Latest on MJJC

Exposing R Sullivan's lie - Proof From LA Coroner

Although I agree that MJ did have a nose. There is NO proof from a LA coroner that he did. - In fact it would be very disturbing to hear that an LA coroner who has info or autopsy pics was even discussing such a thing with a Mj fan or anyone. If that was a fact they should be called out and fired. Its very uprofessional and betrayal of Michael's privacy. This is just hearsay .. unknown sources are not really proof of anything.
 
I thank the person who did this to proove that Sullivan's theory is a bunch of bullcrap.
 
@qbee
Actually, the AR makes the 2 refrences to the "tip of the nose" shown in this video, and Sullivan's description has no tip of the nose. Anyone can call the general inqury number from the LA Coroner website and ask questions. I've done it several times. In this case we have a tabloid author claiming to have seen photos he shouldn't have. I'm surprised more people haven't questioned this.
 
Im not question what the Ar says - We know what is says - we even have it posted here.

Im saying I dont believe anyone call the coroner office and be told info about Michael's autopsy or about the condition of his nose or any other body part of Michael's. (as this video claims) I would believe they might say no one has possesion of the Autopsy photos and we are not allowed to discuss his autopsy. PERIOD But that is not what the video claims. What is even more supicious is whoever made the video believes MJ is alive - so the autopsy is fake to them .. Why would they want to prove MJs dead body had a nose.??? If they dont believe he is dead. For what purpose ?? Its doesnt make sense. and we dont need that video to prove MJ had a nose anyway. We already have the AR report and can see for ourselves from other sources he did.

with no source named the video is useless as proof of anything .. it hearsay
If they were allowed to give that info there is no reason for them to remain anomynous.
 
@qbee


You said "Although I agree that MJ did have a nose. There is NO proof from a LA coroner that he did" so I pointed out the 2 mentions of "tip of the nose" from the AR. No nose would mean no tip, so there's the Coroner's Office saying MJ has a nose.


The point of the video is that Michael had a nose, not his "dead body", and that Sullivan is making his insane assertion based on 3 things per his online interview w/ Marc Lamont Hill: 1) his assessment of the AR (which mentions tip of the nose) 2) an online photo that MJ supposedly posed for (as if that would ever happen had MJ worn a prosthetic) and 3) his claim that he saw the autopsy photos.


I don't understand the outrage at a Coroner's Office official disputing Sullivan's claim. The outrage should be directed at Sullivan. As for whether one believes MJ died or staged his death (which isn't mentioned in this video), when it comes to disproving vicious lis like this one does it matter?


I have called the LA Coroner at this number 323-343-0783 4 times in the last 3 years and they do answer questions about Michael's (or any) case - that's what that number is for. As for why the Coroner contact's name has been withheld, that has been explained a couple of times in the comment section under the video.
 
Kitty, you have to understand that information coming from anonymous sources is not very credible by definition. And the fact that the statement about MJ autopsy is made by someone who doesn't believe MJ is dead in the first place (which is illogical on itself) doesn't help its credibility at all. I understand that you mean well, but try to see how it looks from the outside.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@kitty10

I have to agree with Morinen on most of the stuff.

Yes coroner's office DOES have a media / public relations office and they do answer inquiries. So that makes sense. However keeping this public relations person secret does not. Why are you hiding the identity of the person whose job is to be the spokesperson / media contact? Especially when the identity of this person is no brainier. (did you see my post on the other thread?) As Morinen pointed out "anonymous" sources aren't taken seriously. Just as Sullivan's anonymous sources aren't given credibility , yours won't get any credibility either.

Your information might be used to debunk that the coroner showed anyone the photos , however it doesn't rule out Murray's lawyers. We have read the status hearing transcripts. Murray's lawyers had access to the photographs - at least for a certain amount of time.

Finally I totally agree that this information coming from you - a person believing that Michael Jackson is alive - is totally reducing the credibility to zero. On one hand arguing Michael Jackson is alive and then on the other hand arguing to believe the coroner that did the autopsy on the not dead Michael is conflicting in itself.

You do realize that your logic is like that the supposed Michael Jackson had a nose but what about the real Michael Jackson? How can the coroner know that Michael had a nose when they didn't see Michael but the "dead body" as you call it?
 
@Ivy

I am not one of those beLIEvers, but I have enough questions about events around MJs death, and issues on the AR, that I'm open to the possibility. For example, cheif toxicologist Anderson was compelled to insert into his testimony that while he stands behind his test results 100% he can't/won't vouch for the identity of the urine, going as far as to say "that could be anyone's urine". He brought that up 3 times while under oath and I have to wonder why on earth an employee of LA Coroner would do that.


