I can't envision Mike waiting in a line to check in bags at any airport (past or present)...and then sitting and waiting for some commercial plane to arrive to take him wherever he needs/wants to go. People at Mike's level of means usually don't...he, most likely, has visited many airports where only a very few number of people even knew he was there. (I have a relative who hasn't seen the inside of an airport in over 10 years, after he bought a private jet, yet travels very extensively). This, of course, doesn't mean that he boarded a plane on June 25th....but the point is that IF he did, the 'risk' factor would be very minimal, not the other way around. If there was fear/risk of exposure, he could just as easily have donned one of his many disguises as he could have IF he went to UCLA....a disguise for the trip from Carolwood (or wherever) to the tarmac, to the short walk from his vehicle, to the steps of a private plane (if this took place at night, then lack of natural light would have provided additional cover). We're talking Mike here....not a 'regular' traveler/passenger...and there was that plane that did take off 'undercover' from LAX that day to places unknown.<br /><br />At this point, even 3+ years later...there's no way to prove conclusively where he was/went that day. He could have gone to UCLA or he could just as easily (even more so actually) hopped on a plane. Because of that...the lack of 'concrete' proof of anything and these circles that seem to lead us nowhere other than to more assumptions and speculations....I'm kinda confused as to why TS is having us revisit this once again. I'm actually finding it very difficult to go BACK to where we were a year ago and try to now make sense of things that we couldn't/didn't prove then, with no new/additional 'evidence' to take into account. I guess, on some level, it can help 'occupy' us....but based on what TS presented to us in The Signs, I've been pretty 'occupied' lol...as I'm sure others have as well. It's like 'he' gave us the keys to the world....and is now asking us to scurry back into a crawl space. Not impossible to do...and if it will now lead us to concrete answers, then I'm all for it. But, for me, it will take some mental maneuvering to scale back the expansion that 'HE' helped create.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br />I'm sure TS didn't ask about that movie for nothing....there must be something very interesting about it and it's very frustrating that I can't find or guess what movie is that.<br /><br /> :icon_e_sad:<br /><br />There were some movies relevant for this hoax, starting with The court of Last resort, then Gilda and The Illusionist and V for Vendetta and 2012. TS can't you please narrow the research area and give us some hints?<br />
<br /><br />I don't think anyone has been able to locate a trial/court movie Gina where the word "alleged" is used in the verdict reading. Perhaps as Andrea suggested - an exercise in fultility? to keep us occupied? idk......
Just wondering if it would be useful to focus away from ambulance/mj in terms of who/what went to UCLA that day....Seems to me there was the need for the "death" to be in public eyes and documented (for reasons that are unfolding in terms of revealing nature of threats to all of us, not just MJ?).....So thats why the "death" had to draw the public, and not just be at home, then on to the morgue.<br /><br />So I think it is important to look at who showed up and is documented at UCLA?<br /><br />Tohme Tohme showed up. and acted as if he were still involved in MJs business... (where in the shadows is this man now?)
<br />I can't envision Mike waiting in a line to check in bags at any airport (past or present)...and then sitting and waiting for some commercial plane to arrive to take him wherever he needs/wants to go. People at Mike's level of means usually don't...he, most likely, has visited many airports where only a very few number of people even knew he was there. (I have a relative who hasn't seen the inside of an airport in over 10 years, after he bought a private jet, yet travels very extensively). This, of course, doesn't mean that he boarded a plane on June 25th....but the point is that IF he did, the 'risk' factor would be very minimal, not the other way around. If there was fear/risk of exposure, he could just as easily have donned one of his many disguises as he could have IF he went to UCLA....a disguise for the trip from Carolwood (or wherever) to the tarmac, to the short walk from his vehicle, to the steps of a private plane (if this took place at night, then lack of natural light would have provided additional cover). We're talking Mike here....not a 'regular' traveler/passenger...and there was that plane that did take off 'undercover' from LAX that day to places unknown.<br /><br />At this point, even 3+ years later...there's no way to prove conclusively where he was/went that day. He could have gone to UCLA or he could just as easily (even more so actually) hopped on a plane. Because of that...the lack of 'concrete' proof of anything and these circles that seem to lead us nowhere other than to more assumptions and speculations....I'm kinda confused as to why TS is having us revisit this once again. I'm actually finding it very difficult to go BACK to where we were a year ago and try to now make sense of things that we couldn't/didn't prove then, with no new/additional 'evidence' to take into account. I guess, on some level, it can help 'occupy' us....but based on what TS presented to us in The Signs, I've been pretty 'occupied' lol...as I'm sure others have as well. It's like 'he' gave us the keys to the world....and is now asking us to scurry back into a crawl space. Not impossible to do...and if it will now lead us to concrete answers, then I'm all for it. But, for me, it will take some mental maneuvering to scale back the expansion that 'HE' helped create.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />I agree there's no way that MJ would go to the airport like a 'regular' person, he would've always been driven directly to his plane - no customs/check-in/luggage drop-off and retrieval that the general population has to suffer through, lol. But still going on TS's "the fewer the better" scenario, there would still be the 2nd location needed (airport), a pilot and a tarmac official (?) - not to mention the 3rd location on the plane's destination - whether MJ was in a disguise or not.<br /><br />I like to think that MJ pulled off this hoax in plain sight that day, whether in disguise around the stretcher or on the stretcher itself. Remember that guy who jumped out of the ambulance last who had his head covered? I always thought that maybe that person was concealing a camera, recording how it all went down, to be finally viewed post bamsday. Ah, wishful thinking. :icon_geek:
<br />Was there a date on the coroner van jump video?<br />
<br /><br />There was no date/time stamp on the video itself but it came out on August 25, 2009 - same date the autopsy photo had on it although it's been argued that the '8' was a '6' (for June) but the 'autopsy' didn't take place on the 25th anyways, it was the next day.
