This is great <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> Craig Harvey is in a way admitting that there is something that's not right. I just dont know if I dare to jump around and dance yet <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> But good job !
mjj_fan i was just making an addition to what you had written which elaborated a bit more. Please do not get knickers in twist <!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
On August 27th I had a quite extensive email correspondence with Mr. Craig Harvey. I had sent one email to all the four email addresses listed on the website of the LA County Coroners Office, though Mr. Harvey's email address is not listed there.
My question in the email was based on what Mr. Harvey said after the autopsy:
One of the reporters asked the spokesman:
Was there any controvercy about the death certificate signature by the doctor?
The answer to that question was:
No, the problem with the death certificate is that there was no doctor to sign the death certificate which then requires then that the coroner becomes involved because if there is no doctor to sign a death certificate then it falls to the coroner to do that function. So that is how we became involved in the first place. Had he been under the care of a doctor and that doctor been willing to sign the death certificate the coroner would not have become involved.
I asked:
I was highly surprised to hear "Had he been under the care of a doctor"! The media reports that UCLA staff tried to revive Michael Jackson for over an hour, and now it appears that no doctor was present during that time??!
Can you please tell me if this is indeed the case?
Also, if a doctor had been present and willing to sign the death certificate, then what would have been listed as the cause of death? If the cause of death would have been obvious, then why does it take so long for the autopsy results to come out?
Just a little over an hour after I sent my email I got a reply from Mr. Harvey. I was surprised to even receive an answer, because why would a coroner even bother to answer questions from some girl who's living on the other side of the ocean..? I was stunned to see his extensive answer, he put a lot of effort into that while all he had to say was "Sorry, I can't give you any information regarding this case".
Here's what Mr. Harvey replied:
The issue as to whether a person’s death falls under the jurisdiction of the Coroner under California law depends on the immediate/suspected cause of death. In certain cases, a private physician may sign a death certificate and the Coroner need not be involved. These deaths are always due to natural causes. In other cases, by law, only the Coroner can sign the death certificate due to the immediate or suspected cause/manner of death, e.g. gunshot wound, hanging, accident, suicide, homicide, etc.
The term “under the care of a doctor” or “had a doctor in attendance” means on its’ face that a person had been seen by a physician for a minimum specific period of time and that physician had a medical opinion as to the cause of death. It does not necessarily mean that there was a physician physically standing next to the patient when they died. In most cases, ER doctors do not sign death certificates for the many patients they pronounce dead upon arrival or shortly thereafter each year at their hospitals. Either they legally cannot sign a death certificate due to the cause of death or they simply have limited information on which to base a medical opinion.
Because no physician came forward to sign a death certificate, the Coroner had to be notified. Even if a physician had come forward to sign a death certificate, the cause of death would have to be based on documented/known medical history and due to natural causes with no external factors involved. If someone had signed a death certificate with inaccurate information, other physicians who know the patient or family members could contact the Coroner and the Coroner could take jurisdiction if the information is found to have merit.
Lastly, the vast majority (99%) of physicians will not jeopardize their profession or their livelihood by signing a bogus death certificate. They have too much at stake should their fraud be detected and reported.
My jaw dropped when I saw that last paragraph... Since Mr. Harvey was clearly willing to answer some questions I tried my luck and sent him another one:
What would be the purpose of blacking out the signature of the deputy coroner on Michael Jackson's death certificate? Nowadays it's just a typed name and a stamp, so I don't see any reason for blacking that out.
Just 11 minutes after sending my email Mr. Harvey replied again:
I am not sure why some of the information is redacted. The death certificate is a State of California document, not a Coroner or County of Los Angeles document. They set the rules on what they deem as “private or confidential”. I can understand redacting surviving family names and addresses and social security numbers, but some of the other stuff escapes my logic capacity.
I happily emailed back and forth with my new best friend, and received a total of 9(!) email from him until he went home to have dinner. There was one other interesting answer which I will post here also. My question was:
Something else I was wondering about, and I hope you don't mind me asking you - Why did you say "I am here to announce that the coroner has concluded the autopsy for mister Michael Jackson instead of on mister Michael Jackson? I'm sure you already realized English it not my native language...
Mr. Harvey's answer:
It is probably mostly semantics. I suspect it has to do with keeping in mind that our clients are people first not an object.
Draw your own conclusions...
I have emailed the Corona ,and this was his reply.
the question I asked him is below .
The body was that of Michael Jackson. And by the way, we have released nothing officially, so everything out there in the blogosphere is conjecture or otherwise unsubstantiated.
