The final death certificate ?
<!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( --> <!-- m -->http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/multime ... 81072a.jpg<!-- m -->
Homocide. Was in a danish paper today.
Homocide. Was in a danish paper today.
Comments
Exactly. Where would they have got this from anyway?
I don''t think the family would have released the DC to the media.
It would be worrying if the Coroner had announced it.
Maybe I should have looked at the pic before I posted.
I honestly don't know now.
Well spotted - this must mean its fake!!
7,7 2009 2-9=7, so it is 777. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Also shouldn't news as BIG as this be reported on "News Headlines", i have only found it on SKY under "ENTERTAINMENT NEWS", since when has a murder headline come under entertainment news??
BBC so far have not reported it, The Sun and News Of The World are known for False News.
in the last two months, that now allows then to issue a new DC, makes absolutely no sense.
Plus why release the doxtors name and block out the signature. So until I see a signed DC, I will not believe it!!!
I disagree. This again is "cart before the horse" thinking. It doesn't prove it's fake, it proves there are different codes.
I challenge you to be a good investigator.
You must first prove that the numbers should be the same before you can say that this is a problem. Then if the two should be the same start finding out what could be the reason they are different before you say it is fake.
Does anyone know how to find out if the numbers should be the same? Where can we get these rules? I thought this was a Census Trac number and I researched it some but it blows my mind a bit.
This was discussed at length in a previous topic and on the old forum. The bar codes should match, that is why I posted what I did.
It's strange that you couldn't find Dr Christopher Rodgers in California or at UCLA, he should exist if he signed the DC, shouldn't he? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> What do you mean the DC still remains unsigned? Where should the signature be? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
we have seen this dc before....
its fake anyway <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
We have two different people certifying here...Cheryl Macwillie 1st page and Christopher Rogers in the amendment page...the first page doesn't have a real signature, just the name in print? Does that still make it valid?
Edit** I think my questions have been answered...<!-- m -->http://movies.rediff.com/report/2010/ja ... rdered.htm<!-- m -->