I know 2 MDs - one an Internist the other an Anesthesiologist - and neither can reconcile the pulmonary specialist's description of the lungs with the man we see singing, dancing, laughing, talking in TII. Never short of breath, never coughing. Or the man working out w/ Lou Ferrigno (which included running on a treadmill). They both pointed out that this specialist would have been sent tissue samples, would never have seen the deceased.


As for Sullivan, his claim about the nose on a living MJ is based on his assessment of the AR (regardless of who was autopsied), an online photo (does anyone believe Sullivan's statement that MJ wore a prosthetic nose and allowed himself to be photo'd without it?), and his examination of autopsy photos he couldn't - or shouldn't - have seen. Now to be honest we hadn't considered Murray's lawyers as source of the photos, but I have to wonder what they'd hope to accomplish had they shown them to Sullivan. Money? Wouldn't they risk disbarrment had they done that?


The point some of you are missing is that it doesn't matter who was autopsied, Sullivan's claim demonstrates he, well he's full of crap. In Aug 2009 Claire Hoffman wrote an article for Rolling Stone (Sullivan writes for Rolling Stone as well) that made this same claim about MJ's nose citing a source at the morgue. Yet when Sullivan is asked point blank where he got his info re: the prosthetic nose he always cites the AR (which makes no mention of the nose Sullivan describes), this mysterious yet "widely available" photo MJ allegedly posed for, and autopsy photos - he never mentions the early Rolling Stone article or it's source.


While I have spoken to this person at LA Coroner's my video making partner corresponds with him frequently, sometimes personnally, and it was her decision to keep his name out of the video.


I put "dead body" in quotes because qbee had put those words in my mouth, so to speak. I don't know what other thread your referring to so no, I didn't see your post.


Throughout this forum, members rant, rave and lament "how could he.." Why don't they..." "Why doesn't somebody do something?" Well, somebody did. If I end up proving to myself that there is no way Michael is alive in order to discredit someone like Sullivan, it will be worth it.
 
Kitty10 said:
they got the point.
Click to expand...

well this veiled insults will not get support for you. Secondly perhaps we should ask them if they knew about your other videos as well.


What you are failing to understand is that no one believes Sullivan and if we are to debunk him we are as strong as our weakest argument. Anonymous sources as well as you not even believing Michael is dead makes your argument quite weak and also allows the likes of Sullivan and haters to classify it even as crazy. You are missing the point that when you say "it doesn't matter who was autopsied" you are entering into the coo coo land , sorry to say.

for the record - yes I was also ecstatic when I saw the video that helps debunk Sullivan but honestly I would never circulate it because I don't want to get people saying to me "oh the video that's done by hoax people".

---------------

and this is my post on the other thread

"The identity - if true - is obvious.

Dr. Christopher Rogers is the one that perform the autopsy and took the photos. He's obviously knowledgeable about the case.

Ed Winter - Assistant Chief Coroner - is the media spokesperson and was the lead investigator of the Michael Jackson's death. His email is listed on a contact form.

I would assume it would be either one of these that spoke to the fans - of course if true.

(Edited to add: I had heard that Dr. Rogers was communicating with fans and I was suggested to contact him for a Q&A. We opted not to do it.)

The second person that would have knowledge / access to the photos would be the Chief Medical Coroner Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran and director Anthony Hernandez.

--------------

Edited to add : The 323-343-0783 phone number is for the media / spokesperson office. That's handled by Ed Winter. He would be my first choice as the person behind the email, Dr. Rogers the second possibility - if true of course."


and this one

"But it's also possible that Murray's lawyers might be a source and Sullivan might have seen autopsy photos from them. If you remember Murray's lawyers have complained about small size watermarked autopsy photos. It seems like they had access to those."
 
Kitty10 said:
I know 2 MDs - one an Internist the other an Anesthesiologist - and neither can reconcile the pulmonary specialist's description of the lungs with the man we see singing, dancing, laughing, talking in TII. Never short of breath, never coughing. Or the man working out w/ Lou Ferrigno (which included running on a treadmill). They both pointed out that this specialist would have been sent tissue samples, would never have seen the deceased.
Click to expand...

After singing Beat It in TII you can hear he do have a slight problem catching his breath though.
 
@Ivy


As I stated, I am not a "hoax" person. I have enough questions about circumstances around this death and things on the AR that I am open to the possibility. Especially concerning a creative genius who said for decades that he wanted to "disappear" some day. Nothing more, nothing less. It seems you cannot get past your preconceived idea of who I am and what I believe - no matter how often I point out that you are placing me in a catagory to which I do not belong. Yes, at one point I was more certain Michael staged this death than I am now but when it comes to addressing Sullivan's claim, the possibility of a staged death is not the point and is not in the video.