I tend to keep it simple, which are my guess about Michael's plan using UCLA as a "death scenario":<br /><br />1- UCLA ranks among the top 5 hospitals in the US and is reasonably near Carolwood house.<br />2- IMHO, because one of the most irrefutable and first clues we had was coming from Jermaine and Thomé Thomé reporting that Michael had died when was supposed to have been reported by an UCLA doctor and this fact couldn't have happened if Michael had died in Carolwood. <br /><br /><br />@TS...I have been watching some movies where there was a verdict during a trial and I never found any alleged word on them, so I have arrived to the conclusion that the trial was fake and just to serve a hoax purpose.
<br />I can't envision Mike waiting in a line to check in bags at any airport (past or present)...and then sitting and waiting for some commercial plane to arrive to take him wherever he needs/wants to go. People at Mike's level of means usually don't...he, most likely, has visited many airports where only a very few number of people even knew he was there. (I have a relative who hasn't seen the inside of an airport in over 10 years, after he bought a private jet, yet travels very extensively). This, of course, doesn't mean that he boarded a plane on June 25th....but the point is that IF he did, the 'risk' factor would be very minimal, not the other way around. If there was fear/risk of exposure, he could just as easily have donned one of his many disguises as he could have IF he went to UCLA....a disguise for the trip from Carolwood (or wherever) to the tarmac, to the short walk from his vehicle, to the steps of a private plane (if this took place at night, then lack of natural light would have provided additional cover). We're talking Mike here....not a 'regular' traveler/passenger...and there was that plane that did take off 'undercover' from LAX that day to places unknown.<br /><br />At this point, even 3+ years later...there's no way to prove conclusively where he was/went that day. He could have gone to UCLA or he could just as easily (even more so actually) hopped on a plane. Because of that...the lack of 'concrete' proof of anything and these circles that seem to lead us nowhere other than to more assumptions and speculations....I'm kinda confused as to why TS is having us revisit this once again. I'm actually finding it very difficult to go BACK to where we were a year ago and try to now make sense of things that we couldn't/didn't prove then, with no new/additional 'evidence' to take into account. I guess, on some level, it can help 'occupy' us....but based on what TS presented to us in The Signs, I've been pretty 'occupied' lol...as I'm sure others have as well. It's like 'he' gave us the keys to the world....and is now asking us to scurry back into a crawl space. Not impossible to do...and if it will now lead us to concrete answers, then I'm all for it. But, for me, it will take some mental maneuvering to scale back the expansion that 'HE' helped create.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />I agree there's no way that MJ would go to the airport like a 'regular' person, he would've always been driven directly to his plane - no customs/check-in/luggage drop-off and retrieval that the general population has to suffer through, lol. But still going on TS's "the fewer the better" scenario, there would still be the 2nd location needed (airport), a pilot and a tarmac official (?) - not to mention the 3rd location on the plane's destination - whether MJ was in a disguise or not.<br /><br />I like to think that MJ pulled off this hoax in plain sight that day, whether in disguise around the stretcher or on the stretcher itself. Remember that guy who jumped out of the ambulance last who had his head covered? [size=12pt]I always thought that maybe that person was concealing a camera, recording how it all went down, to be finally viewed post bamsday. Ah, wishful thinking. :icon_geek:[/size]<br />
<br /><br /><br />I always had that in my mind too. During this hoax many scenes have been shot, directed by MJ. The public are the actors, unwittingly acting so that the movie is even more convincing. Everything has a purpose in this hoax, which we can only guess or assUME, but I'm sure we are being taught with L.O.V.E. by MJ. I think that the biggest purpose or goal is to expose and that we should learn to be aware of: <br />1. the media and how easily we can be fooled by them, or how LAZY some people are to believe that garbage without checking the source<br />2. the inconsistencies and wrong doings in healths care, like privacy leaks (autopsy report, patient privacy rules), wrong MONEY driven doctors, drug prescriptions and pharmacies etc.<br />3. the legal justice system and its inconsistencies/failures, injustice, bias and its power.<br />4. Hollywood and entertainment business: injustice and power driven by MONEY.<br />and I believe there are much more purposes.<br /><br />This hoax has been so well prepared and thought out that the subjects/chapters/scenes like Carolwood, bodytransport, UCLA, the trial, Murray and drug prescriptions, funeral, reports and lawsuits about AEG, Klein etc are all serving these purposes; inconsistencies are being exposed. They all are being microscoped, investigated and definitely got media attention. I'm still wondering about TS's "alleged" question. Could it be that it is a huge legal failure that "alleged murderer" and "alleged victim" is read in a verdict during a 'real' trial? A good example of injustice? Maybe it is about to be exposed in this hoax movie. Probably I made some assumptions here..
