I am not surprised by all this in-fighting and confusion happening now. I am really learning alot about Human Nature. At the first sign of trouble, the family falls apart instead of rallying together. The NWO doesn't have to do a thing to us, we are doing it to ourselves and falling nicely into the chaos.
None of what has happened in History is TS' fault. I take his information as a blessing. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn about these horrific crimes upon humanity by the real enemy.
Some people will never be satisfied and I realized that a while ago when I tried to comfort a few members by letting them know they weren't alone. LOL... that fell on blind eyes to the very ones I was addressing.
There is absolutely NOTHING that TS could say now that would be good enough for those who are unwilling to live without fear.
Some people expressed fear over the redirect to Bahrain, thinking that would expose Michael to the enemy and say where he is hiding. LOL... come on. We are speculating he is hiding there. We have absolutely no proof he is there. A redirect from TS does not prove he is in hiding there. It does explain that IF he is there, he won't be extradited to USA because there is no extradition treaty. That is GENIUS. Pointing out a possible place won't necessarily put him in danger either. If anything drawing more public attention to this "hoax" and exposing the NWO for what they are is like shining a bright light on the dirty rats.
Do you honestly think they would dare try something now when we are aware of them? I will be the first to snitch on them if they dared to make an attempt now on Michael's life. He is safer now than he has ever been. People now know of the plots on his life and ours. He has so much security around him, it is probably like Fort Knox. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you."
I John 3:13
How do people end up adopting these ways?
It all begins in the human mind! The people of Noah's day knew of God,
and His judgment on the world. Evidence of their world-wide flood was
everywhere. Some of their ancestors who lived through it were still alive.
Yet, all it took was a couple of hundred years to bring them together once
again - united against God! Why?
What caused the people to turn so quickly against the God who created
them? What was behind all of their rising animosity? Simply, there was
ideology being pumped into the masses on a large scale - the same ideology
which individually produced a change of heart before the flood. This
ultimately, again, worked to seduce the overall majority of the populous.
This became their own, ancient version of "political correctness"
Culture - a definition:
“… a pattern of behavior, learned, developed or otherwise… that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to
new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to
those problems.”
Edgar H Schein,
Organizational Culture and Leadership 201,
p. 1
The great "veil" that Mystery Babylon hides behind, back then as well as
today, often involves "political correctness". Certain views are flooding into
our society. Today, it is through a propaganda "machine" - a progressively
left-leaning news media, entertainment media, and academia. The
political bombardment by these media outlets have the same effect on our
world as Hitler's propaganda "machine" did in the 1940's! Back then, people
were seduced by certain ideologies, and wanted to feel good about being
"politically correct", so they began to adopt whatever the 'movers and
shakers' around them told them was right. It's all the same today - only
from a different theological viewpoint.
There is one fact about the human mind - it is divided into two halves, with
a "left" and "right" brain. One side or the other usually dominates the
individual's thought. Those with "right-brain" dominance often seem to think
with their "heart", or their emotions. They can be more passionate, artistic,
and open to new experiences. Those with "left-brain" dominance, however,
may often tend to think with their "head" - with logical, rational thoughts;
with less emotion.
Funny, those with this "right-brain" dominance seem to run parallel with
those who adopt a number of ideals of this "left" wing. As stated in
Politically Correct Babylon, those who take on these political views often
look at the world in terms of how compassionate or fair something is, or
how much impact something would have on their individual freedom. Again,
emotions, compassion, and freedom of ideology often come into play, in
these cases. Facts often mean little to these people - it's perception that
matters; how they feel about it.
What begins to lead a person to follow these modems of thought often starts
at a young age - when their mind is young. All it may take is one or two
traumatic events in childhood to start to turn someone towards these ways
of thinking. Sure, bad things happen to all people. It's how we react to the
negative aspects life that matter. Those who begin to go down the
"politically correct" way of Babylon and, ultimately, the "Ways of Cain",
begin to take on the same mindset as many people did back in the Tower of
Babel.