To say that not including the name of the Coroner official who sent us the e-mail is no different from Sullivan's (or any one's) anonymous sources is inaccurate as anyone can call the Coroner's office, ask the same question and verify our information, regardless of whom they speak to.


While it's true that no one in the fan community believes Sullivan, out there in the world are people who do. We tried to provide something that those people could see and think about.


My posting the link to vindicateMJ was not a veiled insult, it was reaction to statement's like this from you, "Finally I totally agree that this information coming from you - a person believing that Michael Jackson is alive - is totally reducing the credibility to zero." Speaking of insulting....


You refere to our other videos. If you've seen them you know we are looking at aspects of the death investigation and AR that raise more questions than they answer, and we did a series on Peter Lopez' involvement in Michael's affairs and his sudden suicide - another event surrounded by unanswered questions.


OK, so you provided some viable candidates for our source. LA Coroner's office does a great job of being accessible to the public and the point should be what was said not which individual said it. As stated before ( and in the video), the e-mail shown was a portion of a personal communication and the decision to redact the name was my partner's as the e-mail was sent to her.


I have to say, as member of this forum who posted a video intended to put a spotlight on another person lying for profit at he expense of Michael's reputation, it is disheartening to be pounced on by Staff. It's strange to me that Staff at a Michael Jackson forum are prejudiced against inquisitive members with open minds. Kind of ironic.

I just got permission from my video making partner to tell you that she's a criminal investigator for a major crimes division in Germany. She has investigated murders and has extensive experience with autopsies and ARs. It was coverage of Michael's death that first arroused her suspicions and she begans corresponding with the LA Coroner's Office on matters of proceedure. She wondered if things were done so differently in America that the investigation looked scetchy to her, but found out that official procedure is identical down the line. It was their shared professional experience that allowed a somewhat personal relationship to develop.

When she began her first video series it was not to prove that Michael is alive, that is a conclusion she came to gradually. She knew many people had the same questions she did and wanted to provide answers based on her professional experience and research. At this point most of our viewers know this about her but she doesn't advertise it as she gets bombarded with questions.


As you can see, we are not "hoax people".
 
Last edited:
@Virre

Yeah, he is a little out of breath after Beat It, but I don't think it's more than would be expected after such an aerobic performance, you know? Someone with the lungs described in the AR should have been wheezing, coughing and wouldn't have been able to perform at that level according to our research.
 
[
Kitty10 said:
@Ivy
I have to say, as member of this forum who posted a video intended to put a spotlight on another person lying for profit at he expense of Michael's reputation, it is disheartening to be pounced on by Staff. It's strange to me that Staff at a Michael Jackson forum are prejudiced against inquisitive members with open minds. Kind of ironic.
Click to expand...
In all fairness and in our defense, I dont see that Ivy or myself have pounced on you. We just have a difference of opinion here. I would like to point out that when Ivy, myself or any member of Team MJJC (staff) posts or debates topics on the board, it is as a member only, each with our own opinions and views. We are not posting in any official capacity (Unless we are moderating). We dont always agree with each other either on many issues. But MJJC allows all opinions even yours. That doesn't mean members including staff have to agree with you. MJJC board remains neutral in this thread and will allow all views.
 
Kitty10 said:
I have to say, as member of this forum who posted a video intended to put a spotlight on another person lying for profit at he expense of Michael's reputation, it is disheartening to be pounced on by Staff. It's strange to me that Staff at a Michael Jackson forum are prejudiced against inquisitive members with open minds. Kind of ironic.
Click to expand...

Qbee explained it perfectly. Unless we are moderating we aren't operating as staff, we are writing our own opinions. As I didn't moderate a single word from your posts that this has got nothing to do with me being a staff. I don't agree with you on a personal level. Another staff might support you fully on their own personal level.


As I stated, I am not a "hoax" person. I have enough questions about circumstances around this death and things on the AR that I am open to the possibility. Especially concerning a creative genius who said for decades that he wanted to "disappear" some day. Nothing more, nothing less. It seems you cannot get past your preconceived idea of who I am and what I believe - no matter how often I point out that you are placing me in a catagory to which I do not belong.


When she began her first video series it was not to prove that Michael is alive, that is a conclusion she came to gradually. She knew many people had the same questions she did and wanted to provide answers based on her professional experience and research. At this point most of our viewers know this about her but she doesn't advertise it as she gets bombarded with questions.