<br />I can't envision Mike waiting in a line to check in bags at any airport (past or present)...and then sitting and waiting for some commercial plane to arrive to take him wherever he needs/wants to go. People at Mike's level of means usually don't...he, most likely, has visited many airports where only a very few number of people even knew he was there. (I have a relative who hasn't seen the inside of an airport in over 10 years, after he bought a private jet, yet travels very extensively). This, of course, doesn't mean that he boarded a plane on June 25th....but the point is that IF he did, the 'risk' factor would be very minimal, not the other way around. If there was fear/risk of exposure, he could just as easily have donned one of his many disguises as he could have IF he went to UCLA....a disguise for the trip from Carolwood (or wherever) to the tarmac, to the short walk from his vehicle, to the steps of a private plane (if this took place at night, then lack of natural light would have provided additional cover). We're talking Mike here....not a 'regular' traveler/passenger...and there was that plane that did take off 'undercover' from LAX that day to places unknown.<br /><br />At this point, even 3+ years later...there's no way to prove conclusively where he was/went that day. He could have gone to UCLA or he could just as easily (even more so actually) hopped on a plane. Because of that...the lack of 'concrete' proof of anything and these circles that seem to lead us nowhere other than to more assumptions and speculations....I'm kinda confused as to why TS is having us revisit this once again. I'm actually finding it very difficult to go BACK to where we were a year ago and try to now make sense of things that we couldn't/didn't prove then, with no new/additional 'evidence' to take into account. I guess, on some level, it can help 'occupy' us....but based on what TS presented to us in The Signs, I've been pretty 'occupied' lol...as I'm sure others have as well. It's like 'he' gave us the keys to the world....and is now asking us to scurry back into a crawl space. Not impossible to do...and if it will now lead us to concrete answers, then I'm all for it. But, for me, it will take some mental maneuvering to scale back the expansion that 'HE' helped create.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />I agree there's no way that MJ would go to the airport like a 'regular' person, he would've always been driven directly to his plane - no customs/check-in/luggage drop-off and retrieval that the general population has to suffer through, lol. But still going on TS's "the fewer the better" scenario, there would still be the 2nd location needed (airport), a pilot and a tarmac official (?) - not to mention the 3rd location on the plane's destination - whether MJ was in a disguise or not.<br /><br />I like to think that MJ pulled off this hoax in plain sight that day, whether in disguise around the stretcher or on the stretcher itself. Remember that guy who jumped out of the ambulance last who had his head covered? [size=12pt]I always thought that maybe that person was concealing a camera, recording how it all went down, to be finally viewed post bamsday. Ah, wishful thinking. :icon_geek:[/size]<br />
<br /><br /><br />I always had that in my mind too. During this hoax many scenes have been shot, directed by MJ. The public are the actors, unwittingly acting so that the movie is even more convincing. Everything has a purpose in this hoax, which we can only guess or assUME, but I'm sure we are being taught with L.O.V.E. by MJ. I think that the biggest purpose or goal is to expose and that we should learn to be aware of: <br />1. the media and how easily we can be fooled by them, or how LAZY some people are to believe that garbage without checking the source<br />2. the inconsistencies and wrong doings in healths care, like privacy leaks (autopsy report, patient privacy rules), wrong MONEY driven doctors, drug prescriptions and pharmacies etc.<br />3. the legal justice system and its inconsistencies/failures, injustice, bias and its power.<br />4. Hollywood and entertainment business: injustice and power driven by MONEY.<br />and I believe there are much more purposes.<br /><br />This hoax has been so well prepared and thought out that the subjects/chapters/scenes like Carolwood, bodytransport, UCLA, the trial, Murray and drug prescriptions, funeral, reports and lawsuits about AEG, Klein etc are all serving these purposes; inconsistencies are being exposed. They all are being microscoped, investigated and definitely got media attention. I'm still wondering about TS's "alleged" question. Could it be that it is a huge legal failure that "alleged murderer" and "alleged victim" is read in a verdict during a 'real' trial? A good example of injustice? Maybe it is about to be exposed in this hoax movie. Probably I made some assumptions here..<br />
<br /><br /><br /> :th_bravo: :th_bravo: :th_bravo:<br /><br />I love how your minds think.....so many times I have run things in my head, only to get stuck......I love you guys!!!<br />I always find inspiration with your words......my mind is going a million miles per hour, lol<br /><br />Hug and blessings......gotta run : )<br />Love Ya~<br />
Agreed with whoever said MJ's movie will be the first to include the word "alleged" in the verdict reading.<br /><br />Agreed that bringing a second location and set of players into the hoax is an unnecessary risk. Not to mention a third; the destination.<br /><br />Why would MJ need to FLY away anyway? Although he does include a song by that title in Bad25... but then in those lyrics he sings "Fly Away, gonna stay".<br /><br />Isn't it safer to simply squirrel away where ever he is headed to ride out the hoax by car? The fewest additional people are needed to execute this mode of escape vehicle, and they can be people already involved.<br /><br />It would probably be safest, when trying to stay under the radar, to leave/get away many days later when the hub bub died down... or so many days earlier that no one would find it odd if they saw him when he was supposed to be somewhere else.<br /><br />So we already have one vehicle carrying something that has a legitimate reason to hide it's contents; the ambulance that went Carrolwood-->UCLA. Then we have another; the helicopter that went UCLA-->morgue. And a third; the coroner van that went top of one parking garage-->bottom of another. All 3 vehicles were carrying something that was supposed to be shielded from view for "legitimate" reasons (privacy).