Many who maintain these "left" thoughts often want the world to be a
certain way, and just plain cannot accept the reality that it isn't. Any fool
can see that we are not the same - we have differences in culture and ways
of life that separate us - some that can be downright negative. True, we
should all get along. True, we all have rights; but, collectively, we have to
put something into a society before we get something out of it! A lot of
people think they are entitled to "40 acres and a mule" without having to
work to achieve it. Some scream out "where's my program" and "where's
my money", but cannot understand, nor would be willing to accept, personal
sacrifice. There is truly no honor - in the classical sense - in many people,
now a days.
True, life is not fair, but we also must realize it became that way because of
Adam and Eve's sin. Our world is this way because of man's sin, not God.
Some people want to continually blame God for their own situations and
failures. True, some things happen that are truly not our fault, but, more
often than not, people get themselves in their own situations.
As with Cain, people also begin to believe the world begins to revolve
around themselves, and not God.
These "Way of Cain" are truly coming back to us - full circle.
What do we do about it, to stop our world from collapsing under the weight
of these detrimental ways of life? First, realize it's so easy to "play the
victim" as Cain did, and avoid the real truths of life. It's so easy to twist the
reality of things, to try to get away from personal responsibility. Be strong;
don't cower at the first sign of bad weather.
It is this whole sense of "entitlement without effort" that drains money and
strength from any society - this happened in the past, collapsing so many
cultures and empires before us; and it is happening again, in our modern day.
Why can't more of us see through this political "veil" of Mystery Babylon?
Why are people acting just like they did when Semiramis and Nimrod ruled?
It's because there are a number of people in key positions around us,
intentionally or unintentionally contributing to our own blindness. A person
in the media, for example, might not like something or someone around
them. They will make the politics of the entire situation sound as favorable
to their beliefs as possible. These people might report on the exception of
the story, rather than the rule. Instead of reporting on the 99 times out of
100 something works, they concentrate on the 1 time it didn't - all to make
the entire system look bad. This is one of the easiest ways to twist a story,
destroy authority, and bring others on the same ideological band wagon!
Once someone, by these manipulations, begins to concentrate on how
negative the 1 exception is, they begin to consider the political thoughts of
the agitator. This is how ideological change slowly manipulated the masses
in Nazi Germany; this is how it works today.
What results, on a grand scale, is that the ways of God and the Bible are
twisted, and made to look bad. God and the Bible now become a person's
"oppressor" - a way to take away individual freedoms; a way to stifle
compassion! As a result, the ways of Babylon and Cain become the keys to
"true" ways to compassion and freedom!
Just notice how many Christian values are being shunned, today - the
ideologies taking it's place are none other than these self-centered, pagan
concepts. We, at Mystery-Babylon.org, ask the individual to not be
influenced by empty thoughts of "political correctness", and not fall to the
political morals portrayed by much of the media, but rather discover where
these ideological thoughts actually might come from.
We need to discover what actually are the "Ways of Cain"; we need to
decipher what actually comes from Babylon. The more we know, the closer
to understanding the true direction the world is heading, as well the ancient
force that's continually heading us there!
In the end, we need to ask ourselves a couple of questions: where do many
of these "politically correct" ideologies and political thoughts come from if
they don't come from the Bible and God? Also, in what direction would
these thoughts ultimately head us towards if not God? Could they being
heading us, not forwards, but backwards - towards the same "one world
government" that was once Babylon?
Why do all the posts that I read makes me LOL today??? I have lost my mind for sure. <!-- s --><!-- s --> Well good to see you Im convinced I second what you said. Well there are times of confusion I bet that soon we will be back all together stronger than ever. This is very entertaining LOL.
And as for the Randy quote (about the new album I guess?).. Doesn't change the big picture.
Oh no no.....
Here are just few tweets:
randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
Sitting in court & I'm sad. Those profiting most from my bro’s death: AEG, Randy Phillips, Kenny Ortega, Estate Executors r nowhere in sight
8 Feb
randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
Ok Can’t say 2much. WHY WHY WHY r LAPD & DA ignoring evidence that goes beyond Dr. Murray? Wondering who they r protecting. Hmmm. Talk to me
17 Feb
randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
Let me be clear, there is an investigation pending…. I keep my cards close to my chest.
