Given, we take the published document as the true DL record (why not signed if the stamp requires a signature, but well...) that someone really leaked (or "as if" leaked if this is meant to train our brains again for revealing "how"), these are some of my thoughts.<br /><br />As of June 2005, California required digital finger prints to be taken. Prior to 2005, they took ink finger prints.<br />The application date of the document says July 2005.<br />Whether "digital" means more likelihood of faking documents via electronic falsification or less chance to forge identities - authorities would probably say less chance.<br /><br />As fingerprints were stored in the driver's license chip, identification could be easy in the hospital - given the body was carrying the same fingers.<br /><br />2010 marks another step in increased security features in CA as to DL (sources among others: http://www.morphotrust.com/pages/204-history) <br />The fact of changes in security features made it imperative to have a DL expire before 2010 and make the hoax happen before 2010. This timing and features lead us to several alternative scenarios. <br /><br />(I will not look at the question why a patient in an ambulance who wasn't involved in a car accident would carry his DL in his pockets when he came out of bed. Let's say somebody cared to provide the card to the ambu staff.)<br /><br />The person giving his finger prints must have seen the CDM office in person in 2005 due to the new method of taking finger prints / old ink records were not applicable anymore. Since 2005, CA requires a "live scan" (http://www.marinsheriff.org/uploads/documents/Live%20Scan%20FAQ%20Revised%20042507.pdf.)<br /><br />Scenario 1) <br />MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005<br />MJ providing his photo<br />Identification of MJ's body as MJ at UCLA -> everything correct, no sting<br />MJ dead<br /><br />Scenario 2)<br />MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005<br />MJ providing his photo<br />MJ not at UCLA / identification of wrong body as MJ at UCLA (not according to standard procedure -> indication for sting)<br />other person dead<br />[Does not fit TS_comment's statement that MJ did not plan to be at UCLA - if MJ changed plans and was there, this would kill the sting at least as to wrong identification procedure.]<br /><br />Scenario 3)<br />Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005<br />MJ providing his photo (digitally via web?) -> authorities issuing license violating standard procedure -> indication for sting (corruption?)<br />Wrong identification of body as MJ at UCLA (if they compared finger prints, they had no chance but identify the body as MJ, if they only looked at the photo, still not following standard procedure -> indication for sting, but minor)<br />other person dead<br />[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]<br /><br />Scenario 4)<br />Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005 -> authorities NOT issuing license according to standard procedure (verification or corruption issue?) -> indication for sting<br />Other person providing his photo (after surgery?) -> authorities issuing license according to standard procedure (who will judge pictures)<br />Other person giving personal data identical to MJ -> authorities NOT issuing license according to standard procedure (verification or corruption issue?) -> indication for sting<br />Identification of body rightly as MJ at UCLA according to documents provided = cover-up successful<br />other person dead<br />[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]<br /><br />If the sting is targeted at authorities in CA, given the a.m. scenarios, it is most likely the Department of Justice.<br />
Q. What is Live Scan?<br />A. Live Scan is the electronic process used to obtain fingerprints. Fingerprints previously were obtained using ink and cardstock quality cards. In the past ink cards took months or even years to analyze. Technological advances now enable us to digitally obtain prints, and then electronically transmit the images to[size=12pt] the Department of Justice for review[/size].
http://www.marinsheriff.org/uploads/documents/Live%20Scan%20FAQ%20Revised%20042507.pdf<br /><br />If they did accept a third person's finger prints as MJ's without any rejection, this is proof of slatternliness which combined with any additional corruption attempt may lead to forgery of identities, forgery of "breeding" ID documents and thus is the root to support / cover any further criminal activity. Imagine what can be done with your (falsely stored / deciphered) finger prints not only on electronic highways.<br />Given the potential impact and weight of the consequences, I could imagine scenario 4 with target DoJ getting some positive taste. This would also explain the coop of the judge, the DA, etc. etc.<br /><br />The pictures do show different persons. <br />It is Johnathan with Doe eyes vs. Joe Handsome. There are two and it is not only the chin cleft. Facial features don't match (jaw angle etc.) that's why the hairs had to cover the sides despite it is against DL picture directive. <br /><br />Remaining question for me is how did they find a terminally ill patient who would die 4 years later.<br />Except: he was there all the time as a decoy, unfortunately got ill and the agency sting was just made up to make the story look more dramatic.
