I've always thought the trial to be central and crucial to the hoax, but I'm changing my opinion. I think legal procedures and malpractice are the important things, rather than the actual 'day in court', and highlighting those could be one of the aims of the hoax. After all MJ's 'day in court' resulted in the correct verdict, it was all the preceding stuff and the fact that he was brought to trial at all that was highly suspect.
So if I follow that line of thought I come to the conclusion that if Murray's trial does ever happen, then it's a repeat of MJ's situation. Murray should not go to trial because he didn't 'kill' MJ. So the lawyers behind the scenes are trying to find a case against him when there is none. Are they having doubts and that's why they can't seem to put together a case? Is this delay a way of giving them more time to discover the truth, regardless of whether the judge is 'in the know' or not?
Is MJ simply waiting this thing out as we are? Watching to see how far this case will go before someone raises serious doubts about its legitimacy?
I'm hopeful the current pause in events is simply a PAUSE, and not a STOP. After all they can't just conveniently forget about Murray's case, it has to come to a conclusion one way or another. But I'm at a loss to know how we can move forward at this time with no direction from anyone.
So the lawyers behind the scenes are trying to find a case against him when there is none.
You are talking about the prosecuters aren't you?
They build their case on what, if MJ is not dead?
They think their case is real or they know it's a hoax?
Maybe we should ask if they are in or not.
Because if they are not in, what evidence makes them think MJ is dead, except the death cerificate and the autopsy report?
Anyone remembers if they said the body was ever identified of being Michael's in some way (DNA or I don't know, other way of identifying the body, of course if a body ever existed...)
my biggest hope for the trial was that finally people would see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears the information that would come out. that it would not be filtered through the media with their sensational slant. maybe that even is a pipe dream. <!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( -->
If it's a real court, and should they ever seriously delve into whether or not it was really MJ's body with DNA tests and more, then they would surely dismiss the case or throw it out. All the many pieces of supporting evidence with references are all available freely online and on sites like this one, starting with Brian Oxman the attorney's statement that the ambulance photo was a fake--TS got us digging in many pages. But they are basing their whole case against Murray completely on assumptions, do good lawyers really do that all the time? Of course the 2005 trial against MJ was based entirely on false allegations and assumptions, so this trial showcases/mirrors the sheer stupidity and horror of what they did then to an innocent wonderful human being. So I still say hoax court.
If it's a real court, and should they ever seriously delve into whether or not it was really MJ's body with DNA tests and more, then they would surely dismiss the case or throw it out.
Yes, but they charge Murray's guilt not the authenticity of a death.
Yes, but they charge Murray's guilt not the authenticity of a death.
Following this path, anybody could bring anybody into court using any accusation if only enough lies are invented and are being told.
Not the original lies would be subject of a judge's / jury's interest but the constructed case only.
Which makes of real U.S. courts authorized and willingly "put into life" stage productions:
- story scripted (what do we lie about on Monday? How much do we have to pay them? Who will interact with whom why and how?)
- actors choosen (who will have to show up in court on Tuesday?)
- actors rehearsing (planting indications - leaving "clues" for the avalanche public - prior to actual court period)
- public getting event announcement by press
- spectators swarming into location
- curtain up - show begins
- warming up gig helpful in getting emotional hooks fixed
- main gig only entering stage being late, later, actually the latest, and folks going wild in waiting and impatience
- show breathtaking, everyone glued, close to a heart attack
- curtain down - applause
- spectators leaving the opera.
That logic could indicate that the presented toy's story court ("I'll play a little with them") is a real court and that there is no specific need for a sting court at all - just exposure of themselves doing what they are always doing would be enough. Defense having collected all evidence of what went wrong in preparation of the case and in bringing the case to court. A sting would be a nice side show but not be required to show that real courts are hanging on a well-paid puppet string. No FBI needed.
What we have witnessed is enough to get Doc Murray out as a free man.
No case without any injured party.
No case if preparation of the case and prosecution prove to have materialized formal defects.
No conviction if the case is an "evidence only" case - testimony vs. testimony - and evidences are so contradicting that neither pro nor con can be identified. In doubt acquit the accused for want of evidence.
I am (almost LOL) sure that evidences have been made most contradicting in this case. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Why does the scripting / play above remind me so much of June 25 and after...
Following this path, anybody could bring anybody into court using any accusation if only enough lies are invented and are being told.
Not the original lies would be subject of a judge's / jury's interest but the constructed case only.
