The MOST CONCLUSIVE evidence that we have about the autopsy being FAKE (although there are dozens and dozens of obvious things) but the BIGGEST thing is that the ENTIRE autopsy report was dictated on 06/26/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on toxicology results. The ENTIRE DICTATION was typed on 06/30/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on the toxicology results. THE ENTIRE AUTOPSY REPORT was typed/transcribed on 06/30/09. The TOXICOLOGY results were NOT EVEN IN until 07/15/09 as dated on the toxicology reports. You cannot dictate and transcribe toxicology reports that are not in yet. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Secondly, the coroner seal that appears on the autopsy report expired in 2004 and they changed to a new seal that year. The TOXICOLOGY reports have the new seal but the blood was drawn on a patient named "Trauma, Gershwen." The blood tubes must be labeled "Jackson, Michael." George Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "It Ain't Necessarily So." Ira Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "The Man That Got Away."
There are dozens of other things that have already been discussed on other links here in the forum. But nothing about the autopsy is authentic. It is a good fake, until you look at the dates of dictation, dates of transcription, legal seals, and pay attention to the "legal" details such as how the blood tubes are labeled. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
i lost my grandfather at 18, i dissolved myself in tears at his funeral and i wasn't able to do anything right for weeks, not even the basic stuff like eating or sleeping right (let go speak in public). if i just imagine having lost a parent at the age these kids are, there would be no way i could handle that. and no way i could see my dead parent with hoses and needles stuck in. and i would never expose a child to that.
Not only that, but he is their only parent. Their world basically evolved around him, he was always around.
exactly. i would have to have been drugged some kinda way to even stand sraight. either these kids are absolutely in control of themselves, then i humbly rest my case, or they know something we don't (yet)...
p.s.: i lost other relatives and friends, too. but i absolutely adored my grandpa, he was the world to me. that was the hardest one for me yet and that was over 20 years ago. i still have my parents, so i consider myself very lucky. i have seen my best friend's daughter literally go through hell over months, when her mother died (she was my best friend, so i've been through some stuff myself). she was eight then, there was no way we could get her to do anything, she was just crying and screaming all the time and that over months. we almost couldn't go through with the funeral, that's how she freaked. that was considered a 'normal' reaction by psychologists who also recommended not to let the child see her mother dead. she had cancer, so we were able to take advice how to handle things when the time came. but then, i live in germany, maybe that's handled differently in the states. we usually also don't have open caskets over here, which seems to be common in the usa. except for michael... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
The MOST CONCLUSIVE evidence that we have about the autopsy being FAKE (although there are dozens and dozens of obvious things) but the BIGGEST thing is that the ENTIRE autopsy report was dictated on 06/26/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on toxicology results. The ENTIRE DICTATION was typed on 06/30/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on the toxicology results. THE ENTIRE AUTOPSY REPORT was typed/transcribed on 06/30/09. The TOXICOLOGY results were NOT EVEN IN until 07/15/09 as dated on the toxicology reports. You cannot dictate and transcribe toxicology reports that are not in yet. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Secondly, the coroner seal that appears on the autopsy report expired in 2004 and they changed to a new seal that year. The TOXICOLOGY reports have the new seal but the blood was drawn on a patient named "Trauma, Gershwen." The blood tubes must be labeled "Jackson, Michael." George Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "It Ain't Necessarily So." Ira Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "The Man That Got Away."
There are dozens of other things that have already been discussed on other links here in the forum. But nothing about the autopsy is authentic. It is a good fake, until you look at the dates of dictation, dates of transcription, legal seals, and pay attention to the "legal" details such as how the blood tubes are labeled. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
The seal is not a legal seal as you say. It's more of a logo - unlike the "seal" that a notary would use. The logos on the coroner's report and the tox report are identical. The only difference is the shading due to reproduction. All the dates are in line. This report is authentic. I'm sure the coroner added the last page of the report [which is prob. what you're talking about] after the tox report came back.