17 May
randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
Keep in mind, the evildoers are reading my tweets too… But, I will not stop until justice is served. It goes way beyond Murray.
17 May
randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
The will: Me knowing my brother, Yes I believe its fake. I’d love 2 talk more in depth, but can’t. Am I doing something about it? of course
7 Jun
randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
Re: Mesereau. Tom’s been a friend for 20 yrs. I hired him 4 the 05 trial. We discuss all of the discrepancies about my brother’s passing.
7 Jun
Like Sarahli said: "Randy's tweets are not the big picture". I am sure they all have their part to play until it all unfolds <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
You guys. I don't believe that the little spat between Mo and Souza is real. Sit back and think about it... If it's not real, why isn't it?
But, anything's possible and if it is real, something's going on either way so be on ALERT. I hesitated to say anything at first but the more transparency the better. Being truthful in this regard isn't going to hurt me or you.
I'm saying something now because I'm noticing a few patterns emerging that I won't speak of publicly right now - it'd be too long - but something's up not just here everywhere on other blogs and forums and with Riley, etc. For our beloved forum here, It doesn't help that all of a sudden the chat no longer exists just recently and now Mo and Souza are at odds? Old members, what does this remind you of? I'm just saying there are a few interesting things going on recently and the way certain developments have followed each other... well, my antennas are up. Sequencing is important. Certain silences from certain people at a time when normally there would be no silences is interesting too.
I would prepare for anything at this point. For instance, if all of a sudden this site is no longer here, let's figure out how we reach each other or is that already planned for us? <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
But, no one needs to lead us - we can think for ourselves. Maybe there will be no explosion around this, but you prepare if you hear there might be. I'm not old enough to know about bomb shelters, but I was raised in earthquake country and we had drills when I was a kid.... just sayin'.... Always good to PREPARE for the worse, hope for the best.
Whatever just happend here, it's not a good sign (canaries in the mine always give the warning first)
Do we need to give out email addresses or what so, if necessary, we can find each other again and regroup? And, to be on the safe side, if you think there's something on this forum you want to keep, SAVE IT NOW.
Perhaps this is no big deal but what's gone down in this thread is not sitting right with me so just in case, what's the plan?
I think it is a good idea for everyone (who wishes to do so) to PM each other with email addresses, twitter accounts, etc.
I am also uncomfortable with what is going on here. Perhaps it's nothing but clearly we can't be sure of anything these days.
Please PM me if you would like my email address and if you'd like to give me yours. I am going to start a list and save it somewhere safe.
As far as saving information goes, it's going to be near impossible to save everything that is on the forum. Perhaps we could divide it up somehow so that all the important parts of the forum are saved.
We may be overreacting, but anything can happen on the internet. With one simple click, 16 months of investigation could be swiped away like it never existed.
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
That's right. I agree with you Jaci. Being prepared and jumping to conclusions is TWO very different things. Being prepared doesn't hurt anybody. We love this forum and we hope for the best, but I'm no fool.
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
whoa how did i miss this ? who shifted in that direction ? <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
whoa how did i miss this ? who shifted in that direction ? <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
Who said that this is a murder made to look like a hoax? I did? I think not Jaci...
The only thing I stated regarding "hoax" was:
There are several "clues" we clamp on to, which in fact don't hold any standing but are merely based on believe instead of on solid proof.
I stick to that. People are very easily accepting anything that supports the hoax theory, but when someone posts something that isn't "hoaxie" enough or a good reason as to why something shouldn't be considered a clue it gets ignored or people come up with the most absurd "reasons" as to why it should support the hoax. That's not very realistic. After all we're here to investigate, and not to just accept something because it comforts our beliefs.
That is why I said yesterday:
I think it's about time that we start assessing ALL the "evidence" we have been provided with by the "evidence" itself, and not by the person who brought it.
So as far as I'm concerned it's back to investigation mode, whatever the outcome may be.
Just to be clear: I myself do NOT believe in a murder theory and I can assure you that this site will not disappear. This is the MJ death hoax forum and it will stay. Please do not worry about that.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Just to be clear: I myself do NOT believe in a murder theory and I can assure you that this site will not disappear. This is the MJ death hoax forum and it will stay. Please do not worry about that.