Hello,
I would just like to ask you this question and hope you will give an honest answer , the body that you or your office performed an autopsy on was suppose to be Michael Jackson , there are several discrepancy about his physical appearance , would you honestly say that you believe in your heart that , that baby was actually Michael Jackson .
I would like your honest answer .
<!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( --> it was him then... or so he says. But the positive is , that all the things about the autopsy we have heard, is only lies.I really dont know what to think right now.
it was him then... or so he says. But the positive is , that all the things about the autopsy we have heard, is only lies.I really dont know what to think right now.
what else should he answer?
Should he say " Uhhm no, it wasn't Michael Jackson it was a dummy or a double" ?
it was him then... or so he says. But the positive is , that all the things about the autopsy we have heard, is only lies.I really dont know what to think right now.
what else should he answer?
Should he say " Uhhm no, it wasn't Michael Jackson it was a dummy or a double" ?
No, but I just thougt, that he was nor gonna answer that qestion....
Craig Harvey has a Facebook page, I am his friend, but he has never posted anything about Michael. Even when people have asked him if Michael was still alive.
What I ask myself time after time is how they use a drivers license to identify a body, specially when the drivers license has another name.
I worked for a U.S company some years ago and I had problems getting my checks paid because My ID,the passport, said my full name and my contract did not. My passport and my drivers license have the same name since it´s a legal document.
Only makes sense to me that a person called Michael Joseph Jackson died. I guess that the name Michael Joseph Jackson is not exclusive and many citizens may share the same name.
What I ask myself time after time is how they use a drivers license to identify a body, specially when the drivers license has another name.
I worked for a U.S company some years ago and I had problems getting my checks paid because My ID,the passport, said my full name and my contract did not. My passport and my drivers license have the same name since it´s a legal document.
Only makes sense to me that a person called Michael Joseph Jackson died. I guess that the name Michael Joseph Jackson is not exclusive and many citizens may share the same name.
I diden't understand that either, but he was also identified by family and fingerprints. Well, that's what I was told by the coroners. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
A man who allegedly had around 50 surgeries has been identified by his driver's license???
We are talking about MJ!!!! If I were a coroner (someone who is not a fan, someone who does not see MJ every day) I would perform a DNA test in every case!!! Just to make sure this is not someone else/an impersonator.
I cannot understand this stuff with the driver's license <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Since you have an e-mail correspondence with Craig Harvey, is it possible for you to determine his IP address? If so, is it then possible to see if that IP address has logged in to this website?
Some other questions, and I'm happy to help do some digging.
1) Is it possible that someone (maybe one of his doubles) was deathly ill and they had his legal name changed to Michael Joseph Jackson before he died? This would absolve Craig Harvey and others from legal trouble because when they say "The body was that of Michael Jackson" they are not technically lying. Is it possible to obtain legal name change documents for the state of California?
2) Is it possible that the coroner is a vet? His facebook page is littered with posts about animals. Perhaps he performed the autopsy on MJ's dog?
3) Perhaps another possibility is that MJ found someone with the same name who was ill and dying and made a deal with them or something?
Since you have an e-mail correspondence with Craig Harvey, is it possible for you to determine his IP address? If so, is it then possible to see if that IP address has logged in to this website?
The emails that went back and forth between Mr. Harvey and me last year in August, and we started this website 3 months later. In January of this year we moved to a new server. Any traffic prior to January is not listed in our stats. It is possible to check if he (or anyone else from the coroner's office) has visited this site, but it would take some time to go through the files.
Some other questions, and I'm happy to help do some digging.
1) Is it possible that someone (maybe one of his doubles) was deathly ill and they had his legal name changed to Michael Joseph Jackson before he died? This would absolve Craig Harvey and others from legal trouble because when they say "The body was that of Michael Jackson" they are not technically lying. Is it possible to obtain legal name change documents for the state of California?
We firmly believe that someone died on June 25th and there is the possibility that it was a double who died on which an autopsy was performed.
As to obtaining legal documents (about whatsoever) - all documents pertaining to the Jackson family are sealed, so there is no possibility of obtaining copies.
2) Is it possible that the coroner is a vet? His facebook page is littered with posts about animals. Perhaps he performed the autopsy on MJ's dog?
We wrote our "Dog Autopsy" theory last year in October, and although it was immediately ridiculed to the max, it's a well researched theory. It contains quite some interesting information. In case you're interested:
<!-- m -->http://doubledutchblogs.wordpress.com/2 ... th-part-1/<!-- m -->
3) Perhaps another possibility is that MJ found someone with the same name who was ill and dying and made a deal with them or something?
