viewtopic.php?f=253&t=10907#p324129
I'll tie this into an earlier post about whether Christian Audigier could be involved in the hoax.
I've wondered these two things:
1) How Michael could use the home as a staged event without feeling bad for the owners.
2) Why would he rent the home for only a few months knowing that he was going to be leaving for London? And, why lease the home for an additional 6 months if he knew he was going to be gone already?
My thought is that the owners are sponsors right along with Coke. This is my thought..
Christian Audigier signed a license in 2004 for the rights to produce the Ed Hardy clothing line. Michael and Christian are friends.
In June 2008 Michael attended Christian's birthday party. So, he was in LA at the time, correct?
The Holmby Hills home was on the market before Michael rented it.
The home comes off the market and it's rented to Michael. This was late in 2008 and the lease was supposed to be until December 15, 2009. (so, does that mean the lease was signed on Dec 15, 2008)?
http://www.zimbio.com/Sheikh+Abdulla+Bi ... +000+Month
QuoteThe deal on the lavish pad was reportedly signed several weeks ago, under a heavy-duty confidentiality agreement, and the singer is understood to have already stayed in his new abode.
So, after Michael's "death" Christian Audigier decided to rent the Holmby Hills home and was going to stay there after Michael's lease was up December 15, 2009.
QuoteJackson didn't own the home. He was leasing the property from Ed Hardy CEO Hubert Guez. On December 15, 2009 the lease will expire and Audigier is going to take over the rental property.
Why do that? Isn't that odd? Just as odd as the strict confidentiality agreement signed by Michael and the Ed Hardy CEO (that wasn't so confidential because everyone knows the details).
http://www.bittenandbound.com/2009/09/0 ... on-photos/