />I totally agree that nothing, absolutely nothing about this hoax is easy, lol. Half the time I spend reading, half the time writing and half the time wondering....see....nothing adds up :icon_geek:<br />I just had to post This Is It...for nothing else it shows that we do pay attention, and remember words and single instances. Perhaps, it's a movie with a story line that mimics our adventure? I have looked, and will keep on looking....that's for sure....I noticed The Court of Last Resort was posted....good one : ) Have we had other movie references in the last 3.5 years....surely we have. Perhaps the movie has already been mentioned? <br /> :suspect:<br /><br />Such a dream, such and adventure.....and such blessing!<br />LOVE<br />
<br /><br />That's what I asked in my previous post: The movie must be from 2009? TS does not specify :judge-smiley:<br />
Great to see you posting again TS...and it sounds like you were in a chipper mood too, which is also great to see :icon_razz:<br /><br />As for the movie trivia question lol...I don't think we'll find any movie court room scenes that use the word 'alleged' in the verdict, nor do I think we'd find any real life court room scenes either.<br /><br />The fact that it was used in Murray's verdict puts 'it' in a class of its own...not a movie, not 'real-life'...maybe somewhere inbetween those very blurry lines lol.<br /><br />Hoping that you'll be around more often now...the 'atmosphere' is brighter when you (and/or Front) drop by :icon_razz:<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br />what was the movie that was found on the movie database, that had a character or actor named conrad murray? was it a tv series? wasnt it about a trial? I've searched but cant find it on the database or forum. <br /><br />hi TS, long time no see, WB.
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> :michael-jackson:<br /><br /><br /> :judge-smiley:<br /><br /><br />Disregard the promo in the beg. regardin' money... lol!<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />thanks I'mconvinced!! lol didnt have anything but it was a thought!
<br />Bec and Wish, lol, I guess the answer was WAY too easy, and I missed it! :woohoo2:<br /><br />
<br /><br />Nah, this is TS we're dealing with here - NOTHING is that easy where he's concerned! Without having researched ALL verdict readings in ALL movies, of course I cannot say for certain, but I'll hazard a guess that the purpose of TS's little exercise is to show that Murray's trial was NOT entertainment. We'll be back talking entrapment and sting operations and all fake or part fake and who's in on it and who's not and getting in a right old pickle before we know where we are!<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Yes, I'm sure you're right. He may proceed to argue that... although that's not what he said, exactly.<br /><br />
Now for the first thing to research: can anyone find a movie, where the verdict read in court included the word "alleged" (it must be an entertainment movie, NOT video of real court case)?
<br /><br />I think he is going to attempt to debunk the use of the word "La ley tiene dos partes el supuesto de hecho y la consecuencia de derecho " in the verdict as proof that court was not real.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />the Devils lawyer, ....may be that they call the legal alleged is that every action has a legal consequence. For example that killer will have a consequence, the legal consequence be the sentence to be imposed <br /><br />The law has two parts the "alleged" and in fact the consequence :-[<br /><br /><br />
<br />Well, after about a year I’m “back”—no, that does NOT have a double meaning, lol.<br /><br />It’s been quiet for quite a long timE; but things should start rumbling again …<br /><br />TS: “However, we will finish no later than November 29—even if I have to do 7b and 7c without any help (7a is nearly complete already).”<br /><br />[size=12pt]I said we would finish level 7 by November 29, but did I say what year?[/size]<br /><br />If we are going to be top-notch investigators, we have to learn not to assUME anything!<br /><br />Anyway, back to business, timE to finish up Level 7.<br /><br /> :compute:<br />
<br /><br />It is exciting when anyone is back to forum, but it is disappointing to read that year of end is still unknown. Who knows how many levels after 7 we are going to investigate and keep waiting for Michael to come back. <br />
<br />I had to go back and double check the wording of the verdict being read in the Conrad Murray trial for reference:<br /><br />Alleged victim: Michael Joseph Jackson<br /><br />Alleged date of June 25th 2009<br /><br />Just thinking out loud here.......if the Dr M trial/court was real and was being used for a sting operation then does the use of "alleged victim" and "alleged date" cover them? IDK......<br /><br />I haven't had time to look for an entertainment movie about a court case where the word "alleged" is used in the verdict.......my thinking is still that there probably isn't one.<br />
<br /><br />I've been googling and youtubing, trying to find something but have come up with nothing so far. An exercise in futility maybe?<br /><br />The use of the word "alleged" when referring to the victim and the date nullifies the charge. So whether this trial was real or not, Murray was sentenced without charge with only a semblance of legality.
<br />I had to go back and double check the wording of the verdict being read in the Conrad Murray trial for reference:<br /><br />Alleged victim: Michael Joseph Jackson<br /><br />Alleged date of June 25th 2009<br /><br />Just thinking out loud here.......if the Dr M trial/court was real and was being used for a sting operation then does the use of "alleged victim" and "alleged date" cover them? IDK......<br />
<br /><br />Good question. :icon_idea:<br /><br />Now you have something else to research ...<br /><br /> :icon_bounce:<br />
I suppose too, it's court as in legal court....not King Arthur's type of court.....just clarifying TS....<br />because I love the movie A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court ....very entertaining "court"<br /><br />Blessings!
