<br /> <br />No live coverage? Boo-urns!<br /><br />So the public will be largely dependent on media coverage to hear what happens....<br />
<br /><br />yeah; like Diane Dimond will give all the facts without bias and personal commentary :Pulling_hair:<br />
<br /><br />There is a twittion going on!...to get Diane Dimond from CNN. here's the link.<br /><br /><br /> http://twitition.com/gbp2v<br /><br /><br />
<br />Sorry Bec what do you mean with this 87 - 10 thing ? I don't understand... :icon_redface:<br />
<br /><br />
on 1366224650:
<br />87 -10 = 77 perhaps<br />
<br /><br />Yes. We were just saying on this thread that we weren't certain that the judge was under MJ's control or not and then we get this in the AP the next day. Stuff like that makes me officially crazy, right?<br /><br />Now I'll say I'm pretty certain the judge is under MJ's control :icon_cool:
<br />@Bec, if the Judge is in, does that mean that AEG is in also (you know, movie theory)?<br />
<br /><br />Judge being under Michael's control doesn't mean that Judge has to be in on it, they could very well be under somebody's control who is in touch with Michael, not everybody knows about the hoax however Michael might have key people working for him, you can call it FBI, family or whoever.
<br />@Bec, if the Judge is in, does that mean that AEG is in also (you know, movie theory)?<br />
<br /><br />Who knows? One doesn't necessarily equate the other. But reducing the potential juror pool by 17 from 104 (=87) and then dismissing 10 more (=77) incorporates some good hoaxy numbers. 17? eh... ok. But 77?? Come on. That's way too big a coincidence. Well, I think so anyway.<br /><br />It's my hunch that AEG is working for MJ. I've kinda felt that way all along.<br /><br />Randy Phillips said way too many hoaxy things in the immediate aftermath of 6/25/09 for me to think he's clueless.
Not sure about the numbers thing bec, but I agree with you on AEG not being the bad guys as portrayed. Nothing so far has convinced me they're not just playing a part. That being said, it certainly begs the question if they are in on it and Katherine and the kids are too, then just what is this trial meant to prove?? It's certainly not about who hired Murray! I can see where you arrive at the movie theory!!
I'm not sure either but I have to admit, arriving at 77 potential jurors is one hell of a coincidence. <br /><br />We didn't have to know about it. The pool could have been quietly reduced, or ticked off slowly, hitting 77 jurors without mention and proceeding right along (to 76, 75, etc) in the methodical way our legal system works, but no. It's a milestone recognized with the Judge sited as being solely responsible for this action, and the info injected into the media, to be printed, so that we, the media consuming public, may note the occasion. <br /><br />So I'm pretty happy to resolve this judge to the "in on it" category.
<br />Yeah, I wouldn't worry. All along MJ has made sure that if it's important, we get to see it for free.<br /><br />If what goes on in this court room and this court case is important to the hoax, MJ will make it happen for us. I'm certain of that.<br />
<br />[size=18pt]<br />Hmm, that's assuming MJ is in total control of things, in this instance in control of the judge - I'm not certain of that. I think he has had to go with the flow at times in the past four years[/size]. Hope you're right though!<br />
[size=12pt]<br />yeah not having it all under control could put a whole new perspective on the statement " we have four years to get it right or the damage we've done is irreversible" :just sayin'[/size]
It's my hunch that AEG is working for MJ. I've kinda felt that way all along.<br /><br />Randy Phillips said way too many hoaxy things in the immediate aftermath of 6/25/09 for me to think he's clueless.
<br />Agree. Curls, it seemed to me TS said it wasn’t only a movie but a sting as well, and he hinted the target was big as TPTB. <br />
^^^ Yes RK, I just saw that about Tohme! <br /><br />(I've been following several threads on MJJC regarding this trial - Ivy there is keeping a very comprehensive record of all its updates, but I know she is understandably protective of her work [I think she is paying for the court documents] so I've been hesitant in posting anything here from there. I guess posting links, like you just did RK is ok though, agreed?)
I don't know if this has already been said, but Jermaine is on the witness list as Jermaine Jackson instead of Jacksun. I guess this Jacksun thing wasn't so official after all...
<br />Ooooh I hope we hear from Tohme Tohme!<br /><br />I'm on the fence about Randy Phillips, he has made those seemingly obvious hoaxy quotes. It would appear that the Jacksons are pointing the finger at AEG as the "bad guy" but whether they are an actual baddie or represent all the baddies in the world...or if it's all part of an elaborate movie script, or perhaps a combination of all.<br /><br /><br />Shrimp:<br />
I don't know if this has already been said, but Jermaine is on the witness list as Jermaine Jackson instead of Jacksun. I guess this Jacksun thing wasn't so official after all...
<br /><br /><br />Your observation could actually support the movie theory as well because he said he would still use "Jackson" for professional reasons (movie credits?, trial not totally legit?), assuming that he did in fact change his name to Jacksun.<br />
<br />@Bec, if the Judge is in, does that mean that AEG is in also (you know, movie theory)?<br />
<br /><br />This is something I have recently come to believe recently, that AEG are in. But JMO. Time will tell. <br /><br />Exciting!!<br /><br />Meanwhile the SUN reports the trial will probably last 4 months... Interesting, considering some think 4 yrs is up in June. (Not me)
couple of things that seem to be missing are what have me curious . one no miko on the witness list ( he is listed as michael's assistant in tii credits i am fairly sure) and why has katherine not ask for the rest of that footage that murray couldn't get for his trial?
Comments