Ok, I feel slightly reassured that the site will stay. Thanks <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
We may not always agree but this site is amazing with so many intelligent people.
That's good news Souza, but those of us who were around with the first forum, we prepare for anything, you know? I don't know what it means for two owners of a site to fight in public.
Mo, you seemed to take on TS too in one of the posts on this thread. I'm certainly not defending him at all but that appears to be a big shift for you? Also, Mo and Souza fighting on the forum? You can't do that privately? Makes me think there is a reason for it, so I prepare is all... No biggie if this all blows over, I hope so...
Mo, you seemed to take on TS too in one of the posts on this thread. I'm certainly not defending him at all but that appears to be a big shift for you?
What's so strange about having questions for TS..? Just because I'm one of the website owners I can't ask him questions without people jumping to conclusions?
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
Who said that this is a murder made to look like a hoax? I did? I think not Jaci...
The only thing I stated regarding "hoax" was:
There are several "clues" we clamp on to, which in fact don't hold any standing but are merely based on believe instead of on solid proof.
I stick to that. People are very easily accepting anything that supports the hoax theory, but when someone posts something that isn't "hoaxie" enough or a good reason as to why something shouldn't be considered a clue it gets ignored or people come up with the most absurd "reasons" as to why it should support the hoax. That's not very realistic. After all we're here to investigate, and not to just accept something because it comforts our beliefs.
That is why I said yesterday:
I think it's about time that we start assessing ALL the "evidence" we have been provided with by the "evidence" itself, and not by the person who brought it.
So as far as I'm concerned it's back to investigation mode, whatever the outcome may be.
Ok, fair enough. Thank you for clearing that up, Mo. Nobody actually said the words about the murder theory, I didn't say that you did. But it was implied several times and people got carried away with it. I know exactly what you mean about people dismissing any information that doesn't fit their beliefs, but I just think so much emphasis has been put on this that we're forgetting EVERYTHING we've learned so far, and could be missing out on other things that are going on because we're so focused on this.
What the heck is going on round here? I go away for a couple of days and suddenly all hell's broken loose. I can't believe the things I've been reading here today. I don't know what to say. I'm in shock.
I think we all need to go back to basics, to weed out the things that personally we may have started to believe that actually carry no weight. We need to quietly think for ourselves.
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
? Did I miss something <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> please explain "murder made to look like a hoax" <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
That's good news Souza, but those of us who were around with the first forum, we prepare for anything, you know? I don't know what it means for two owners of a site to fight in public.
Mo, you seemed to take on TS too in one of the posts on this thread. I'm certainly not defending him at all but that appears to be a big shift for you? Also, Mo and Souza fighting on the forum? You can't do that privately? Makes me think there is a reason for it, so I prepare is all... No biggie if this all blows over, I hope so...
I understand completely, but believe me when I say that the site will stay.
And fighting privately doesn't seem to be possible, not my choice, sorry for that. I could have kept my posts and opinions to myself, but in my opinion this whole issue was getting out of hand while it wasn't even true that the lawyer posted false information. I was attacked by Mo and a moderator for not sharing information, I pointed out it has always been there for anyone to see, that they didn't read the blogs clearly they were addressing, because the info was clearly in there. I can shut my mouth for a long time, until people get accused of lying while it's not true. If someone would say it about me, I would appreciate it too if someone could set the record straight.
I have no problem with discussing a possible murder plot, because i think there has been one (even though they were not succesful), but this was turning into something where people wanted to convince others that that was the point, and people were accused of whatever, based only on assumption. Sorry, but I don't like that and I felt the urge to say something. I am not someone to sit quietly in the corner watching a war unfold.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
? Did I miss something <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> please explain "murder made to look like a hoax" <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
I'm sorry that I chose those words. Nobody actually SAID that, it was implied. You can read the entire thread started by Mo about Eliza's DNA evidence to see how we got to this point. Obviously the murder theory is nothing new though.
Mo, you seemed to take on TS too in one of the posts on this thread. I'm certainly not defending him at all but that appears to be a big shift for you?