The MOST CONCLUSIVE evidence that we have about the autopsy being FAKE (although there are dozens and dozens of obvious things) but the BIGGEST thing is that the ENTIRE autopsy report was dictated on 06/26/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on toxicology results. The ENTIRE DICTATION was typed on 06/30/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on the toxicology results. THE ENTIRE AUTOPSY REPORT was typed/transcribed on 06/30/09. The TOXICOLOGY results were NOT EVEN IN until 07/15/09 as dated on the toxicology reports. You cannot dictate and transcribe toxicology reports that are not in yet. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Secondly, the coroner seal that appears on the autopsy report expired in 2004 and they changed to a new seal that year. The TOXICOLOGY reports have the new seal but the blood was drawn on a patient named "Trauma, Gershwen." The blood tubes must be labeled "Jackson, Michael." George Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "It Ain't Necessarily So." Ira Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "The Man That Got Away."
There are dozens of other things that have already been discussed on other links here in the forum. But nothing about the autopsy is authentic. It is a good fake, until you look at the dates of dictation, dates of transcription, legal seals, and pay attention to the "legal" details such as how the blood tubes are labeled. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
The seal is not a legal seal as you say. It's more of a logo - unlike the "seal" that a notary would use. The logos on the coroner's report and the tox report are identical. The only difference is the shading due to reproduction. All the dates are in line. This report is authentic. I'm sure the coroner added the last page of the report [which is prob. what you're talking about] after the tox report came back.
I agree, when I am writing reports for calls I run on as an EMT sometimes I remember a detail that should go in the report the next day, of course I have to date and initial the fact that I added something, so I usually try to make sure everything is their that day.
But I agree, they could have wrote what they knew at the time then added pages later.
The autopsy report sure looks authentic, but there are enough strange things about it to make me go hmmmmm. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I read the whole report and cried my eyes out. <!-- s --><!-- s --> And, I didn't look at this site for an entire day, which I usually look over stuff at least once or twice a day. I almost gave up on beLIEving and having faith. But, then I came back and started reading all the posts about the report and now I have big doubts about it. I don't think anyone can say 100% that the report is authentic unless they watched the cornoner write it. IDK, but how can you be so certain.
Remember....things don't always apear to be like it seems. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
The autopsy report sure looks authentic, but there are enough strange things about it to make me go hmmmmm. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I read the whole report and cried my eyes out. <!-- s --><!-- s --> And, I didn't look at this site for an entire day, which I usually look over stuff at least once or twice a day. I almost gave up on beLIEving and having faith. But, then I came back and started reading all the posts about the report and now I have big doubts about it. I don't think anyone can say 100% that the report is authentic unless they watched the cornoner write it. IDK, but how can you be so certain.
Remember....things don't always apear to be like it seems. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
One way to look at it is like this, I am an EMT, when I write a report on a call it become a legal document, if I lie in that report I have commit perjury. The reason being if my report is like it should be is basically taking my place in court. The only time they would call me in is if something in my report didn't make since. Same with a coroner. The difference is they are most of the time if not all the time called in to testify, so he would either have to commit perjury again or say something totally different than whats in his report with his signature on it and make himself look stupid.
The autopsy report sure looks authentic, but there are enough strange things about it to make me go hmmmmm. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I read the whole report and cried my eyes out. <!-- s --><!-- s --> And, I didn't look at this site for an entire day, which I usually look over stuff at least once or twice a day. I almost gave up on beLIEving and having faith. But, then I came back and started reading all the posts about the report and now I have big doubts about it. I don't think anyone can say 100% that the report is authentic unless they watched the cornoner write it. IDK, but how can you be so certain.
Remember....things don't always apear to be like it seems. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
One way to look at it is like this, I am an EMT, when I write a report on a call it become a legal document, if I lie in that report I have commit perjury. The reason being if my report is like it should be is basically taking my place in court. The only time they would call me in is if something in my report didn't make since. Same with a coroner. The difference is they are most of the time if not all the time called in to testify, so he would either have to commit perjury again or say something totally different than whats in his report with his signature on it and make himself look stupid.
Just curious - wouldn't the autopsy report have the coroner's initials if he added information after the fact (toxicology report)? Also, I researched the internet a few days ago when this first came up and it specifically said the word "seal", not "logo" was replaced in 2004. Doesn't it seem odd that a seal (or logo) would be used that is 6 years old? Would it still be considered a valid document? I really don't know, that is why I'm asking.
