<br /><br /><br /><br />um look at the stripes???? same damn colors..... WTF?? <br />
<br /> <br /><br /> <br />LMAO! GREAT FIND!!! there's an extra star and it ain't for minnesota. and the colors and pattern. just wow!<br /> <br />Oh wait, its just another one of those coincidences :roll: except for not really.
<br />I dont want to start a thread on this, and sorry if it has been posted elsewhere, but I found this video very interesting...at :51 seconds the reporter explains who are the members of the jury....one of them is a tv director! Maybe this is nothing, but still its interesting. <br /><br /><br />
<br /> <br />maybe this director is helping Michael directing this movie.. Who knows, thanks for posting this it is very interesting.
LMAO! GREAT FIND!!! there's an extra star and it ain't for minnesota. and the colors and pattern. just wow!<br /> <br />Oh wait, its just another one of those coincidences except for not really.
<br /><br />That's hilarious <br /><br />I noticed the same thing earlier this evening and I was going to go look at my Michael CD just to make sure and before I could get back you two posted this <br /><br />Yes, it is the same colors, the same stripes, and looking closer at the black strips on the Michael album cover there are 14 of them. I'm not sure if that's been noticed before either.<br /><br />My take on the extra star - there is supposed to be 31 for the State of California but there is actually 32 (one extra). Great eye of MJOnMind who discovered where the extra star belongs - and that is on the Michael album cover. Maybe it's saying Michael is the "star"? Or maybe he's the star witness?<br /><br />Okay - there is no way we'd know this juicy tidbit before the trial started so I'm wondering what else will pop up. I would be very interested in hearing from our nonbeliever friends who view this board....<br /><br />Blessings to all.
<br /><br /><br /><br />um look at the stripes???? same damn colors..... WTF?? <br />
<br /> <br /> afraid/ OMG! <br /><br />Why do I get this feeling that album cover explains/connects all the clues?<br /> <br /><br /> <br /> <br />
<br /><br />You're not alone. I've gone back to staring at the Michael album. Even if Michael decides not to return nobody in 1000 years will ever tell me that this is a coincidence. We can add this as clue number 777.
<br />I'll merge this one with the original thread.<br />
<br /><br />Thank you Bec <br /><br /><br />
on 1318602121:
<br />
On day 11 during the Alon Steinburg questioning, didn't anyone else notice the flashlight between the cop's legs behind the defense?
<br /><br />[size=10pt]Yeah, I noticed that too and thought why on earth has he put that thing there??? It was odd and caught my eye.[/size]<br />That does seem odd, doesn't it? At the very least it doesn't look professional. But, why would he need the flashlight? It wasn't night time. Perhaps to represent shining light on a subject or matter? IDK...thank you for bringing this up.<br />
<br /><br />Accumalatively, everything in this court seems unprofessional. never seen anything like it before in any other trial. for me personally its proof the court room / case is all ficticious. the unprofessionalism in the courtroom encourages my faith. (spelling, props, false reports and photos, elephents, rabbits, trash can, others) <br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Thank you for sharing. /bravo/ When you first posted, I noticed the stripes akin to the stipes on seal. I forgot about the missing star and didnt make the connection. Well spotted. Must get that 'Michael' cover out as well as my magnifying glass and look for more clues...<br /><br />So exciting!!! michael-jackson/<br /><br /><br />L.O.V.E to all!<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />um look at the stripes???? same damn colors..... WTF?? <br />
<br /> <br /> afraid/ OMG! <br /><br />Why do I get this feeling that album cover explains/connects all the clues?<br /> <br /><br /> <br /> <br />
<br /><br />You're not alone. I've gone back to staring at the Michael album. Even if Michael decides not to return nobody in 1000 years will ever tell me that this is a coincidence. We can add this as clue number 777.<br />
<br /><br />Something else I noticed with that star on the Michael album...it looks like the one on the elephant outside of the Staple's Center July 2009. It's even in the same position.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />um look at the stripes???? same damn colors..... WTF?? <br />
<br /> <br /> afraid/ OMG! <br /><br />Why do I get this feeling that album cover explains/connects all the clues?<br /> <br /><br /> <br /> <br />
<br /><br />You're not alone. I've gone back to staring at the Michael album. Even if Michael decides not to return nobody in 1000 years will ever tell me that this is a coincidence. We can add this as clue number 777.<br />
<br /><br />I feel this way, too. I look at the mural from time to time, wondering what certain images are and how they might connect to everything that's going on...