<br />Given, we take the published document as the true DL record (why not signed if the stamp requires a signature, but well...) that someone really leaked (or "as if" leaked if this is meant to train our brains again for revealing "how"), these are some of my thoughts.<br /><br />As of June 2005, California required digital finger prints to be taken. Prior to 2005, they took ink finger prints.<br />The application date of the document says July 2005.<br />Whether "digital" means more likelihood of faking documents via electronic falsification or less chance to forge identities - authorities would probably say less chance.<br /><br />As fingerprints were stored in the driver's license chip, identification could be easy in the hospital - given the body was carrying the same fingers.<br /><br />2010 marks another step in increased security features in CA as to DL (sources among others: http://www.morphotrust.com/pages/204-history) <br />The fact of changes in security features made it imperative to have a DL expire before 2010 and make the hoax happen before 2010. This timing and features lead us to several alternative scenarios. <br /><br />(I will not look at the question why a patient in an ambulance who wasn't involved in a car accident would carry his DL in his pockets when he came out of bed. Let's say somebody cared to provide the card to the ambu staff.)<br /><br />The person giving his finger prints must have seen the CDM office in person in 2005 due to the new method of taking finger prints / old ink records were not applicable anymore. Since 2005, CA requires a "live scan" (http://www.marinsheriff.org/uploads/documents/Live%20Scan%20FAQ%20Revised%20042507.pdf.)<br /><br />Scenario 1) <br />MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005<br />MJ providing his photo<br />Identification of MJ's body as MJ at UCLA -> everything correct, no sting<br />MJ dead<br /><br />Scenario 2)<br />MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005<br />MJ providing his photo<br />MJ not at UCLA / identification of wrong body as MJ at UCLA (not as to standard procedure -> indication for sting)<br />other person dead<br />[Does not fit TS_comment's statement that MJ did not plan to be at UCLA - if MJ changed plans and was there, this would kill the sting at least as to wrong identification procedure.]<br /><br />Scenario 3)<br />Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005<br />MJ providing his photo (digitally via web?) -> authorities issuing license not as to standard procedure -> indication for sting (corruption?)<br />Wrong identification of body as MJ at UCLA (if they compared finger prints, they had no chance but identify the body as MJ, if they only looked at the photo, still not following standard procedure -> indication for sting, but minor)<br />other person dead<br />[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]<br /><br />Scenario 4)<br />Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005<br />Other person providing his photo (after surgery?) -> authorities issuing license as to standard procedure<br />Other person giving personal data identical to MJ -> authorities NOT issuing license as to standard procedure (verification or corruption issue?) -> indication for sting<br />Identification of body rightly as MJ at UCLA according to documents provided = cover-up successful<br />other person dead<br />[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]<br /><br />If the sting is targeted at authorities in CA, given the a.m. scenarios, it is most likely the Department of Justice.<br />
Q. What is Live Scan?<br />A. Live Scan is the electronic process used to obtain fingerprints. Fingerprints previously were obtained using ink and cardstock quality cards. In the past ink cards took months or even years to analyze. Technological advances now enable us to digitally obtain prints, and then electronically transmit the images to[size=12pt] the Department of Justice for review[/size].
http://www.marinsheriff.org/uploads/documents/Live%20Scan%20FAQ%20Revised%20042507.pdf<br /><br />If they did accept a third person's finger prints as MJ's without any rejection, this is proof of slatternliness which combined with any additional corruption attempt may lead to forgery of identities, forgery of "breeding" ID documents and thus is the root to support any criminal activity. Imagine what can be done with your (falsely stored / deciphered) finger prints not only on electronic highways.<br />Given the potential impact and weight of the consequences, I could imagine scenario 4 with target DoJ getting some positive taste. This would also explain the coop of the judge, the DA, etc. etc.<br /><br />The pictures do show different persons. <br />It is Johnathan with Doe eyes vs. Joe Handsome. There are two and it is not only the chin cleft. Facial features don't match (jaw angle etc.) that's why the hairs had to cover the sides despite it is against DL picture directive. <br /><br />Remaining question for me is how did they find a terminally ill patient who would die 4 years later.<br />Except: he was there all the time as a decoy, unfortunately got ill and the agency sting was just made up to make the story look more dramatic.<br />
<br /><br /><br />Can you conclude in 1 sentence your post?
Summary:<br /><br />a) MJ is dead<br /><br />b) MJ is not dead and somebody cared to provide false finger prints either in 2005 or later which were not checked properly by DoJ and produced a forged ID card.<br /><br />b1) Source of false finger prints was a terminally ill DWD patient (who would die timely up to 4 yrs later) serving a sting operation against the DoJ.<br />b2) Source of false finger prints was a decoy that existed all through the years and no sting is set up.<br /><br />Unfortunately 1 sentence was not enough. ;-)<br />Merry Christmas!