The MOST CONCLUSIVE evidence that we have about the autopsy being FAKE (although there are dozens and dozens of obvious things) but the BIGGEST thing is that the ENTIRE autopsy report was dictated on 06/26/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on toxicology results. The ENTIRE DICTATION was typed on 06/30/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on the toxicology results. THE ENTIRE AUTOPSY REPORT was typed/transcribed on 06/30/09. The TOXICOLOGY results were NOT EVEN IN until 07/15/09 as dated on the toxicology reports. You cannot dictate and transcribe toxicology reports that are not in yet. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Secondly, the coroner seal that appears on the autopsy report expired in 2004 and they changed to a new seal that year. The TOXICOLOGY reports have the new seal but the blood was drawn on a patient named "Trauma, Gershwen." The blood tubes must be labeled "Jackson, Michael." George Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "It Ain't Necessarily So." Ira Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "The Man That Got Away."
There are dozens of other things that have already been discussed on other links here in the forum. But nothing about the autopsy is authentic. It is a good fake, until you look at the dates of dictation, dates of transcription, legal seals, and pay attention to the "legal" details such as how the blood tubes are labeled. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
I see where that is on those first pages (and I don't know why except maybe he made a preliminary finding) but I see toxicology results with the date of 8-19-09
The MOST CONCLUSIVE evidence that we have about the autopsy being FAKE (although there are dozens and dozens of obvious things) but the BIGGEST thing is that the ENTIRE autopsy report was dictated on 06/26/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on toxicology results. The ENTIRE DICTATION was typed on 06/30/09 INCLUDING the OPINION on the toxicology results. THE ENTIRE AUTOPSY REPORT was typed/transcribed on 06/30/09. The TOXICOLOGY results were NOT EVEN IN until 07/15/09 as dated on the toxicology reports. You cannot dictate and transcribe toxicology reports that are not in yet. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Secondly, the coroner seal that appears on the autopsy report expired in 2004 and they changed to a new seal that year. The TOXICOLOGY reports have the new seal but the blood was drawn on a patient named "Trauma, Gershwen." The blood tubes must be labeled "Jackson, Michael." George Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "It Ain't Necessarily So." Ira Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "The Man That Got Away."
There are dozens of other things that have already been discussed on other links here in the forum. But nothing about the autopsy is authentic. It is a good fake, until you look at the dates of dictation, dates of transcription, legal seals, and pay attention to the "legal" details such as how the blood tubes are labeled. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
I see where that is on those first pages (and I don't know why except maybe he made a preliminary finding) but I see toxicology results with the date of 8-19-09
Whoa.. on second glance this report definitely has progressive dates throughout, where is the information that all of these documents were on 06/26?
(Yes, this has MISTRIAL written all over it...hoax or no hoax.)
(BTW: Has no one commented on the "decedent had beard and mustache" as stated in coroner's report???)
The ploy for allowing this info to surface and circulate world wide is obvious, MISTRIAL. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
No one goes to jail.
In jurisprudence, prosecutorial misconduct is a procedural defense; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which may have broken the law, because the prosecution acted in an "inappropriate" or "unfair" manner.
i lost my grandfather at 18, i dissolved myself in tears at his funeral and i wasn't able to do anything right for weeks, not even the basic stuff like eating or sleeping right (let go speak in public). if i just imagine having lost a parent at the age these kids are, there would be no way i could handle that. and no way i could see my dead parent with hoses and needles stuck in. and i would never expose a child to that.
Not only that, but he is their only parent. Their world basically evolved around him, he was always around.
exactly. i would have to have been drugged some kinda way to even stand sraight. either these kids are absolutely in control of themselves, then i humbly rest my case, or they know something we don't (yet)...
Exactly my thoughts. This is one of my biggest concerns, most children would have totally collapsed, regardless of all the love and support the family can provide.
It is not ment as criticism in any way, but it is an observation that the eldest children -apart from crying Blanket- were smiling on stage at the memorial. Prince was blowing bubblegum and came across somewhat bored and unbothered. In later pictures/video's, they just seem to have a good time playing with their cousins or at attractions. Blanket wondered whatever happened with Michael, and had been asking whether daddy had gone on a holiday. At the Grammy's, Prince clunched onto his fathers award and did not let go. Part of his couragious speech seemed like he was -at least figuratively- addressing it to Michael, slipping up with "your fans". It's hard to explain, maybe it was the way they were raised, to be selfsufficient and strong. Or as you say, they know something we don't.
