elusive moonwalker
Guests
So we can see the facts.
Just to come back to this: What is bizarre and creepy about that? For those who don't know: MJ is known to have collected artist dolls - just like Richard Simmons (he even has his own line of collectable dolls) or John Wayne, who was an avid doll collector during his lifetime. And there are many more celebrities collecting dolls. Artist dolls are a special kind of ART. So what is your problem? :brow:I hate to say this but it seems really very bizarre and somewhat creepy that there was a porcelan doll in/on MJ's bed. Not sure if he routinely "slept" with such a doll.........or perhaps Murray put it there intentionally (prior to EMS arriving) to make MJ look somewhat "off"?
Please somebody tell me again for what reason this trial shoul be on TV? :sad:
And I'm not implying that is hurtful for us but it is for Michael and for those who care the most about him.
And all the vultures out there waiting and then picking on most disturbing aspects.SMH
Just to come back to this: What is bizarre and creepy about that? For those who don't know: MJ is known to have collected artist dolls - just like Richard Simmons (he even has his own line of collectable dolls) or John Wayne, who was an avid doll collector during his lifetime. And there are many more celebrities collecting dolls. Artist dolls are a special kind of ART. So what is your problem? :brow:
Media will always say negative things. Because that's what the general public wants. But it is sad that some fans can say such things about him...They obviously forgot the "before you judge me, try hard to love me..."
The toxicology reports were interesting but he said some of it is not an exact science so Im not sure they will get an exact truth from them??... just an "educated" opinion.
Also, I wonder if they will bring in the reports of the 2nd autopsy and if that would muddle things up more?
Boy what about Fleak!!... What a mess up I cant believe it, ....or her attitude in the trial!
Also I just got this sent to me today ...
I was wondering, I thought it was stated yesterday by Walgren when reading the fingerprint analysis that while the presence of fingerprints identified to a person is definitive evidence that that person handled the object, the presence of no fingerprints was not an indication that a particular person never handled the object. So the lack of Michael's fingerprints on the Rx bottles really proves nothing. I think the defense is depending on this fact with their theory Please correct me if I misheard
I'll be blunt and say it - because most probably they treated it as an OD from recreational drugs. All of their actions - not taking all the items, not talking to everyone in detail, not doing securing the location - to me shows that they either treated this as a natural death or an OD.
My thought is that if the vials were totally cleaned there could be a doubt, but there are many fingerprints on them, some unknown, but not those of Michael, for me it really proves that Michael never touched them, it's just a logical thought.
I'll be blunt and say it - because most probably they treated it as an OD from recreational drugs. All of their actions - not taking all the items, not talking to everyone in detail, not doing securing the location - to me shows that they either treated this as a natural death or an OD.
Some of these flaws were recognized earlier (like not collecting the I.V. stand on the 25th) but I tried to give LAPD some slack seeing as they had no way of knowing this was a homicide case when MJ died and had no reason to suspect as much. I've always said they more than likely took MJ's death as another celebrity overdose case and for this reason probably slacked in the way they collected evidence. I remember being at the hospital to pick up my Mom on that day and it wasn't too long after word came that MJ had died ppl like Deepak Chopra was on CNN talking about Michael asking him for drugs and crap like that. The police was probably at Carolwood then collecting evidence and thinking MJ's death was far from being a homicide so why worry that a bottle of flumazenil is on the floor. Just pick it up and put it on the table for the pix of the drugs on the nightstand. It was a matter documenting the drugs in the room versus documenting and preserving a possible crime scene. That was a bad call...but at the same time, what can one expect. I loathe that people jumped to conclusions about how MJ died and this is one of the reasons why. And now the defense, with their backs in a corner otherwise, is probably salivating over these missteps. So annoying. Walgren has his work cut out for him on cross with Fleak, but hopefully the pathology results will be exceptional enuf to overshadow this. Blah.
Yes, I agree. Especially with the OD part. Which is tragic, now that we have the toxicology results. And one also has to wonder why they treated it that way when there was a doctor present, there was an IV-stand (how many drug addicts have a doctor there and an IV-stand? Where did their common sense go?), the doctor went into hiding the same day, etc., etc., etc.
There is no, one, defining smoking gun in this case, OTHER THAN the massive amount of drugs Murray was putting into Michael; the total lack of rescue equipment; the lying to anyone and everyone; the complete lack of medical records during this pre-concert time Murray was treating Michael. And on, and on.
how do we know the defence wont have an expert that will claim that though. thats how it seems to go in such cases.Now, the jurors heard from an expert the defense had no evidence whatsover to back up that statement. THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT in my opinion.
Who was to report this piece?
I'm confused. I don't recall hearing anything in Murray's secret recording of MJ where MJ speaks to his family being "greedy".....does that mean we didn't hear the ENTIRE recording and that there was stuff we didn't hear him say re: his family? If so, how is it that others have heard it? How are things like this released to the media? If this recording was obtained during the investigation when Murray's phone was forensically examined, how would ABC get a copy of the entire recording -- why would investigators release it to the media?