<br />Summary:<br /><br />a) MJ is dead<br /><br />b) MJ is not dead and somebody cared to provide false finger prints either in 2005 or later which were not checked properly by DoJ and produced a forged ID card.<br /><br />b1) Source of false finger prints was a terminally ill DWD patient (who would die timely up to 4 yrs later) serving a sting operation against the DoJ.<br />b2) Source of false finger prints was a decoy that existed all through the years and no sting is set up.<br /><br />Unfortunately 1 sentence was not enough. ;-)<br />Merry Christmas!<br />
<br /><br />1.Dead person's finger prints have not been checked to verify identity.<br />2.Finger prints cannot be false. 3.Michael's finger prints had been taken many times in his life time,so it could not be mistaken with other prints.
<br />1.Dead person's finger prints have not been checked to verify identity.<br />2.Finger prints cannot be false. 3.Michael's finger prints had been taken many times in his life time,so it could not be mistaken with other prints. <br />
<br /><br />1. We don't know this.<br /><br />2. Sure, if the wrong person provides them or if the wrong finger prints were manufactured onto the ID card. <br />Within a corruption case, both is feasible.<br /><br />3. That's exactly the point. <br />His finger prints were at least available from the trial and certainly from the raid(s) at Neverland.<br /><br />
Source: Fingerprints of Jackson, boy on magazines<br />NEVERLAND RANCH<br />December 13, 2004<br />Fingerprints of Michael Jackson and those of his accuser have been found on "pornographic magazines" seized during a raid on the pop singer's Neverland ranch, a source familiar with the case told CNN. Investigators raided Jackson's Los Olivos, California, property based on allegations of child molestation in November 2003 and seized a variety of items from the entertainer's estate, including items from his bedroom and master bath, sources said.
On December 3, 2004, Jackson's Neverland ranch was raided again. The media had been tipped off and were in place to cover the raid. Soon after, a story emerged that was hardly the smoking gun the District Attorney must have hoped for, given the extravagance of the search. [size=12pt]Fingerprints were found, not from material collected during the raid, but from a magazine that the DA has had in his possession for over a year. [/size]Is it possible that the prosecution, if they are the source of the leak, actually think the media-consuming public is as stupid as that? If the fingerprint story is accurate -- and there is no way of knowing that -- then there are various ways the boy's fingerprints could have appeared on that magazine. Jackson and the boy could have looked at the magazine together; the boy could have discovered and perused the magazine on his own, or, [size=12pt]the fingerprints could have been planted by a DA desperate to convict Jackson. [/size]At the eleventh hour, fingerprints were found. What an amazing coincidence! <br />http://mj.invisionconnect.com/index.php?/topic/246-the-michael-jackson-case-fingerprints-and-tabloids/
<br />1.Dead person's finger prints have not been checked to verify identity.<br />2.Finger prints cannot be false. 3.Michael's finger prints had been taken many times in his life time,so it could not be mistaken with other prints. <br />
<br /><br />1. We don't know this.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Perhaps you don't, but that also was investigated here since Autopsy report appeared unless I missed something that discovered thereafter.
[size=10pt]THIS IS INTERESTING COMMENT[/size]<br /><br />http://www.sohh.com/2012/12/ap9_ditches_coco_for_nba_ballers_wife_ri.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=general-feed<br /><br />AP.9 Ditches Coco For NBA Baller's Wife, Rihanna Spazzes Out On Fan, Michael Jackson Driver's License Pops Up<br /><br />Monday, Dec 24, 2012 11:50AM<br /><br />3. The King's Back<br /><br />Why in the world would Michael Jackson's 2005 driver's license be coming up right now? Seems a bit strange to think that three years after his untimely death that this would not only pop up but become a relevant topic. Pretty interesting though to see Michael in a new light. TMZ has the exclusive shot:<br />
@ellyd ...very nice post...it could be any 2, 3 or 4th scenario ...but definitely not the first. We know that Michael is alive, (at least by the same name)<br /><br />Referring Souza's post:<br /><br />If the person in the DL is NOT MJ then, the following are also not:<br /><br /><br /><br />
>http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/driverjtj.jpg <
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />the third one is from "Living With Michael Jackson"<br /><br />But at the end part where Martin Bashir interviews MJ:<br /><br />this one is really MJ:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Also the guy at NASDAQ is ALSO NOT MJ<br /><br /><br />going further:<br /><br />ScorpionChik posted:<br />
Wait a minute, I think I got it. "Michael Jackson" on the false DL that expires in 2010 died on 06/25. Was this DL in hospice patient's pocket in his way to UCLA for identification? Of course, later on, regardless of the name on DL, all other death related documents go by Michael Joseph Jackson.