Here the originl lies are official papers legally presumed to be true by any law state so they don't have to be analysed or verified by the judge. If i get a drive ticket, the judge will only resume to that ticket , if i diserved it or not and will not start questioning the authenticity of my driving license. Of course, in this case the authenticity of the official papers can be questioned in court by the defense itself who has all the interest , but we know this would not happen and why. Why is there a case in Court anyway?
If Michael''s death is a hoax, why the police investigation doesn't reveal it?
Because they are in, or because the death is real?
Never discover this alone, Gina!
I guess we'll never know anything. Time will tell.
At this moment I can not be positive, nothing can cheer me up on this hoax. What I'm seeing are desperate fans who want to cling to anything. I do not want to be like them! <!-- s --><!-- s -->
If Michael''s death is a hoax, why the police investigation doesn't reveal it?
Because no hoax issued. Death is a legal truth in Michael's case. And i'm sure that yes, some of them are in on hoax. My opinion.
They couldn't even establish the time-line of the events with precision, they erased the surveilance tapes (??!!!), they have not much of a case I suppose. What's their case based on? The autopsy report of Michael Joseph Jackson, the conclusion that he died of an overdose of propofol combined with other 8 drugs....
AnaMarcia I know what you feel, as I feel the same as the days go by and his death seems more and more real, even if it IS too unreal to be true....but you start asking yourself what if it's true, no?
One thing I know: we'll never be able to fully believe he's dead. I know we don't want the same fate as the Elvis' fans who believed he didn't die but if that's the way it has to be - we can't change our fate.
But maybe the answers are in the trial that has to come.
They couldn't even establish the time-line of the events with precision, they erased the surveilance tapes (??!!!), they have not much of a case I suppose. What's their case based on?
Yeah, i don't even know why this is a case in the first place and to whos benefit.
They couldn't even establish the time-line of the events with precision, they erased the surveilance tapes (??!!!), they have not much of a case I suppose. What's their case based on?
Yeah, i don't even know why this is a case in the first place and to whos benefit.
The family against Murray and the ones behind Murray. So far they are going against this doctor but do not mention the big companies involved, if any.
One front: MJ did not know about 50 concerts
Other front: Murray injected MJ propofol to be able to sleep and to perform
From there on, let´s guess the truth and the reasons, but what is clear up to today is that MJ is "dead".
I'm sorry that i'm being annoying <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->
But i have to ask this question again, because no one helped me last time.
In favor of the court sting theory, let me point out a few things. Some say that the court did the right thing back in the 2005 acquittal, so why would it be investigated? The reality is that the defense and jury did the right thing, but what about the prosecution? We already know about Aphrodite’s testimony, and Tom Sneddon (TS <!-- s --><!-- s --> ), etc.
Kristina I don't know if I'm going to be helpful, but this is what it says on the FBI website:
"Does the FBI work through U. S. Attorneys?
Yes. Although the FBI is responsible for investigating possible violations of federal law, the FBI does not give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. The federal prosecutors employed by the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorneys offices are responsible for making this decision and for conducting the prosecution of the case."
It clearly says that the FBI doesn't give an opinion or decide about the individual being prosecuted or not, so they certainly, if I understand correctly, don't help the prosecution per se. They just provide the investigation, their expertise.
Kristina I don't know if I'm going to be helpful, but this is what it says on the FBI website:
"Does the FBI work through U. S. Attorneys?
Yes. Although the FBI is responsible for investigating possible violations of federal law, the FBI does not give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. The federal prosecutors employed by the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorneys offices are responsible for making this decision and for conducting the prosecution of the case."
It clearly says that the FBI doesn't give an opinion or decide about the individual being prosecuted or not, so they certainly, if I understand correctly, don't help the prosecution per se. They just provide the investigation, their expertise.
Thank you so much for your help! <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
So does that mean, when FBI came to a conclusion that Michael is innocent (because they did not find anything against him) they could not stop the prosecution?
That is so UNFAIR!
Comments
So if I follow that line of thought I come to the conclusion that if Murray's trial does ever happen, then it's a repeat of MJ's situation. Murray should not go to trial because he didn't 'kill' MJ. So the lawyers behind the scenes are trying to find a case against him when there is none. Are they having doubts and that's why they can't seem to put together a case? Is this delay a way of giving them more time to discover the truth, regardless of whether the judge is 'in the know' or not?
Is MJ simply waiting this thing out as we are? Watching to see how far this case will go before someone raises serious doubts about its legitimacy?
