Oh no, that was very interesting and thank you for explaining and taking the time to write such a thoughtful post.
I guess I am more scientific to start with. I won't build a theory until I have a 'base foundation' to go on. My data needs to be solid on the bottom because if I go too far and then find out my 'base' is not solid and something happens to prove me wrong....POOF...the whole mess crumbles.
That is how in my mind I build a theory. I am educated in science but also have psychology and sociology background along with English literature. Put that all together and you have someone who studies with a close eye the writer and who pulls out the facts and leaves the rest out there.
You are VERY welcome. Thanks for posting some of your background, too. That explains, a lot. I know my post was long, and most people might not have time for it, but that IS the background that I bring to most things that I do of an intellectual nature. If it had to be labeled, I suppose the most accurate would be "critical theory and deconstruction." I do understand that methodology, but I'm not an "empiricist." By choice.
In general, Western culture privileges science over the more qualitative research, and I totally understand and value that mind-set. That method has given us much of importance, including the car that I drive, and the antibiotics I (very rarely) take. But yet, there are things that are more ephemeral,
and are also valid. Personally, I've studied sociology, psychology (including "abnormal psychology"), and cultural anthropology. (and other things) My Ph.D. is cultural/anthropological based, with field-work done in Africa (and for those or whom this is digressive, SORRY???? Just read other things? LOL)
I wanted to REALLY explain what I see as being done here. This is not and cannot be, SCIENCE. We don't have the forensic evidence to use, and little that is factual. That doesn't mean nothing can be DONE, though.
Sorry for what might be a long post, but Beachlover, since you responded candidly, so I'd like to offer a little more?
Suppose we wanted to know more (in terms of the "Michael-investigations") about Dr. Tohme/Jermaine Jackson? For example? I'll post some of that here, so you can understand how I think these things can be approached? We know little that is factual about Tohme, or about his relationship with Jermaine, or with Michael. Many here have tried to find out about him, but Tohme seems to have little internet presence. (And please, I'm not implying that Jermaine had anything to do with Michael's death. I'm just using this as an example of how I, and others, do research.)
What do we KNOW about Tohme as fact, and about his relationship with Jermaine Jackson?
1.
Tohme entered Michael's life, and advanced to the state of controlling his money (that 5.5 million that he had, we KNOW about. That is an incredibly huge amount of someone else's money to have!) and we know about his being president of MJJProductions. Even though he has NO experience in the entertainment business? We also know that he has a major interest in Colony Capital, that company that owns a large portion of Neverland. We know that because he was once listed as a principal in Colony Capital. That info has now vanished from their web-site, but some here made screen captures.
2.
We know that Tohme misrepresented himself. That, in itself, brings up suspicion as to his character? That is a BIGGY! He said he was a medical doctor, but there is no evidence of that. He said he was "ambassador-at-large" for the country of Senegal. The Senegalese government has denied that. (not posting links here, but they are available in other threads.)
3. It's been stated that Jermaine introduced Tohme to Michael. We have no proof, but can surmise.
4.
We DO know there is a connection between Tohme and Jermaine. Tohme was prominent in the hospital press-conference, when he introduced Jermaine. He was still THERE, and they were linked. That "evidence" is visual, in the tape of the event, and in Tohme's words.
5.
We know, from his own words, that Tohme refused to "go away" even though he was fired by Michael. He gave an interview where he said he was "still making decisions for Michael." (link in the "Tohme thread," unless that's now been removed from Youtube?)
6.
We can surmise that the link between Jermaine and Tohme was still viable when Jermaine did interviews, shortly after Michael's death, promoting Michael's burial at Neverland, when it's pretty obvious Michael would not have wanted that. The family over-ruled that pretty quickly. We can "assume," but not know, that Jermaine had some sort of financial interest in Neverland being a theme-park, through whatever his association might have been with Tohme and Colony Capital.
7.
We KNOW that Tohme has a connection with AEG, through a marriage connection with Randy Phillips. We do NOT know how deeply that relationship runs.
8.
We know that Tohme set up an auction that Michael eventually said he did not want, of ALL his belongings at Neverland, including the gates and some very personal things related to his children.
9.
We know that a colleague of Tohme's was accused of threatening "bloodshed" to a CEO of Julien's auction house.
10.
We know that Michael fired Tohme.
This all is material from which we can construct a "story." Some is factual, and some exists around the "edges" and is no less real. The puzzle pieces might not FIT ("science") but the colors might all be "blue?" (qualitative research.)
I sincerely hope this helps to resolve differences in approach?
peace,
Vic