<br /><br /><br />If this is the person who really died...then it's quite impossible that this guy is a DWD patient...<br /><br />1) Finding a patient , who happens to be MJ impersonator, and also a DWD patient is simply impossible<br /><br />2) If a DWD patient was chosen, was made to go through plastic surgeries to look like MJ, then he would not have been able to withstand those surgeries.<br />It's impossible that a terminally ill patient can survive under such heavy and numerous surgeries.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
Ellyd, with the fingerprints there is simply so many unknowns.<br />
If the fingerprint story is accurate -- and there is no way of knowing that -- then there are various ways the boy's fingerprints could have appeared on that magazine. Jackson and the boy could have looked at the magazine together; the boy could have discovered and perused the magazine on his own, or, [size=14pt]the fingerprints could have been planted by a DA desperate to convict Jackson[/size].
<br /><br /><br />Thriller4ever, those are all MJ, including Nasdaq, but maybe that's what you were saying by starting with "if".<br />I agree with this as well.<br />
1) Finding a patient , who happens to be MJ impersonator, and also a DWD patient is simply impossible<br /><br />2) If a DWD patient was chosen, was made to go through plastic surgeries to look like MJ, then he would not have been able to withstand those surgeries.<br />It's impossible that a terminally ill patient can survive under such heavy and numerous surgeries.
<br />Although Elvis said his death hoax hospice patient had surgeries to help him look like Elvis.<br /><br />I still think this DL pic is clearly MJ from 1993, thus clearly not legal (as already stated the pic should be on the other side). Notice the bottom of his chin is identical in both pics, with the left side slightly lower than the right (from our view). The pic is also darker, grainier making MJ look slightly different. In many pics MJ's eyebrows are frequently darker/lighter, often eyelashes curled or thickened, but that is an easy make-up matter.<br /><br /><br /><br />
Was MJ under "mind-control" during this period...<br /><br />if that person in the DL picture IS MJ, then he's definitely not himself...IMO he looks so lost...not at all his usual self. If you guys know what I mean...<br /><br />
Well, I was wrong in one premise. <br />Officially, a dead body is not permitted to be examined as to finger prints as long as the coroner hasn't given his consent.<br />Thus, identification by finger prints does not take place in any hospital in LA (as long as directives are being followed which we can assume in this case, since taking finger prints is a laborious procedure requiring special equipment). <br />So: most likely no check of finger prints in hospital.<br /><br />However, identification of a dead body at the coroner does take place by taking finger prints (among other methods) which are sent electronically to FBI. This will be the preferred option of identification for a case where an autopsy has been ordered. At that moment, any forgery must have come to daylight - except if the respective finger print specialist / FBI information recipient was involved as well. <br /><br />So I modify the scenarios: <br />identification at UCLA without any reference to finger prints - identification from DL / body not important at that moment but certainly at the coroner. I do not exclude potential identity theft from the list of motivations for a crime or for the hoax.<br /><br />I'll leave it at that.<br />
<br />Was MJ under "mind-control" during this period...<br /><br />if that person in the DL picture IS MJ, then he's definitely not himself...IMO he looks so lost...not at all his usual self. If you guys know what I mean...<br />
<br /><br />He could probably had been under mind-control. In this period he often hung out with Uri Geller.<br />Look at the pictures. Similar face expressions...<br /><br /><br /><br />Psychic Uri Geller defended his friend Michael Jackson (together, above) on Sunday,<br />saying the pop singer denied under hypnosis three years ago that he had<br />sexually abused children.<br /><br />Geller, best known for his claimed telekinetic ability to bend spoons, told Israel’s<br />Army Radio that he hypnotized Jackson when the two were alone in a recording<br />studio at an undisclosed location.<br /><br />"I told him that that if he would let me, I would hypnotize him," Geller<br />told the radio. "He said, ‘Okay, let’s give it a try.’"<br /><br />source: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/dowbrigade/2004/01/18/uri-geller-declares-michael-jackson-innocent/<br /><br /><br /><br />[size=12pt]March 30, 2011 – Michael Jackson and Uri Geller, Schmuley Boteach and the other Watchmen[/size]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Uri Geller was a paratrooper in the military, and was involved in some experiments with MK Ultra for the CIA many years ago, where they utilized his so-called paranormal abilities in their behavioral research. <br /><br />“At the age of 18[4] he served as a paratrooper in the Israeli Army,[5] and was wounded in action during the 1967 Six-Day War. By the 1970s, Geller had become known in the United States and Europe. He also received attention from the scientific community, whose members were interested in examining his reported psychic abilities.” <br /><br />source and more to read: http://michaelsguardian.blogspot.de/2011/03/michael-jackson-not-up-on-new-world.html<br />
I'm going to put down my thoughts....<br /><br />Whether the person is MJ or not...<br /><br />1)If the guy in the DL in MJ, then<br /><br />- he's under mind -control (not his usual self)<br /><br /><br />2) If the person is not MJ, Then<br /><br />a) He's a DWD Patientb) He's just a duplicate, an impersonator<br /> <br />a.1) If the guy in the TMZ photo is a DWD patient, -What would have been his role in this hoax anyways? (striking off ) <br />it's impossible that this picture was taken in 2005,<br />given that a DWD patient has only 6 months to live.<br /><br />a.2) Assuming that the DWD patient underwent plastic<br />surgeries to look like MJ any time between <br />January to June (before 25th), <br /><br />wouldn't this have created an identity crisis for the DWD patient?<br /><br />if yes...strike off this possibility<br />If no... IDK<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />And that leaves me at the 1st option....it is MJ under control...