<br /><br />Why do we need to add an additional vehicle embarking on an additional route shielding something from view for suspicious reasons?<br /><br />It complicates things which, to me, is a red flag in pondering hypotheticals.<br /><br />Again, MJ could easily hide in plain sight using a disguise without adding additional locations, sets of persons, or vehicles into the mix, and slip away in any one of those vehicles already being utilized and expected to be seen for legitimate reasons without blowing the whole thing wide open or rousing any suspicion.<br /><br />Yes, he could use a disguise at an airport as well, but again, why are we bringing an additional location (two of them!) and set of players into the hoax scenario? This is an assumption on top of another assumption (disguise + airport) and an additional complication. We are getting too elaborate here in my opinion, and straying from the concrete facts in order to conjure this hypothesis.<br /><br />You could add one assumption (disguise) to the accepted chain of events and it provides a perfect solution, without adding anything else.<br /><br />The staff was asked to leave, so it is deduced that there was something they specifically were not to see coming downstairs on that stretcher... or accompanying it. If it were really MJ on the stretcher (or an MJ dummy or look-a-like), it shouldn't matter so much that they see, it would simply reinforce the hoax. Anyone can pretend to be dead for a few seconds in passing. "Stalker" fan that followed the ambulance says she saw someone on that stretcher, but they were "too short" to be MJ. If it were really MJ on that stretcher (or an MJ dummy or look-a-like), it would reinforce in her mind that which she is already being told.<br /><br />In going with the theme that actual recalled events are easier to relay later when questioned then fabricated ones, I have to stick with MJ being at UCLA (and Carrolwood) that day. Too many players who are not professional actors are required to speak about it (ER docs, EMTs) later and stick to a story for that story to stray too far from actual events... even if they were brought in on things. Asking these people to "lie" in front of the camera (real OR fake court, no matter) is asking too much... too risky that someone would make a mistake. But if they recall real events, they are more likely to play their parts correctly and without a hitch.<br /><br />It seems least complicated to me that MJ WAS there and they DID touch/examine him and go through the motions so they could accurately recall these events later, though he was almost certainly NOT on the stretcher when it was transported Carrolwood-->UCLA. That's the "risky" part that TS gets so hot n bothered by. All that "risk" he frets about is surrounding someone thinking he is really dead/dying and discovering that he is not.<br /><br />If that discovery were that the patient is not MJ, it would be less risky for MJ then discovering that it IS MJ, but he is just fine/not dying. Discovering that it were not MJ would immediately lead the discover-er to deduce that this stretcher/patient were simply a decoy being used for security reasons. Discovering that the patient WAS MJ but he was FINE would blow the whole hoax wide open and kill it from ground zero.<br /><br />So MJ could be standing right there, in disguise, with a few key people in the know standing by with him, with everyone's attention focused on the stretcher, and be hiding in plain sight, AND be participating for realism in recalled events later, with minimal risk of unauthorized discovery, and no need to include a second or even third location and subsequent set of players, into the hoax.<br /><br />So, we could add a disguise (one assumption) or we could add a disguise AND an additional location/set of players (two assumptions) or we could add a disguise and TWO additional locations/sets of players (three assumptions) to the facts/chain of events already witnessed to have occurred. The answer seems simple to me.
If we're gonna get 'technical' about assumptions vs. fact(s)...then there's a whole bunch we can 'cut out' from the picture because most of what we've pieced together IS based on assumptions/speculations and/or taking things as 'truth' without concrete evidence. If we're solely going on 'fact'...then the only 'events' that we can be 150% sure happened 'that day' IMO were what we saw played out live...via several different cameras/media (i.e. a variety of non-hoax related sources), like the helicopter scene. But even then, all we can be sure about is that something was loaded into a helicopter and then something was taken out and loaded into a van and brought to the coroners. Anything beyond that is based on assumptions and speculations. <br /><br />Unless we believe that Mike has not left LA in the last 3+ years (which would be another assumption at this point)...then other locations are involved. I don't see that as a problem in the least, considering Mike was able to visit MANY locations before 'death' where he could 'hide out' and/or only be seen if he wanted to be. None of this, IMO, would require adding a whole bunch more people into the mix....he would just have to have included/used people already working for/with him, who were under confidentiality agreements any way.<br /><br />Again, not saying he boarded a plane or that he didn't...or that he went to UCLA or that he didn't....it would just be more assumptions and speculation. But, IMO, out of all the possible scenarios, having a live and healthy-looking MJ anywhere near UCLA on June 25th would be THE riskiest move of all to pull after a 20 year long hoax plan. But, that too, is 'technically' an opinion based on several assumptions and is not 'proof' enough to state, as fact, that he wasn't there.<br /><br />This is tail chasing at its finest.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
The fire alarm was pulled upon the ambulance's arrival at UCLA. Perfect diversion tactic because immediately there were people gathering outside and not knowing what's going on inside. Definitely decreases the chances of the hoax being caught out as it happened.