Since there are 3 different names on the autopsy report it doesn't necessarily mean the person who died was also named Michael Jackson. It's possible that Mike made a deal with a terminally ill person who agreed on going through the autopsy process.
"No, the problem with the death certificate is that there was no doctor to sign the death certificate which then requires then that the coroner becomes involved because if there is no doctor to sign a death certificate then it falls to the coroner to do that function. So that is how we became involved in the first place. Had he been under the care of a doctor and that doctor been willing to sign the death certificate the coroner would not have become involved. "
I remembered reading this several months ago but somehow when I came back to it today a new thought occurred to me...
considering that CM was MJ's personal physician, he would have technically been considered under the care of a doctor so therefore if Murray had just signed the DC from the very beginning the coroner would not have ever been involved and CM wouldn't be going through all of these legal battles. Given this, and the fact that it has been quoted that no physican is going to risk their career by signing a bogus DC, it would seem to me that CM didn't sign because he didn't want to falsify information and therefore CM and the coroner both had to be in on the hoax in order to make it the huge media scandal that it has been. JMO.
There was one other interesting answer which I will post here also. My question was:
Something else I was wondering about, and I hope you don't mind me asking you - Why did you say "I am here to announce that the coroner has concluded the autopsy for mister Michael Jackson instead of on mister Michael Jackson? I'm sure you already realized English it not my native language...
Mr. Harvey's answer:
It is probably mostly semantics. I suspect it has to do with keeping in mind that our clients are people first not an object.
on (preposition)
a. Used to indicate the object affected by actual, perceptible action: The spotlight fell on the actress. He knocked on the door.
b. Used to indicate the object affected by a figurative action: Have pity on them.
c. Used to indicate the object of an action directed, tending, or moving against it: an attack on the fortress.
d. Used to indicate the object of perception or thought: gazed on the vista; meditated on his actions.
<!-- m -->http://www.yourdictionary.com/on<!-- m -->
for (preposition)
a. Used to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action: prepared lunch for us.
b. On behalf of: spoke for all the members.
c. In favor of: Were they for or against the proposal?
d. In place of: a substitute for eggs.
<!-- m -->http://www.yourdictionary.com/for<!-- m -->
I had this same question, and I guess his answer makes sense, BUT, to me it still sounds like he was saying "concluded the autopsy "for", meaning "on behalf of" - concluded the autopsy (on someone else) on behalf of "Michael Jackson".
I believe that the right sentence would be
"I am here to announce that the coroner has concluded the autopsy [s:2ticgz4x]for[/s:2ticgz4x] of mister Michael Jackson"
I believe that the right sentence would be
"I am here to announce that the coroner has concluded the autopsy [s:3lz02e32]for[/s:3lz02e32] of mister Michael Jackson"
Here is an example of how this was worded in another L.A. Coroner case:
<!-- m -->http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... death.html<!-- m -->
Coroner to perform autopsy; determining Casey Johnson's cause of death could take weeks
January 5, 2010 | 10:38 am
Authorities said today it could take more than a month to make a final determination about what caused the death of Casey Johnson, heiress to the Johnson & Johnson fortune.
Casey Johnson, 30, was found dead in her Los Angeles home Monday morning, and police officials said a preliminary investigation by homicide investigators found nothing to suggest anything other than a death from natural causes.
An autopsy will be performed on Johnson today or Wednesday but an announcement on the cause of death could be deferred four to six weeks, pending the outcome of toxicology tests, said Ed Winter, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County coroner's office.
Winter said his office had received information that Johnson had a history of diabetes but added, "We are still conducting our investigation."
Comments
<!-- m -->http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz ... nswer.html<!-- m -->
I have emailed the Corona ,and this was his reply.
the question I asked him is below .
The body was that of Michael Jackson. And by the way, we have released nothing officially, so everything out there in the blogosphere is conjecture or otherwise unsubstantiated.
Hello,
I would just like to ask you this question and hope you will give an honest answer , the body that you or your office performed an autopsy on was suppose to be Michael Jackson , there are several discrepancy about his physical appearance , would you honestly say that you believe in your heart that , that baby was actually Michael Jackson .
I would like your honest answer .
what else should he answer?
Should he say " Uhhm no, it wasn't Michael Jackson it was a dummy or a double" ?
I worked for a U.S company some years ago and I had problems getting my checks paid because My ID,the passport, said my full name and my contract did not. My passport and my drivers license have the same name since it´s a legal document.