As you can see, we are not "hoax people".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say but when you say your partner came to the conclusion that Michael is alive and when you say that according to you it's a possibility that Michael might be alive, it makes you hoax people. Why? Because the hoax people do think that Michael is for one reason or another faked his death and there's a possibility for him to be alive. In other words not hoax people says Michael is dead, hoax people believe Michael might be alive. So you are exactly like the "hoax people". There's no way to sugarcoat it.

it comes to addressing Sullivan's claim, the possibility of a staged death is not the point and is not in the video.
Click to expand...

Again I know that it is not in the video but it doesn't make me blind to what your position is in this regard. Vindicatemj and other people might not know it and might choose to overlook it but I'm not operating like that. As a person that's believing that it wasn't Michael's body that they autopsied using coroner as a reliable source seems meaningless. It's kinda like an atheist using a bible verse and then saying "ignore the fact that I'm an atheist and believe the bible verse". And I'm saying an atheist mentioning the God has no credibility.
 
@qbee


So you aren't always posting in your official capacity - fair enough. I may have taken your original criticism more personally than was intended and if so, I apologize. It's possible to question the content of a video without passing judgement on the people who made it and if that's all you meant to do, I did misunderstand you.



@Ivy


I see you have divided the world into "hoax people" and non-hoax people with absolutely no grey area in between - no room for those of us with questions, wonder, doubt or who consider possibilities. So I suppose that Dan Anderson, who questioned the ID of the urine he tested while under oath is a "hoax person"? Or is he allowed to express some doubt but the rest of us are not? Again you are presuming to know what I believe when I've tried to make clear I just have questions - so many questions. Yes my partner is more certain that something other than the official story went on 6-25-2009 but I'm not here to argue her case.

The Bible can (and is) used as a sociological/historical refrence, and from that perspective an Atheist could use it to illustrate a perfectly valid point.

Anyway, the video and this thread were meant to be about Sullivan's lie about Michael's missing nose, not about me, not about those of us with unanswered questions.


Never mind, I give up, think what you want. It must make life simpler, being so certain, being able to pigeon-hole everyone like that.
 
Last edited:
Michael is dead and there is absolutely no proof to suggest otherwise whatsoever. The sad thing is that some of these hoax people actually think he is going to come back. Trying to disagree just makes one look stupid by association.
 
tumblr_mdxt67va7v1qh7ov5o2_r1_250.gif
kermit.gif
 
Kitty10 said:
I see you have divided the world into "hoax people" and non-hoax people with absolutely no grey area in between - no room for those of us with questions, wonder, doubt or who consider possibilities.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple honestly. There's nothing wrong with having questions. We all had questions. We all read the autopsy , we all discussed about it over hundreds of pages. We all questioned the mistakes made by Flack and so on. There's nothing wrong about being curious or having questions.

However whether anyone is a hoax people or not is based about the conclusions they made. You clearly stated that your expert partner has concluded that Michael is alive. You wrote that you are open to the possibility that Michael is alive. Those are your own words. That's what makes you hoax people whether you like it or not.

Also in case you don't realize Michael is either dead or alive. There's no gray area in regards to being dead or alive. A person cannot be half dead and half alive. So you would see that there's no middle ground in regards to the hoax. Saying " I know Michael is dead but I wish he was alive" is not the same thing as saying "I think he might be alive". You might not be the type of people who finds a clue in everything but still you are believing in the hoax if you think Michael might be alive. Just because you aren't an extremist doesn't mean that you aren't a hoax believer. Just because you tend to focus on one aspect (autopsy , investigation) doesn't make you a less of a hoax believer.

Also you did argue your partners case when you wrote "we aren't hoax people". If you aren't speaking for her then please stick to "I". You might like to portray yourself as "lost and don't know either way" in a "gray area" kind of manner but your partner clearly has more definitive conclusion and beliefs in this regard. It's not like you are denying it.

Anyway, the video and this thread were meant to be about Sullivan's lie about Michael's missing nose, not about me, not about those of us with unanswered questions.
Click to expand...

Yes we all know that and for the hundredth time I'm saying that from my personal perspective it's hard to take your video as credible when the creator of it is hoax believers and the identity of the coroner contact is kept anonymous. It is especially ridiculous to still keep the identity of the coroner contact secret while I'm 99% certain that I already identified the source. (ps: It really doesn't make sense to keep the coroner spokesperson / media contact a secret when it's their job to reply to the inquires and that their identity and email and such is already public information ) It's also waste of coroner's time telling people to call them and ask them themselves. Where's the logic in trying to "protect" a person and then sending hundreds of people to call them to ask the same question over and over? I'm actually glad that nobody seems to take you up on your offer.
 