I stumbled upon this the other night when I was just surfing online for nothing in particular and wanted to ask if anyone has heard of it: the Jackson-Denno Law. It reminded me of Conrad's voluntary confession to the police and his desire for it not to be read during the trial. I do remember that Murray was told by those taking his confession that it would not be heard. But of course, it was. I wonder if this has any hoax value to it. Probably not, but it just came up out of nowhere, so I thought maybe it might be worth looking into. And who better than this group to find any connection if there be one :LolLolLolLol:<br /><br />http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/368/<br /><br />Jackson v. Denno - 378 U.S. 368 (1964)<br />More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on googlebuzzShare on facebook_like<br /><br />Syllabus <br />Case <br />U.S. Supreme Court<br />Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964)<br />Jackson v. Denno<br /><br />No. 62<br /><br />Argued December 9-10, 1963<br /><br />Decided June 22, 1964<br /><br />378 U.S. 368<br /><br /><br />Syllabus <br /><br />Petitioner, after robbing a hotel, fatally wounded a policeman and himself received two bullet wounds. Questioned shortly after arrival at a hospital, he admitted the shooting and the robbery. Some time later, after considerable loss of blood and soon after he had been given drugs, he was interrogated and admitted firing the first shot at the policeman. Petitioner was indicted for murder, and both statements were admitted at the trial, at which petitioner's testimony differed in some important respects from the confessions. In accord with New York practice where the voluntariness of a confession is attacked, the trial court submitted that issue, with the others, to the jury. The jury was told to disregard the confession entirely if it was found involuntary, and to determine the guilt or innocence solely from other evidence; or, if it found the confession voluntary, it was to determine its truth or reliability and weigh it accordingly. The jury found petitioner guilty of first-degree murder, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed, and this Court denied certiorari. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that the New York procedure for determining voluntariness of a confession was unconstitutional and that his confession was involuntary. The District Court denied the petition and the Court of Appeals affirmed.<br /><br />Held:<br /><br />1. Under the New York procedure, the trial judge must make a preliminary determination of the voluntariness of a confession and exclude it if in no circumstances could the confession be deemed voluntary. If the evidence presents a fair question as to its voluntariness, as where certain facts bearing on the issue are in dispute or where reasonable men could differ over the inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts, the judge must admit the confession and leave to the jury, under proper instructions, the determination of its voluntary character and also of its truthfulness. This procedure does not provide an adequate and reliable determination of the voluntariness of the confession, and does not adequately protect the petitioner's right not to be convicted through the use of a coerced confession, and is therefore violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, overruled. Pp. 378 U. S. 376-391. <br /><br />Page 378 U. S. 369<br /><br /><br />(a) It is a deprivation of due process of law to base a conviction in whole or in part on a coerced confession, regardless of its truth, and even though there may be sufficient other evidence to support the conviction. P. 378 U. S. 376.<br /><br />(b) A defendant has a constitutional right to a fair hearing and reliable determination of the voluntariness of a confession, not influenced by its truth or falsity. Pp. 378 U. S. 376-377.<br /><br />(c) It is impossible to tell whether the trial jury found the confession voluntary and relied on it, or involuntary and supposedly ignored it, but for the Court to accept these alternatives is to fail to protect the rights of the accused. Pp. 378 U. S. 379-391.<br /><br />(d) Under the New York procedure, the evidence given the jury inevitably injects irrelevant and impermissible considerations of truthfulness of the confession into the assessment of voluntariness. Alternatively there is the danger that a confession found to be coerced plays some part in the jury's deliberations on guilt or innocence. Pp. 378 U. S. 386-389.<br /><br />2. Petitioner is entitled to a state court hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession by a body other than the one trying his guilt or innocence, but that does not necessarily entitle him to a new trial. Pp. 378 U. S. 391-396.<br /><br />(a) If, at an evidentiary hearing on the coercion issue, it is determined that the confession was voluntary and admissible in evidence, a new trial is unnecessary. P. 378 U. S. 394.<br /><br />(b) If it is determined at the hearing that the confession was involuntary, a new trial, at which the confession is excluded, is required. P. 378 U. S. 394.<br /><br />309 F. 2d 573, reversed and remanded.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
BTC, Everlasting, and Bec! Great posts!<br /><br />Bec<br />
Why would MJ need to FLY away anyway? Although he does include a song by that title in Bad25... but then in those lyrics he sings "Fly Away, gonna stay".