What's so strange about having questions for TS..? Just because I'm one of the website owners I can't ask him questions without people jumping to conclusions?
Nothing is "so strange" about that necessarily. I do say it appears to be a "shift" all of a sudden and I'm just noticing the pattern of things in the last few days. I'm with you with what you asked of TS. I'm glad you did it. What is strange is the public fight eventhough we know that Mo and Souza are two different people who obviously differ from time to time but the difference in thought about TS and Eliza stuff is quite striking - to me. Something just stands out about all this today is all, but now that it's happened, we shall move on -- prepared for anything.
Whatever way you look at it, probate lawyer Andrew Mayoras did post misleading information. Although he wrote about the Chain of Custody:
"Eliza can establish the chain of custody showing how she obtained the samples."
As we know by now, this is not possible.
You mean proof of Chain of Custody, not the Chain of Custody itself. It's not the same.
The movement and location of physical evidence from the time it is obtained until the time it is presented in court.
Judges in bench trials and jurors in jury trials are obligated to decide cases on the evidence that is presented to them in court. Neither judges nor jurors may conduct their own investigations into the underlying facts of a given case. In fact, state and federal court rules prohibit judges and jurors from being swayed by, or even taking into consideration, extrajudicial evidence—that is, evidence that is not properly admitted into the record pursuant to the rules of evidence—in rendering their decisions.
Similarly, parties to civil and criminal litigation depend on judges and juries to impartially weigh the evidence, and only the evidence, that is properly admitted into the record. Every day, across the United States, litigants stake their reputations, livelihoods, bank accounts, homes, Personal Property, and freedom on the premise that the outcome to their judicial proceedings will be one that is reached fairly and justly, according to the evidence.
Court-rendered judgments and jury verdicts that are based on tainted, unreliable, or compromised evidence would undermine the integrity of the entire legal system if such outcomes became commonplace. One way in which the law tries to ensure the integrity of evidence is by requiring proof of the chain of custody by the party who is seeking to introduce a particular piece of evidence.
Proof of a chain of custody is required when the evidence that is sought to be introduced at trial is not unique or where the relevance of the evidence depends on its analysis after seizure. A proper chain of custody requires three types of testimony: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant's blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time it is presented in court; and (3) testimony by each person who has had possession that the particular piece of evidence remained in substantially the same condition from the moment one person took possession until the moment that person released the evidence into the custody of another (for example, testimony that the evidence was stored in a secure location where no one but the person in custody had access to it).
Proving chain of custody is necessary to "lay a foundation" for the evidence in question, by showing the absence of alteration, substitution, or change of condition. Specifically, foundation testimony for tangible evidence requires that exhibits be identified as being in substantially the same condition as they were at the time the evidence was seized, and that the exhibit has remained in that condition through an unbroken chain of custody. For example, suppose that in a prosecution for possession of illegal narcotics, police sergeant A recovers drugs from the defendant; A gives police officer B the drugs; B then gives the drugs to police scientist C, who conducts an analysis of the drugs; C gives the drugs to police detective D, who brings the drugs to court. The testimony of A, B, C, and D constitute a "chain of custody" for the drugs, and the prosecution would need to offer testimony by each person in the chain to establish both the condition and identification of the evidence, unless the defendant stipulated as to the chain of custody in order to save time.
Chain of custody need not be demonstrated for every piece of tangible evidence that is accepted into the trial court's record. Physical evidence that is readily identifiable by the witness might not need to be supported by chain-of-custody proof. For example, no chain-of-custody foundation is required for items that are imprinted with a serial number or inscribed with initials by an officer who collected the evidence. Similarly, items that are inherently distinctive or memorable (for example, a holdup note written in purple crayon) might be sufficiently unique and identifiable that they establish the integrity of the evidence.
Whether the requisite foundation has been laid to establish chain of custody for an exhibit is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial judge. Possibilities of misidentification and adulteration must be eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonable probability. Where there is sufficient testimony that the evidence is what it purports to be, and that testimony is offered by each responsible person in the chain of custody, discrepancies as to accuracy or reliability of testimony regarding the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility, meaning that the evidence would be admitted into the record for the judge or jury to evaluate in light of any conflicting testimony that the chain of custody somehow had been compromised. While the party who offers the evidence has the burden of demonstrating the chain of custody, the party against whom the evidence is offered must timely object to the evidence when it is first introduced at trial, or the party will waive any objections as to its integrity based on a compromised chain of custody.