@Thriller4ever.<br /><br />As for 2.a):<br /><br />I doubted the DWD theory at first, because I couldn't believe that MJ would use a real corpse for his Death Hoax.<br />But with a bit of explaining from TS, I kinda turned my believes. (and, without a BAM before 3/1/2013, this could be fake also )<br /><br />BUT: <br />To use a Hospice patient is one thing. To let him get plastic surgery is another.<br />I cannot believe that.<br /><br />How can you make that right? How can you let a person (who's got 6 months to live), go under plastic surgery?<br /><br /><br /><br />
I still can't see why this is not MJ's picture in the DL! Anyone can look sad or stressed anytime, even while getting photographed. This could be the beginning of Michael's health issue as a preparation for the hoax! But I'm definitely sure that it is MJ in the pic.<br /><br />
<br />@Thriller4ever.<br /><br />As for 2.a):<br /><br />I doubted the DWD theory at first, because I couldn't believe that MJ would use a real corpse for his Death Hoax.<br />But with a bit of explaining from TS, I kinda turned my believes. (and, without a BAM before 3/1/2013, this could be fake also )<br /><br />BUT: <br />To use a Hospice patient is one thing. To let him get plastic surgery is another.<br />I cannot believe that.<br /><br />How can you make that right? How can you let a person (who's got 6 months to live), go under plastic surgery?<br />
<br /><br />What if he was already done with surgery? I don't know how that would really work, but I doubt a man with 6 months to live is going to go under surgery. Also there was a video, I forgot where it was, but it was Jermaine (Michael's brother) responding on that, saying that Michael used that 6 months thing as a way to get publicity for his This Is It concert. So I don't know if that's true, but I heard him say it. He said something about Michael knowing how to manipulate the media and his ex wife Lisa Presley even said it also, talking about how he could manipulate the media.
<br />I still can't see why this is not MJ's picture in the DL! Anyone can look sad or stressed anytime, even while getting photographed. This could be the beginning of Michael's health issue as a preparation for the hoax! But I'm definitely sure that it is MJ in the pic.<br />
<br /><br />I also think it's him. And I believe the focus it's not on the picture.
<br />@Thriller4ever.<br /><br />As for 2.a):<br /><br />I doubted the DWD theory at first, because I couldn't believe that MJ would use a real corpse for his Death Hoax.<br />But with a bit of explaining from TS, I kinda turned my believes. (and, without a BAM before 3/1/2013, this could be fake also )<br /><br />BUT: <br />To use a Hospice patient is one thing. To let him get plastic surgery is another.<br />I cannot believe that.<br /><br />How can you make that right? How can you let a person (who's got 6 months to live), go under plastic surgery?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />no...that's not possible...one of the reason to strike off the possibility...which i forgot to mention ;D <br /><br />@Diggy and @Adore ... I was considering Souza's post and the two pictures she posted were kind of different which made me think it could be possible, but then i couldn't see where an impersonator can fit in so....I think it is Michael.....<br /><br />If it is a DWD patient, UCLA has to be in the hoax right? (correct me if i'm wrong), then according to ellyd's post there would have been no need for any sting on UCLA...
Comments
>http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/driverjtj.jpg <
<br /><br /><br />