<br />Funniest things in this hoax, probably deliberate, so good catch.<br /><br />allegation <br />n.<br />1. Something alleged; an assertion: allegations of disloyalty.<br />2. The act of alleging.<br /><br />And here’s The 25 Greatest Legal Movies: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_25_greatest_legal_movies/<br />None of course have 'alleged' in the verdict (that I could see).<br />
"A magic trick consists of three stages: the pledge, the turn and the prestige.<br /><br />A "prestige" is the magician's definite punch-line - it is the final part of a trick in which the "magic" has already been performed, and the magician works backwards to restore whatever it is that he has altered (no magic trick is complete without reconnecting a woman who has been sawed in half, for example. )<br /><br />A good magic trick is secondary to the prestige, because in this final section, the magician reveals his ability to spin a tale beyond his simple performance. Every good magician creates a trick that ends with an impressive prestige.<br /><br />First, there is the setup, or the "pledge", where the magician shows the audience something that appears ordinary but is probably not, making use of misdirection. Next is the performance, or the "turn", where the magician makes the ordinary act extraordinary. Lastly, there is the "prestige", where the effect of the illusion is produced. There are "twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance and you see something shocking you've never seen before."<br />[...]<br />"The Prestige" is told through a fragmented timeline. It is constructed like a post-modern puzzle, framing stories within stories, flashbacks within flashbacks , and presenting us with at least two unreliable narrators - one of whom is the victim in the murder trial that opens the film.<br /><br />The audience routinely sees the same tricks performed at least twice. [...] To pull off his most famous trick, The New Transported Man, Angier [...] requires his own double. [...] There are other sets of pairs as well. [...] In the character of Tesla the film implies that "magic" is simply science we haven't figured out yet.<br /><br />Every single scene in the film has a meaning above and beyond the telling of the mainline. Each scene also gives clues to secrets of the film, and the main theme. Who is the protagonist? [...] Who is the Antagonist?<br /><br />At one point in the film an astute child points out that for the disappearing bird trick to work, something has to be killed."<br />
<br /><br /><br />If we consider an illusion to be part of the hoax, the performer has to be present during performance until final moment of prestige being completely executed (which we seem to be heading at through narrators' guidance and making ends meet again).<br />This eliminates the "airport take-off before during or after death" since the death was only the starter and not the final part of the illusion. <br /><br />This does however not mean that the performer himself must be present in the trick if a bird disappears in the public eye on stage only to reappear - with the help of a double bird - all of a sudden in the rear of the room. A performer who disappears in person will not leave this once in a lifetime trick (and triumph) to others and just walk away. <br />One can only die once. Irreproducible. <br />Coming back from the dead? Feasible only once. Irreproducible. <br />Who died? A double, going to UCLA, being "the new transported man" - by ambulance, Sheriff's helicopter and Coroner van (making the transport a crescendo of mystery and taboo with mixed feelings of curiosity and disliking), making believe it was MJ.<br />Who disappeared? MJ.<br />Who will be back? The master of surprise and "never seen before".<br /><br />Not to forget that illusion is only one of the many layers in this masterpiece.<br /><br />"Two unreliable narrators". <br />Alleged = pretended = assumed<br />("Alleged victim" plays a more important role in child abuse trials than in regular criminal trials. We just had the Sandusky case (not) closed.)
<br />The fire alarm was pulled upon the ambulance's arrival at UCLA. Perfect diversion tactic because immediately there were people gathering outside and not knowing what's going on inside. Definitely decreases the chances of the hoax being caught out as it happened.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />yes and there is no evidence of what happened in the interior of the house by that !surprise ¡ ¡ videos disappeared
<br />If we're gonna get 'technical' about assumptions vs. fact(s)...then there's a whole bunch we can 'cut out' from the picture because most of what we've pieced together IS based on assumptions/speculations and/or taking things as 'truth' without concrete evidence. If we're solely going on 'fact'...then the only 'events' that we can be 150% sure happened 'that day' IMO were what we saw played out live...via several different cameras/media (i.e. a variety of non-hoax related sources), like the helicopter scene. But even then, all we can be sure about is that something was loaded into a helicopter and then something was taken out and loaded into a van and brought to the coroners. Anything beyond that is based on assumptions and speculations. <br /><br />Unless we believe that Mike has not left LA in the last 3+ years (which would be another assumption at this point)...then other locations are involved. I don't see that as a problem in the least, considering Mike was able to visit MANY locations before 'death' where he could 'hide out' and/or only be seen if he wanted to be. None of this, IMO, would require adding a whole bunch more people into the mix....he would just have to have included/used people already working for/with him, who were under confidentiality agreements any way.<br /><br />Again, not saying he boarded a plane or that he didn't...or that he went to UCLA or that he didn't....it would just be more assumptions and speculation. But, IMO, out of all the possible scenarios, having a live and healthy-looking MJ anywhere near UCLA on June 25th would be THE riskiest move of all to pull after a 20 year long hoax plan. But, that too, is 'technically' an opinion based on several assumptions and is not 'proof' enough to state, as fact, that he wasn't there.<br /><br />This is tail chasing at its finest.