Also let me add that your video is not enough to establish that Sullivan did not see the autopsy photos.

You only show that Coroner did not show the photos to Sullivan. However there are other possible sources :

Murray's defense had access to the photos. Can you rule them out?

Lloyds of London had requested the autopsy report and photos. Assuming that they were given the copies - as there has been no objection- it makes that all parties in that lawsuit Lloyds, AEG and MJ Estate might have access to them. Can you rule them out?

You are also forgetting that Jacksons have done a second private autopsy so they do have their own autopsy with their own photos. Given that Katherine, Katherine's partner Howard Mann and Katherine's lawyers Sanders and Ribiera are Sullivan's sources, Can you rule out any one of these people showing Sullivan the autopsy pictures from the second private autopsy?
 
I've learned my lesson. There is no room here at MJJC for 2 Michael Jackson fans to share something they did with the very best intentions. You've turned this thread into a personal attack on me. So much for all the "respect" clap-trap in The Rules.


Funny, you put me in a box labeled "hoax person" then slammed your mind shut, despite my repeated efforts to explain and defend myself. Just like those who labeled Michael "wacko" (or worse) then refused to listen. You're also judging me based on my partner's conclusions and decisions. Unlike you, I think anyone looking for answers or attempting to stand up for Michael has value.


There IS a grey area - I am not one is sure Michael is alive, but I have some serious questions about this death. You apparently will not rest until you've ground out every last spark of hope that he managed to escape a life of endless libel, slander, law suits and the possibility of another molestation allegation hanging over his head. I'm sorry for you, you think inside such a tiny little box.


You win Ivy - I'm through with MJJC. This slap in the face was unnecessary, unwarranted and unkind. Does it get lonely up there on your hi-horse, passing judgement on others and finding fault?
 
Kitty10 said:
Does it get lonely up there on your hi-horse, passing judgement on others and finding fault?
Click to expand...

No not really because most people do understand the concept of a discussion board and that it consists of different people with different opinions and able to handle it.

you have been insulting me and my personality too - in all of your last 3 posts as can be seen in the above quote- , do you see me complaining about it? Nope. Because unlike you I'm able to realize that there would be people that would disagree with me and I do not need a constant approval and applause and thank you's from everyone. You can disagree with my opinion and you might not like me and I wouldn't have any problems with it. It's the nature of a discussion board that consists of different people with different personalities and different opinions.

for the record : Also you might want to consider not putting your videos public if you aren't able to handle criticism. You posted the video online, you came here to promote it, it gave me all the right in the world to comment and criticize it, it's not a slap. I watched your video, then watched the other videos and voiced a concern that I personally have. It's very well in my right. It's also wrong to generalize it to MJJC. As qbee pointed out I'm writing my personal opinion, there might be tens of other people here that totally agree with you.

I'm sorry for you, you think inside such a tiny little box.
Click to expand...

No need to feel sorry for me. He's dead. I don't need a fantasy, especially not 3.5+ years after his death. His death was a sad and unfortunate one but I have came into terms with it. I'm actually sorry for the people that weren't able to do so and still chase an unrealistic dream.

ps : and why can't you address any of the stuff I said about your video? the weaknesses? not able to? It's interesting that you are making your leave when I made two very valid points about the video in regards to the source and the autopsy photos.

Let's establish it again

- Your argument is as strong as the credibility of your source. Anonymous sources don't have credibility as their identities are unknown and they can even be not real.
- There's no sense in hiding the identity of your source if they can be identified by common sense. It's common knowledge that Ed Winter is the media contact / spokesperson for the Coroners office. It's also known that Dr. Rodgers is the one that did the autopsy and had communications with other fans.
- There's no way to conclusively rule out that Sullivan didn't see the autopsy photos. There are multiple sources that has access to them and there have been another private autopsy.
- It's an oxymoron that a person who think Michael might be alive is referencing the coroner and autopsy. You might not realize this but it's odd. (you are asking people to believe the coroner's observations when according to you coroner didn't examine Michael's body. It's an oxymoron.)
- It gets a lot more weirder when the argument becomes "it doesn't matter if it was Michael's body or not, the "dead body" had a noise". So you are arguing that the dead body which might or might not be Michael had a nose. Again you might not realize it but to the people that doesn't share your opinion this looks weird.
 
It's as simple as this to me. With all of the minute and some would say irrelevant details mentioned in the autopsy, you would think having a fake nose would warrant a mention in there somewhere. I mean... c'mon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top