I'm hopeful the current pause in events is simply a PAUSE, and not a STOP. After all they can't just conveniently forget about Murray's case, it has to come to a conclusion one way or another. But I'm at a loss to know how we can move forward at this time with no direction from anyone.
You are talking about the prosecuters aren't you?
They build their case on what, if MJ is not dead?
They think their case is real or they know it's a hoax?
Maybe we should ask if they are in or not.
Because if they are not in, what evidence makes them think MJ is dead, except the death cerificate and the autopsy report?
Anyone remembers if they said the body was ever identified of being Michael's in some way (DNA or I don't know, other way of identifying the body, of course if a body ever existed...)
Following this path, anybody could bring anybody into court using any accusation if only enough lies are invented and are being told.
Not the original lies would be subject of a judge's / jury's interest but the constructed case only.
Which makes of real U.S. courts authorized and willingly "put into life" stage productions:
- story scripted (what do we lie about on Monday? How much do we have to pay them? Who will interact with whom why and how?)
- actors choosen (who will have to show up in court on Tuesday?)
- actors rehearsing (planting indications - leaving "clues" for the avalanche public - prior to actual court period)
- public getting event announcement by press
- spectators swarming into location
- curtain up - show begins
- warming up gig helpful in getting emotional hooks fixed
- main gig only entering stage being late, later, actually the latest, and folks going wild in waiting and impatience
- show breathtaking, everyone glued, close to a heart attack
- curtain down - applause
- spectators leaving the opera.
That logic could indicate that the presented toy's story court ("I'll play a little with them") is a real court and that there is no specific need for a sting court at all - just exposure of themselves doing what they are always doing would be enough. Defense having collected all evidence of what went wrong in preparation of the case and in bringing the case to court. A sting would be a nice side show but not be required to show that real courts are hanging on a well-paid puppet string. No FBI needed.
What we have witnessed is enough to get Doc Murray out as a free man.
No case without any injured party.
No case if preparation of the case and prosecution prove to have materialized formal defects.
No conviction if the case is an "evidence only" case - testimony vs. testimony - and evidences are so contradicting that neither pro nor con can be identified. In doubt acquit the accused for want of evidence.
I am (almost LOL) sure that evidences have been made most contradicting in this case. <!-- s
Why does the scripting / play above remind me so much of June 25 and after...
I guess that just about sums up my feelings at the moment.
With L.O.V.E.
<!-- sbearhug -->bearhug<!-- sbearhug --> <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->
Because they are in, or because the death is real?
Never discover this alone, Gina!
I guess we'll never know anything. Time will tell.
At this moment I can not be positive, nothing can cheer me up on this hoax. What I'm seeing are desperate fans who want to cling to anything. I do not want to be like them! <!-- s
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=121&t=19418#p336250<!-- l -->
They couldn't even establish the time-line of the events with precision, they erased the surveilance tapes (??!!!), they have not much of a case I suppose. What's their case based on? The autopsy report of Michael Joseph Jackson, the conclusion that he died of an overdose of propofol combined with other 8 drugs....
<!-- scrash/ -->crash/<!-- scrash/ --> Nothing is clear <!-- scrash/ -->crash/<!-- scrash/ -->
AnaMarcia I know what you feel, as I feel the same as the days go by and his death seems more and more real, even if it IS too unreal to be true....but you start asking yourself what if it's true, no?
One thing I know: we'll never be able to fully believe he's dead. I know we don't want the same fate as the Elvis' fans who believed he didn't die but if that's the way it has to be - we can't change our fate.
But maybe the answers are in the trial that has to come.
The family against Murray and the ones behind Murray. So far they are going against this doctor but do not mention the big companies involved, if any.
One front: MJ did not know about 50 concerts
Other front: Murray injected MJ propofol to be able to sleep and to perform
From there on, let´s guess the truth and the reasons, but what is clear up to today is that MJ is "dead".
yes I was thinking about it too. Which one do you prefere? Morph is more fun. TS is more logical.
But i have to ask this question again, because no one helped me last time.
Kristina sorry I can't help you with that.
<!-- m -->http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs<!-- m -->
It clearly says that the FBI doesn't give an opinion or decide about the individual being prosecuted or not, so they certainly, if I understand correctly, don't help the prosecution per se. They just provide the investigation, their expertise.
Thank you so much for your help! <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
So does that mean, when FBI came to a conclusion that Michael is innocent (because they did not find anything against him) they could not stop the prosecution?
That is so UNFAIR!