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />Yes, those are the extent of our facts: what we saw via multiple media sources. Additional facts are events collaborated by multiple witness statements and/or supported by video/audio from that day. That's why I am stuck on those things. I don't want to stray too far from them when hypothesizing. I'm also keeping in mind TS's advice on good investigation, changing as few things as possible, and also resourcing logic theories such as the Razor theory someone posted about, change as little as possible from what you know and make as few assumptions as possible.<br /><br />BTC, do you think it was risky for MJ to appear on LKL in disguise a couple months after he was supposed to be dead? You want to talk about unnecessary risks, appearing on Larry King Live as Dave Dave the burn victim helped as a child by MJ seems to be completely unnecessary and a massive risk. I can't think of any reason he needed to do that TV interview in order for the hoax to succeed. The real Dave Dave could have done the interview and said everything MJ needed him to say and extended the same message that MJ did to the public. The only thing missing would have been our private little show and the huge moral boost eventually/firestorm initially it sent through the hoax community. <br /><br />So my question is, what risk would MJ be taking on unnecessarily by being at UCLA on 6/25/09 in disguise that he didn't take on then? Would he not need to be in disguise no matter where he went on 6/25/09 (or the night before, if you support that theory)? No matter where he went he would risk discovery en route. Not to mention any day since then...<br /><br />Aircraft is federally controlled. You can't just take off and land somewhere and not record the intentions with the proper agencies. Seems complicated. Not to mention it's an assumption. Jermaine's "slip" hasn't been collaborated at all so it's unsubstantiated. I think Jermaine's "airport" slip was a red herring. Besides, MJ Air comes at the end of TII, not the beginning :icon_geek:. <br /><br />The director doesn't give orders about what he wants to see and then goes and plays golf. No, he sticks around and makes sure it's done properly. Of course he does. Lead actors are sometimes also directors, and very successful ones at that.<br /><br />I do not see a good argument explaining why MJ was not in the ambulance on 6/25/09. He was seen arriving at Carrolwood the night of 6/24/09. He left Carrolwood and went somewhere else. Several reports indicate he went to UCLA via the ambulance that was at Carrolwood, left, and arrived at UCLA on 6/25/09. Short of any evidence to the contrary, because this is where you would have to make your first assumption, I pretty much have to stick with this description of events in order to move forward.
Why would MJ need to go to the airport, did we just assume that because of Jermaine's 'slip up'? He wasn't in imminent danger (TS' words) on June 25th 2009 so why leave? <br /><br />Anyway MJ would definitely need to be back in L.A in September to disguise himself as Dave Dave on LKL. But this could be thought of as another risk. Not really a high risk because MJ would of worn a disguise, but there is still a little room for error to make the trip out of L.A, then back again and I'm assuming MJ wouldn't even want a little room for error for anything if he could help it.<br /><br />But also on the subject of Dave Dave; MJ disguising himself as DD in my opinion is very high risk, so...
I'm sure we could make a lo-o-ng list of all the things that happened on 'death' day and afterwards that held high risk, probably in the hundreds. (Maybe an interesting excercise!) Yet the 'Director' chose them to be part of the scenario. A movie Thriller 2, was one of the list of purposes of the hoax wasn't it? MJ is weaving a complex story, with twists and turns, and hints or clues to fool the audience to thinking things are going to go one way, and then - surprise - it goes a totally unexpected way. That's what makes an exciting story for our imaginations to be stimulated. The truly great masters in history, have never cared about risk, but forged ahead, blazing trails. MJ is all about magic, and thrill, and love!<br /><br />I still think Jermaine's slip-up of the airplane was a decoy to takes us away from solving the mystery. ARG manipulations! :affraid: Or like I suggested when we were doing the levels, that MJ hopped on the plane, did a circle over the airport and came back down--just kidding!
<br />I'm sure we could make a lo-o-ng list of all the things that happened on 'death' day and afterwards that held high risk, probably in the hundreds. (Maybe an interesting excercise!) Yet the 'Director' chose them to be part of the scenario. A movie Thriller 2, was one of the list of purposes of the hoax wasn't it? [size=14pt]MJ is weaving a complex story, with twists and turns, and hints or clues to fool the audience to thinking things are going to go one way, and then - surprise - it goes a totally unexpected way. That's what makes an exciting story for our imaginations to be stimulated. The truly great masters in history, have never cared about risk, but forged ahead, blazing trails. MJ is all about magic, and thrill, and love![/size]<br /><br />I still think Jermaine's slip-up of the airplane was a decoy to takes us away from solving the mystery. ARG manipulations! :affraid: Or like I suggested when we were doing the levels, that MJ hopped on the plane, did a circle over the airport and came back down--just kidding!<br />
<br /><br />Me too. JJ's slip up was there as a decoy, he put it in our minds and we assumed MJ went to the airport.<br /><br />I agree (in bold), but if we look at it like this;<br /><br />MJ wanted June 25th to be perfect, he wanted the world to think that he really died. You cannot continue with a hoax when everyone knows your alive, it would be like a bad kept secret. So in my opinion MJ made sure June 25th 2009 went perfectly without any slip ups (so nothing high risk), maybe we just assumed he went to UCLA because of the media and large crowd. Then after everyone thought he died then he could have some fun with everyone and direct it into Thriller 2. <br /><br />June 25th 2009 was just supposed to be something tame then after that he could make it WILD. If you convince/fool someone so well, like in this case MJ convinced people he died, then people would have NO REASON to question his death. There was nothing really suspicious about June 25th 2009 off the bat or on the surface. So people are likely to stick with that and not realize anything else, they are lost in a cloud of emotion and shock (blinded).<br /><br />Like TS said, MJ only got one chance at this...one slip up and his hoax might have been over.