The autopsy report sure looks authentic, but there are enough strange things about it to make me go hmmmmm. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I read the whole report and cried my eyes out. <!-- s --><!-- s --> And, I didn't look at this site for an entire day, which I usually look over stuff at least once or twice a day. I almost gave up on beLIEving and having faith. But, then I came back and started reading all the posts about the report and now I have big doubts about it. I don't think anyone can say 100% that the report is authentic unless they watched the cornoner write it. IDK, but how can you be so certain.
Remember....things don't always apear to be like it seems. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
One way to look at it is like this, I am an EMT, when I write a report on a call it become a legal document, if I lie in that report I have commit perjury. The reason being if my report is like it should be is basically taking my place in court. The only time they would call me in is if something in my report didn't make since. Same with a coroner. The difference is they are most of the time if not all the time called in to testify, so he would either have to commit perjury again or say something totally different than whats in his report with his signature on it and make himself look stupid.
Just curious - wouldn't the autopsy report have the coroner's initials if he added information after the fact (toxicology report)? Also, I researched the internet a few days ago when this first came up and it specifically said the word "seal", not "logo" was replaced in 2004. Doesn't it seem odd that a seal (or logo) would be used that is 6 years old? Would it still be considered a valid document? I really don't know, that is why I'm asking.
Everyone has their ways of doing this and it is whats acceptable to the state, courts, ect. I know I initial just as a CYA,
As for the 6 year old seal I would have to see the new logo and old logo and see what changes where made again not knowing the laws to much in Cali they maybe allowed to use those seals, I would think they would have to use the new ones. But it may still vary well be valid even those it was replaced.
To me autopsy report looks authentic.
But anyone who has some questions or any doubts, you can ask about this subject @ Pathology Forum:
<!-- m -->http://www.topix.com/forum/med/pathology<!-- m -->
my english is terrible so I cant question anything at these forums, maybe someone here can?
I thought i would start a thread on this as there has been bits of discussion on this here and there.
In the autopsy report it says MJ had puncture wounds to his arms, scars on his wrists and large scar on his shoulder and also on his neck.
Ive been looking through TII pictures to see if any prove or disprove this.
In particular i have been intrigued by the scars on the neck as in the report these look large.
Can anyone explain to me exactly where these scars are supposed to lie on his neck?
I found this picture which was in TII era and i cant see any scar:
Please add any pictures you have which show MJ arms and neck.
This thread is meant in no disrespect to Michael and his choice to have or not have plastic surgery... but it is in pursuat of the truth in order to prove or disprove the autopsy report.
BTW is this Michael anyway <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
It looks like MJ but in an unflattering pose. lol
Does anyone have TII pics of MJ that show his neck, arms and wrists.
Seeing as we do now know how recent this neck surgery and scars on his arms were.. i think we need to focus on 2009 pictures as any earlier would be useless.
Anyone know where the scars are supposed to lie? I did read the autopsy report and know there were pictures but cannot find the strength to re-read it at the moment. x
Comments
Secondly, the coroner seal that appears on the autopsy report expired in 2004 and they changed to a new seal that year. The TOXICOLOGY reports have the new seal but the blood was drawn on a patient named "Trauma, Gershwen." The blood tubes must be labeled "Jackson, Michael." George Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "It Ain't Necessarily So." Ira Gershwen is a famous composer who wrote "The Man That Got Away."
There are dozens of other things that have already been discussed on other links here in the forum. But nothing about the autopsy is authentic. It is a good fake, until you look at the dates of dictation, dates of transcription, legal seals, and pay attention to the "legal" details such as how the blood tubes are labeled. <!-- s
exactly. i would have to have been drugged some kinda way to even stand sraight. either these kids are absolutely in control of themselves, then i humbly rest my case, or they know something we don't (yet)...
p.s.: i lost other relatives and friends, too. but i absolutely adored my grandpa, he was the world to me. that was the hardest one for me yet and that was over 20 years ago. i still have my parents, so i consider myself very lucky. i have seen my best friend's daughter literally go through hell over months, when her mother died (she was my best friend, so i've been through some stuff myself). she was eight then, there was no way we could get her to do anything, she was just crying and screaming all the time and that over months. we almost couldn't go through with the funeral, that's how she freaked. that was considered a 'normal' reaction by psychologists who also recommended not to let the child see her mother dead. she had cancer, so we were able to take advice how to handle things when the time came. but then, i live in germany, maybe that's handled differently in the states. we usually also don't have open caskets over here, which seems to be common in the usa. except for michael... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
The seal is not a legal seal as you say. It's more of a logo - unlike the "seal" that a notary would use. The logos on the coroner's report and the tox report are identical. The only difference is the shading due to reproduction. All the dates are in line. This report is authentic. I'm sure the coroner added the last page of the report [which is prob. what you're talking about] after the tox report came back.