<!-- m -->http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... of+custody<!-- m -->
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Whatever way you look at it, probate lawyer Andrew Mayoras did post misleading information. Although he wrote about the Chain of Custody:
"Eliza can establish the chain of custody showing how she obtained the samples."
As we know by now, this is not possible.
You mean proof of Chain of Custody, not the Chain of Custody itself. It's not the same.
The movement and location of physical evidence from the time it is obtained until the time it is presented in court.
Judges in bench trials and jurors in jury trials are obligated to decide cases on the evidence that is presented to them in court. Neither judges nor jurors may conduct their own investigations into the underlying facts of a given case. In fact, state and federal court rules prohibit judges and jurors from being swayed by, or even taking into consideration, extrajudicial evidence—that is, evidence that is not properly admitted into the record pursuant to the rules of evidence—in rendering their decisions.
Similarly, parties to civil and criminal litigation depend on judges and juries to impartially weigh the evidence, and only the evidence, that is properly admitted into the record. Every day, across the United States, litigants stake their reputations, livelihoods, bank accounts, homes, Personal Property, and freedom on the premise that the outcome to their judicial proceedings will be one that is reached fairly and justly, according to the evidence.
Court-rendered judgments and jury verdicts that are based on tainted, unreliable, or compromised evidence would undermine the integrity of the entire legal system if such outcomes became commonplace. One way in which the law tries to ensure the integrity of evidence is by requiring proof of the chain of custody by the party who is seeking to introduce a particular piece of evidence.
Proof of a chain of custody is required when the evidence that is sought to be introduced at trial is not unique or where the relevance of the evidence depends on its analysis after seizure. A proper chain of custody requires three types of testimony: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant's blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time it is presented in court; and (3) testimony by each person who has had possession that the particular piece of evidence remained in substantially the same condition from the moment one person took possession until the moment that person released the evidence into the custody of another (for example, testimony that the evidence was stored in a secure location where no one but the person in custody had access to it).
Proving chain of custody is necessary to "lay a foundation" for the evidence in question, by showing the absence of alteration, substitution, or change of condition. Specifically, foundation testimony for tangible evidence requires that exhibits be identified as being in substantially the same condition as they were at the time the evidence was seized, and that the exhibit has remained in that condition through an unbroken chain of custody. For example, suppose that in a prosecution for possession of illegal narcotics, police sergeant A recovers drugs from the defendant; A gives police officer B the drugs; B then gives the drugs to police scientist C, who conducts an analysis of the drugs; C gives the drugs to police detective D, who brings the drugs to court. The testimony of A, B, C, and D constitute a "chain of custody" for the drugs, and the prosecution would need to offer testimony by each person in the chain to establish both the condition and identification of the evidence, unless the defendant stipulated as to the chain of custody in order to save time.
Chain of custody need not be demonstrated for every piece of tangible evidence that is accepted into the trial court's record. Physical evidence that is readily identifiable by the witness might not need to be supported by chain-of-custody proof. For example, no chain-of-custody foundation is required for items that are imprinted with a serial number or inscribed with initials by an officer who collected the evidence. Similarly, items that are inherently distinctive or memorable (for example, a holdup note written in purple crayon) might be sufficiently unique and identifiable that they establish the integrity of the evidence.
Whether the requisite foundation has been laid to establish chain of custody for an exhibit is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial judge. Possibilities of misidentification and adulteration must be eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonable probability. Where there is sufficient testimony that the evidence is what it purports to be, and that testimony is offered by each responsible person in the chain of custody, discrepancies as to accuracy or reliability of testimony regarding the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility, meaning that the evidence would be admitted into the record for the judge or jury to evaluate in light of any conflicting testimony that the chain of custody somehow had been compromised. While the party who offers the evidence has the burden of demonstrating the chain of custody, the party against whom the evidence is offered must timely object to the evidence when it is first introduced at trial, or the party will waive any objections as to its integrity based on a compromised chain of custody.