@bec...great post! And I completely agree that how we've pieced things together over the years makes sense, DESPITE the lack of concrete evidence. In keeping it as 'real' as possible, it makes complete sense to me that Mike was at Carolwood on June 25th and he did travel by ambulance to UCLA...where he went after that, who the heck knows lol. When we went through those labourous levels, that scenario is what stood out most for me (made the most sense).<br /><br />But after being here for 3+ years...and after all the rigorous training exercises lol...it's difficult for me to say that I'm 100% sure of much that happened 'that day' because 'in a court of law' a lot of the 'evidence' we have would be considered circumstantial and/or be torn to shreds. We are basing some 'pieces' on video footage we saw that was presented to us as having been shot 'that day'. Yet, we know (or at least have a REAL good inkling) that the person who presented the footage has provided 'fake'/photoshopped/doctored material in the past. We are basing some 'pieces' on witness testimony...some of which we heard stated under oath. Yet, we know that the trial wasn't real and/or couldn't have been real if Mike is alive. Even if our starting point is that some of it was real (i.e. some witnesses didn't know it was 'fake' and were, therefore, telling the truth under oath)...we STILL don't know which testimony to take as 'fact' because we don't know who's who in this whole thing. Not to mention that there were many discrepancies in the testimonies....of those in trial and also of those who were supposedly bystanders at Carolwood that didn't get called as witnesses.<br /><br />It is human nature to 'fill in' the gaps of any story with our own ideas...our brains need to do that to make sense of things and to allow the story to move along in our own minds. And we have done just that throughout this whole thing....filled in as best we could with what we were given to play with. Mike may very well have been at Carolwood 'that day', like we all pretty much thought a year ago during Level 7, and he may very well have gone to UCLA in an ambulance. But, we are basing that on footage from a known 'faker', footage that was neither date or time stamped, conflicting eyewitness accounts, testimony that was chalk full of discrepancies and testimony from people who we can't be sure were telling the truth or following script...because we still don't know how much of that trial was 'real' and how much was 'fake'.<br /><br />As for level of 'risk' involved for Mike showing up anywhere either on June 25th or after....it is relative to the circumstances surrounding the 'appearance'. If he was wearing a disguise, the level of risk would be lower obviously than if he appeared as himself. If the location where he appeared was somehow contained and/or controlled...i.e. few, if any, people not 'in the know' were allowed access or close proximity, then the level of risk is also lower than if he appeared in a throng of people or in a situation where he (or those working for/helping him) were not in control or not able to contain. Do I think the LKL appearance was risky? Well, going on the assumption that it was Mike (and I do believe it was)...of course it was risky. Any and ALL possible 'appearances' on June 25th or after would carry a level of risk. When compared to appearing at a major hospital on 'death' day, though....I would say that it carried much less risk relative to the circumstances surrounding it (i.e. appearing in full disguise as a known individual, on a closed/contained set, being interviewed by someone who's possibly 'in the know'---although that is an assumption lol---months after the world believes him to be dead, IMO lowers the level of risk significantly).<br /><br />
<br />Aircraft is federally controlled. You can't just take off and land somewhere and not record the intentions with the proper agencies.<br />
<br /><br />That's a given. But try to find out who took off on June 25th from LAX on that documented 'mysterious' flight and where they traveled to...and see what you come up with. Just because something is recorded with the proper agencies (maybe FBI?), doesn't mean it can't remain hidden/undercover...in fact, it may not be difficult/complicated at all if you have 'friends' in all the right places.<br /><br />All I'm saying in this whole ramble lol...is that even with ALL the piecing together that we've done over the years...even with ALL the 'evidence' we had/found to 'fill in' the gaps and come up with a 'reasonable' picture of what happened 'that day' (or any day really lol)...the ONLY thing I would bet the farm on (at this point), is that Mike did not die on June 25th. Anything beyond that, IMO, is a gamble.<br /><br />I'm not even sure that the levels (especially Level 7) were ever meant to lead us to answers....perhaps they were meant to fine-tune our questions/methods.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
I think the whole hoax has been and is being a risk itself because Michael has for sure had sometimes the need to walk among the crowd or talk to someone although even being in disguise and/or any of his knowers could tell the truth to the media or online as for instance Teddy Riley who IDK if he just wanted to tell it or he just was the only one that Michael let tell that he is alive.
Comments