... and one more thing to research, just in case you have too much time on your hands--and can't find anything to do. :Pulling_hair: :errrr: :icon_e_biggrin:<br /><br />Would it be legal to bring in witnesses to the Murray trial, if it was merely a movie--and the "actors" (witnesses) were not informed that it was merely a movie?<br /><br /> :icon_neutral:
<br /><br />Would it be legal to bring in witnesses to the Murray trial, if it was merely a movie--and the "actors" (witnesses) were not informed that it was merely a movie?<br /><br /> :icon_neutral:<br />
<br /><br />Any reason why you only mention 'witnesses' here? That's implying 'everyone else' would know it was merely a movie. And why call them 'actors'? That's implying they were actors called in to play the part of genuine witnesses in a supposedly real trial!<br /><br /> :LolLolLolLol: You taught us well TS - can't take a simple sentence from anyone nowadays without pulling it apart!! :bearhug:
Another document regarding witness preparation for deposition and trial - quite long and I have only had time to quickly skim read it: http://www.azalaw.com/pubs/prepwitness.pdf<br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Would it be legal to bring in witnesses to the Murray trial, if it was merely a movie--and the "actors" (witnesses) were not informed that it was merely a movie?<br /><br /> :icon_neutral:<br />
<br /><br />Any reason why you only mention 'witnesses' here? That's implying 'everyone else' would know it was merely a movie. And why call them 'actors'? That's implying they were actors called in to play the part of genuine witnesses in a supposedly real trial!<br /><br /> :LolLolLolLol: You taught us well TS - can't take a simple sentence from anyone nowadays without pulling it apart!! :bearhug:<br />
<br /><br />curls, I guess you're right on that one!
<br />They knew there where camaras, and that it was aired.<br />
<br /><br />Just like the private funeral...Michael likes to keep private archives of everything he does.. <br /><br />The guests at the funeral had to sign some sort of paperwork/agreement regarding the filming of the funeral too...
<br />Bec and Wish, lol, I guess the answer was WAY too easy, and I missed it! :woohoo2:<br /><br />
<br /><br />Nah, this is TS we're dealing with here - NOTHING is that easy where he's concerned! Without having researched ALL verdict readings in ALL movies, of course I cannot say for certain, but I'll hazard a guess that the purpose of TS's little exercise is to show that Murray's trial was NOT entertainment. We'll be back talking entrapment and sting operations and all fake or part fake and who's in on it and who's not and getting in a right old pickle before we know where we are!<br />
<br /><br />True, but maybe he wants us to think that. He wants us to think nothing is easy when it comes from him so then we will automatically think it was too simple and we will go on our own little rabbit hole looking for the hard answers. Unless he knew we would think that so he is purposely going to make it harder just for the sake of it. :icon_e_surprised: :icon_eek: :icon_lol: JKS<br /><br />
<br />... and one more thing to research, just in case you have too much time on your hands--and can't find anything to do. :Pulling_hair: :errrr: :icon_e_biggrin:<br /><br />Would it be legal to bring in witnesses to the Murray trial, if it was merely a movie--and the "actors" (witnesses) were not informed that it was merely a movie?<br /><br /> :icon_neutral:<br />
<br /><br />Yes only if it was a sting, if it was merely a movie with no basis except for entertainment, then that would be illegal. I mean I don't know how you can actually research 'Is it legal to bring witnesses to a trial on the basis of making a movie', so we would have to use logic, right? I don't know what you want. But I mean it's like any crime/'crime', if you make a false report to the police, that's illegal and you can go to jail, pay a fine etc. whatever, same with making a false statement under oath. Now with a whole trial, accusing someone of a person's death (particularly someone of MJ's prominence) then that is so illegal, and this would be the case still whether or not 'alleged date' and 'alleged victim' was used or not.<br /><br />About the alleged thing, you can't convict someone on something that allegedly happened because once a person's proven guilty it isn't an assumption, it's 'proven'. Out of all the movies and TV Shows I looked at, not one said allegedly, only before the verdict, they use allegedly to describe the crime, like 'alleged crime that took place' or 'alleged assailant' etc.<br /><br /><br />Edit: But what if it's found that the case had somehow been a mistrial after all this time because of a piece of evidence or incorrect procedure, then it can get thrown out right?<br />So say this was a fake trial the whole time (known only to those in the hoax, not to real persons of the law (i.e judge, some witnesses etc.) To them and everyone else it will be looked at as a real case, but then later it is found that there has been evidence tampering or something like that, then the case would get thrown out right? But that wouldn't matter to MJ because he would of already had his movie done with the fake trial.
Comments