Only makes sense to me that a person called Michael Joseph Jackson died. I guess that the name Michael Joseph Jackson is not exclusive and many citizens may share the same name.
I diden't understand that either, but he was also identified by family and fingerprints. Well, that's what I was told by the coroners. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
We are talking about MJ!!!! If I were a coroner (someone who is not a fan, someone who does not see MJ every day) I would perform a DNA test in every case!!! Just to make sure this is not someone else/an impersonator.
I cannot understand this stuff with the driver's license <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
<!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| --> orly?
Since you have an e-mail correspondence with Craig Harvey, is it possible for you to determine his IP address? If so, is it then possible to see if that IP address has logged in to this website?
Some other questions, and I'm happy to help do some digging.
1) Is it possible that someone (maybe one of his doubles) was deathly ill and they had his legal name changed to Michael Joseph Jackson before he died? This would absolve Craig Harvey and others from legal trouble because when they say "The body was that of Michael Jackson" they are not technically lying. Is it possible to obtain legal name change documents for the state of California?
2) Is it possible that the coroner is a vet? His facebook page is littered with posts about animals. Perhaps he performed the autopsy on MJ's dog?
3) Perhaps another possibility is that MJ found someone with the same name who was ill and dying and made a deal with them or something?
We firmly believe that someone died on June 25th and there is the possibility that it was a double who died on which an autopsy was performed.
As to obtaining legal documents (about whatsoever) - all documents pertaining to the Jackson family are sealed, so there is no possibility of obtaining copies.
We wrote our "Dog Autopsy" theory last year in October, and although it was immediately ridiculed to the max, it's a well researched theory. It contains quite some interesting information. In case you're interested:
<!-- m -->http://doubledutchblogs.wordpress.com/2 ... th-part-1/<!-- m -->
Since there are 3 different names on the autopsy report it doesn't necessarily mean the person who died was also named Michael Jackson. It's possible that Mike made a deal with a terminally ill person who agreed on going through the autopsy process.
I remembered reading this several months ago but somehow when I came back to it today a new thought occurred to me...
considering that CM was MJ's personal physician, he would have technically been considered under the care of a doctor so therefore if Murray had just signed the DC from the very beginning the coroner would not have ever been involved and CM wouldn't be going through all of these legal battles. Given this, and the fact that it has been quoted that no physican is going to risk their career by signing a bogus DC, it would seem to me that CM didn't sign because he didn't want to falsify information and therefore CM and the coroner both had to be in on the hoax in order to make it the huge media scandal that it has been. JMO.
on (preposition)
a. Used to indicate the object affected by actual, perceptible action: The spotlight fell on the actress. He knocked on the door.
b. Used to indicate the object affected by a figurative action: Have pity on them.
c. Used to indicate the object of an action directed, tending, or moving against it: an attack on the fortress.
d. Used to indicate the object of perception or thought: gazed on the vista; meditated on his actions.
<!-- m -->http://www.yourdictionary.com/on<!-- m -->
for (preposition)
a. Used to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action: prepared lunch for us.
b. On behalf of: spoke for all the members.
c. In favor of: Were they for or against the proposal?
d. In place of: a substitute for eggs.
<!-- m -->http://www.yourdictionary.com/for<!-- m -->
I had this same question, and I guess his answer makes sense, BUT, to me it still sounds like he was saying "concluded the autopsy "for", meaning "on behalf of" - concluded the autopsy (on someone else) on behalf of "Michael Jackson".
"I am here to announce that the coroner has concluded the autopsy [s:2ticgz4x]for[/s:2ticgz4x] of mister Michael Jackson"
Here is an example of how this was worded in another L.A. Coroner case:
<!-- m -->http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... death.html<!-- m -->
Coroner to perform autopsy; determining Casey Johnson's cause of death could take weeks
January 5, 2010 | 10:38 am
Authorities said today it could take more than a month to make a final determination about what caused the death of Casey Johnson, heiress to the Johnson & Johnson fortune.
Casey Johnson, 30, was found dead in her Los Angeles home Monday morning, and police officials said a preliminary investigation by homicide investigators found nothing to suggest anything other than a death from natural causes.
An autopsy will be performed on Johnson today or Wednesday but an announcement on the cause of death could be deferred four to six weeks, pending the outcome of toxicology tests, said Ed Winter, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County coroner's office.
Winter said his office had received information that Johnson had a history of diabetes but added, "We are still conducting our investigation."
For will imply "on the order fo someone" (for me, for you...)