I agree, when I am writing reports for calls I run on as an EMT sometimes I remember a detail that should go in the report the next day, of course I have to date and initial the fact that I added something, so I usually try to make sure everything is their that day.
But I agree, they could have wrote what they knew at the time then added pages later.
Remember....things don't always apear to be like it seems. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
One way to look at it is like this, I am an EMT, when I write a report on a call it become a legal document, if I lie in that report I have commit perjury. The reason being if my report is like it should be is basically taking my place in court. The only time they would call me in is if something in my report didn't make since. Same with a coroner. The difference is they are most of the time if not all the time called in to testify, so he would either have to commit perjury again or say something totally different than whats in his report with his signature on it and make himself look stupid.
Just curious - wouldn't the autopsy report have the coroner's initials if he added information after the fact (toxicology report)? Also, I researched the internet a few days ago when this first came up and it specifically said the word "seal", not "logo" was replaced in 2004. Doesn't it seem odd that a seal (or logo) would be used that is 6 years old? Would it still be considered a valid document? I really don't know, that is why I'm asking.
I see where that is on those first pages (and I don't know why except maybe he made a preliminary finding) but I see toxicology results with the date of 8-19-09
Whoa.. on second glance this report definitely has progressive dates throughout, where is the information that all of these documents were on 06/26?
(BTW: Has no one commented on the "decedent had beard and mustache" as stated in coroner's report???)
If I am not wrong, Coroner's report states "... A mustache and beard are absent."
It is not ment as criticism in any way, but it is an observation that the eldest children -apart from crying Blanket- were smiling on stage at the memorial. Prince was blowing bubblegum and came across somewhat bored and unbothered. In later pictures/video's, they just seem to have a good time playing with their cousins or at attractions. Blanket wondered whatever happened with Michael, and had been asking whether daddy had gone on a holiday. At the Grammy's, Prince clunched onto his fathers award and did not let go. Part of his couragious speech seemed like he was -at least figuratively- addressing it to Michael, slipping up with "your fans". It's hard to explain, maybe it was the way they were raised, to be selfsufficient and strong. Or as you say, they know something we don't.
Everyone has their ways of doing this and it is whats acceptable to the state, courts, ect. I know I initial just as a CYA,
As for the 6 year old seal I would have to see the new logo and old logo and see what changes where made again not knowing the laws to much in Cali they maybe allowed to use those seals, I would think they would have to use the new ones. But it may still vary well be valid even those it was replaced.
my english is terrible so I cant question anything at these forums, maybe someone here can?
here is a vid
what do you think
[youtube:146h1wio]
I thought i would start a thread on this as there has been bits of discussion on this here and there.
In the autopsy report it says MJ had puncture wounds to his arms, scars on his wrists and large scar on his shoulder and also on his neck.
Ive been looking through TII pictures to see if any prove or disprove this.
In particular i have been intrigued by the scars on the neck as in the report these look large.
Can anyone explain to me exactly where these scars are supposed to lie on his neck?
I found this picture which was in TII era and i cant see any scar:
Please add any pictures you have which show MJ arms and neck.
This thread is meant in no disrespect to Michael and his choice to have or not have plastic surgery... but it is in pursuat of the truth in order to prove or disprove the autopsy report.
It was taken in early 2009
BTW is this Michael anyway <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
It looks like MJ but in an unflattering pose. lol
Does anyone have TII pics of MJ that show his neck, arms and wrists.
Seeing as we do now know how recent this neck surgery and scars on his arms were.. i think we need to focus on 2009 pictures as any earlier would be useless.
Anyone know where the scars are supposed to lie? I did read the autopsy report and know there were pictures but cannot find the strength to re-read it at the moment. x