<!-- m -->http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... of+custody<!-- m -->
Thank you for the information, and thank you for proving me right.
Comments
Wow!
I am not surprised by all this in-fighting and confusion happening now. I am really learning alot about Human Nature. At the first sign of trouble, the family falls apart instead of rallying together. The NWO doesn't have to do a thing to us, we are doing it to ourselves and falling nicely into the chaos.
None of what has happened in History is TS' fault. I take his information as a blessing. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn about these horrific crimes upon humanity by the real enemy.
Some people will never be satisfied and I realized that a while ago when I tried to comfort a few members by letting them know they weren't alone. LOL... that fell on blind eyes to the very ones I was addressing.
There is absolutely NOTHING that TS could say now that would be good enough for those who are unwilling to live without fear.
Some people expressed fear over the redirect to Bahrain, thinking that would expose Michael to the enemy and say where he is hiding. LOL... come on. We are speculating he is hiding there. We have absolutely no proof he is there. A redirect from TS does not prove he is in hiding there. It does explain that IF he is there, he won't be extradited to USA because there is no extradition treaty. That is GENIUS. Pointing out a possible place won't necessarily put him in danger either. If anything drawing more public attention to this "hoax" and exposing the NWO for what they are is like shining a bright light on the dirty rats.
Do you honestly think they would dare try something now when we are aware of them? I will be the first to snitch on them if they dared to make an attempt now on Michael's life. He is safer now than he has ever been. People now know of the plots on his life and ours. He has so much security around him, it is probably like Fort Knox. <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
<!-- m -->http://mystery-babylon.org/psychology.html<!-- m -->
"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you."
I John 3:13
Please get it together family.
Peace
Like Sarahli said: "Randy's tweets are not the big picture". I am sure they all have their part to play until it all unfolds <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
But, anything's possible and if it is real, something's going on either way so be on ALERT. I hesitated to say anything at first but the more transparency the better. Being truthful in this regard isn't going to hurt me or you.
I'm saying something now because I'm noticing a few patterns emerging that I won't speak of publicly right now - it'd be too long - but something's up not just here everywhere on other blogs and forums and with Riley, etc. For our beloved forum here, It doesn't help that all of a sudden the chat no longer exists just recently and now Mo and Souza are at odds? Old members, what does this remind you of? I'm just saying there are a few interesting things going on recently and the way certain developments have followed each other... well, my antennas are up. Sequencing is important. Certain silences from certain people at a time when normally there would be no silences is interesting too.
I would prepare for anything at this point. For instance, if all of a sudden this site is no longer here, let's figure out how we reach each other or is that already planned for us? <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
But, no one needs to lead us - we can think for ourselves. Maybe there will be no explosion around this, but you prepare if you hear there might be. I'm not old enough to know about bomb shelters, but I was raised in earthquake country and we had drills when I was a kid.... just sayin'.... Always good to PREPARE for the worse, hope for the best.
Whatever just happend here, it's not a good sign (canaries in the mine always give the warning first)
Do we need to give out email addresses or what so, if necessary, we can find each other again and regroup? And, to be on the safe side, if you think there's something on this forum you want to keep, SAVE IT NOW.
Perhaps this is no big deal but what's gone down in this thread is not sitting right with me so just in case, what's the plan?
I am also uncomfortable with what is going on here. Perhaps it's nothing but clearly we can't be sure of anything these days.
Please PM me if you would like my email address and if you'd like to give me yours. I am going to start a list and save it somewhere safe.
As far as saving information goes, it's going to be near impossible to save everything that is on the forum. Perhaps we could divide it up somehow so that all the important parts of the forum are saved.
We may be overreacting, but anything can happen on the internet. With one simple click, 16 months of investigation could be swiped away like it never existed.
Talking about jumping to conclusions and assuming things... <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Can you really blame us? I think that precautions are a good thing no matter what is or isn't going on here. I have not come to any conclusion and I tend to think that you and Souza probably disagree on more than we know about...you are two different people afterall. But with this huge shift in opinion that this is a murder made to look like a hoax, then it's only natural for people to question the motives/involvement of those who created this hoax forum. Can it be justified? Maybe, maybe not, but it's human nature.