Maybe I'm off the deep end, but MJ transformer from Moonwalker and Murray look alike to me.<br /><br /><br /><br />And Murray's bald spot seems wrong--too dark of skin and not centered the way they usually are.<br /><br />
Everyone, I know MJ has been cited for calling propofol his Jesus Juice (something he put out there evidently), but below is what it probably truly is related to. Remember, this story is fake. MJ had to die of something, and he knew that the more outrageous the story (or any story) relating to him was, would be the most believable to some. They thought him a freak, eccentric, looney toons et al.<br /> <br />He was amazed that people would believe all of those tabloid stories about him without any fact checking/researching. He couldn't conceive it. And how the media lied on him during the 2005 trial was appalling and a crying shame (and some more adjectives). On some levels it bothered him, but at some point, he decided that he would use it for fodder/background to tell several unbelivable stories about and attributed to himself. He is the writer/author, director, executive producer, victim and some more stuff having to do with this Michael Jackson story. <br /> <br />The more outrageous the stories/lies about him were/are - the better, because that was the way folks identified with him. So he said, I show them - and that is what he is doing now. He planted a lot of these stories about himslf thru some of the so-called shady characters that have been quoted in the press, written about in the press and now with the witnesses and such in this farce of a trial. LOL!<br /> <br />By the way, Diana was dressed in garb that looked like two galaxies colliding on a recent tour stop which IMO has to do with the below. Matter of fact, there are a lot of things MJ was about in This Is It - since then and back in the past that was very COSMIC.<br /> <br />Please delete if duplicate posts.<br /> <br />http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=94<br /><br />http://www.cosmomyth.com/milky_way.html
Is it me or does Dr White look like this actor? <br /> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0348409/<br />I thought he looked familiar then remembered the "doctor" in the movie Patch Adams. Anyone else thinks it's the same guy? Keep in mind he looks older in court and wears glasses.<br /><br />Here's the trailer to Patch Adams.<br /><br />[embed=425,349]
That is a good find the missing star on the cd. <br />Today on HLN, a male reporter was in the hallway outside the court room. I guy with a black hat and white fuzzy hair walks by and goes out the door. Then next scene, reporter is back and guy is standing behind him. "Bystander" and fluffy beard and a jean jacket with white patches on the shoulders was looking around. It was very funny. <br />Jane Velez was talking about LaToya and her conspiracy theory, Jane said thousands of people would have to agree to go along it. <br />Patient Gerry Causy of Dr. CM kissed CM on the forehead. All too funny.<br />
<br />Is it me or does Dr White look like this actor? <br /> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0348409/<br />I thought he looked familiar then remembered the "doctor" in the movie Patch Adams. Anyone else thinks it's the same guy? Keep in mind he looks older in court and wears glasses.<br /><br />Here's the trailer to Patch Adams.<br /><br />[embed=425,349] />
<br /><br />Robin Williams is one of my fave actors and I don't think he looks like him at all. Here is a recent picture of Mr Williams.<br /><br />
<br /> <br />Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment<br />Defenses focus
>Character<br /><br />The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication. <br /><br />In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient). When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)<br /> <br /><br />So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...)then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...)(character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".<br /><br /> <br />All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient. <br /> <br /><br />People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting. So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.<br /><br /><br />I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.<br /><br />I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case" <br /><br />...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).