That's right. I agree with you Jaci. Being prepared and jumping to conclusions is TWO very different things. Being prepared doesn't hurt anybody. We love this forum and we hope for the best, but I'm no fool.
whoa how did i miss this ? who shifted in that direction ? <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=48&t=15871<!-- l -->
Who said that this is a murder made to look like a hoax? I did? I think not Jaci...
The only thing I stated regarding "hoax" was: I stick to that. People are very easily accepting anything that supports the hoax theory, but when someone posts something that isn't "hoaxie" enough or a good reason as to why something shouldn't be considered a clue it gets ignored or people come up with the most absurd "reasons" as to why it should support the hoax. That's not very realistic. After all we're here to investigate, and not to just accept something because it comforts our beliefs.
That is why I said yesterday:
So as far as I'm concerned it's back to investigation mode, whatever the outcome may be.
Just to be clear: I myself do NOT believe in a murder theory and I can assure you that this site will not disappear. This is the MJ death hoax forum and it will stay. Please do not worry about that.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Ok, I feel slightly reassured that the site will stay. Thanks <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
We may not always agree but this site is amazing with so many intelligent people.
Mo, you seemed to take on TS too in one of the posts on this thread. I'm certainly not defending him at all but that appears to be a big shift for you? Also, Mo and Souza fighting on the forum? You can't do that privately? Makes me think there is a reason for it, so I prepare is all... No biggie if this all blows over, I hope so...
What's so strange about having questions for TS..? Just because I'm one of the website owners I can't ask him questions without people jumping to conclusions?
Ok, fair enough. Thank you for clearing that up, Mo. Nobody actually said the words about the murder theory, I didn't say that you did. But it was implied several times and people got carried away with it. I know exactly what you mean about people dismissing any information that doesn't fit their beliefs, but I just think so much emphasis has been put on this that we're forgetting EVERYTHING we've learned so far, and could be missing out on other things that are going on because we're so focused on this.
I think we all need to go back to basics, to weed out the things that personally we may have started to believe that actually carry no weight. We need to quietly think for ourselves.
? Did I miss something <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> please explain "murder made to look like a hoax" <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
I understand completely, but believe me when I say that the site will stay.
And fighting privately doesn't seem to be possible, not my choice, sorry for that. I could have kept my posts and opinions to myself, but in my opinion this whole issue was getting out of hand while it wasn't even true that the lawyer posted false information. I was attacked by Mo and a moderator for not sharing information, I pointed out it has always been there for anyone to see, that they didn't read the blogs clearly they were addressing, because the info was clearly in there. I can shut my mouth for a long time, until people get accused of lying while it's not true. If someone would say it about me, I would appreciate it too if someone could set the record straight.
I have no problem with discussing a possible murder plot, because i think there has been one (even though they were not succesful), but this was turning into something where people wanted to convince others that that was the point, and people were accused of whatever, based only on assumption. Sorry, but I don't like that and I felt the urge to say something. I am not someone to sit quietly in the corner watching a war unfold.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."I'm sorry that I chose those words. Nobody actually SAID that, it was implied. You can read the entire thread started by Mo about Eliza's DNA evidence to see how we got to this point. Obviously the murder theory is nothing new though.
Nothing is "so strange" about that necessarily. I do say it appears to be a "shift" all of a sudden and I'm just noticing the pattern of things in the last few days. I'm with you with what you asked of TS. I'm glad you did it. What is strange is the public fight eventhough we know that Mo and Souza are two different people who obviously differ from time to time but the difference in thought about TS and Eliza stuff is quite striking - to me. Something just stands out about all this today is all, but now that it's happened, we shall move on -- prepared for anything.
Whatever way you look at it, probate lawyer Andrew Mayoras did post misleading information. Although he wrote about the Chain of Custody:
"Eliza can establish the chain of custody showing how she obtained the samples."
As we know by now, this is not possible.
Goodnight everyone!
You mean proof of Chain of Custody, not the Chain of Custody itself. It's not the same.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Thank you for the information, and thank you for proving me right.