<br /> <br />Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment<br />Defenses focus
>Character<br /><br />The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication. <br /><br />In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient). When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)<br /> <br /><br />So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...)then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...)(character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".<br /><br /> <br />All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient. <br /> <br /><br />People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting. So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.<br /><br /><br />I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.<br /><br />I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case" <br /><br />...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).<br />
<br /> <br />Thanks for your clear explanation. Actually, it is not long winded, on the contrary, it's interesting to see this from a juror's perspective . I have no knowledge of law cases, trials etc. and I've never seen a courthouse from the inside (glad I am).<br />
It's more simple than most people realize.
<br />Personally, I can't imagine that it's so simple. I mean, when you must adhere to specifics as a juror, you must be rational and block your emotions as well. I think that's not so simple, because even if you adhere to specifics rationally as a juror, hearing the loving and emotional testimonies of the patients and seeing the reaction of Murray, it will somehow touch the jurors (or at least 1 or 2). I still find the timing of the testimonies of the patient witnesses striking. Convenient timing for the defense, because they are close to the date of the verdict. I believe that recent remarkable testimonies or situations will always stick into the memories of the juror. But that's from my own perspective and I'm not a juror and I guess I will never be. I find it very interesting though .<br /> <br />With L.O.V.E.<br />
<br /> <br />Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment<br />Defenses focus
>Character<br /><br />The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication. <br /><br />In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient). When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)<br /> <br /><br />So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...)then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...)(character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".<br /><br /> <br />All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient. <br /> <br /><br />People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting. So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.<br /><br /><br />I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.<br /><br />I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case" <br /><br />...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).<br />
<br /> <br />Thanks for your clear explanation. Actually, it is not long winded, on the contrary, it's interesting to see this from a juror's perspective . I have no knowledge of law cases, trials etc. and I've never seen a courthouse from the inside (glad I am).<br />
It's more simple than most people realize.
<br />Personally, I can't imagine that it's so simple. I mean, when you must adhere to specifics as a juror, you must be rational and block your emotions as well. I think that's not so simple, because even if you adhere to specifics rationally as a juror, hearing the loving and emotional testimonies of the patients and seeing the reaction of Murray, it will somehow touch the jurors (or at least 1 or 2). I still find the timing of the testimonies of the patient witnesses striking. Convenient timing for the defense, because they are close to the date of the verdict. I believe that recent remarkable testimonies or situations will always stick into the memories of the juror. But that's from my own perspective and I'm not a juror and I guess I will never be. I find it very interesting though .<br /> <br />With L.O.V.E.<br /> <br />
<br /><br />My apologies...I didn't mean to imply that jurors have to be insensitive On the contrary, you do get emotional and it can influence your perspective and defense attorneys count on it! But there are certain instructions and guidelines you do have to adhere to. <br /><br />Yesterdays testimony would have been hard to sit through---> I went through a box of tissue just watching it on my computer, I imagine being there was very emotionally charged. It's easy to get caught up in the science and forget there are real people behind the situation. The defense chose their character witness' well.<br /><br /> /bravo/ <br /><br />But in terms of being on a jury, I just meant that people are sometimes "shell shocked" at how fast a jury reaches a verdict in some cases (usually only within a matter of hours) even if presenting the case had taken weeks or months! It's a very exciting experience if you ever get the opportunity. I used to dread jury duty until I was actually chosen for that first case. It definitely gives you a whole new appreciation of the legal system.<br /><br /> /judge/
OKAY!!!! Full out facial view on top of cops desk of a <br />JACK-0- lantern!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br />On first half hour or so...then GONE <br />
Maybe that means, jacko was in court..but now is gone.<br />Maybe it means, that he WAS JACK0, now is only the <br />JACK-O-lantern, which, now has disappeared/gone.<br />We'll see what comes back!<br /><br />
Comments
>Character<br /><br />The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication. <br /><br />In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient). When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)<br /> <br /><br />So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...) then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...) (character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".<br /><br /> <br />All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient. <br /> <br /><br />People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting. So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.<br /><br /><br />I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.<br /><br />I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case"