Some of the odd things at trial & outside courthouse so far

[lorela]

Someone pointed this video out: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX6ZU51LAiY&feature=related[/youtube]

Go to 2:38. Video was uploaded on Jan 12, 2010.

[underthemoon]

..
 
 

[alfarle]

Here's an interesting video posted from pearl jr just a couple of hrs ago...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[Snoopy71]

Wish we could see what was on that ID tag... :|
 

2+0+0+9+0+4+4+1+5=25...2+5=7

I tried my hardest to blow up the picture large enough to see the name or information on that tag but it all seems to be blurry. Unless someone can get a legible name from their efforts, my opinion is that the name is blurred out...most likely on purpose so that inquiring minds won't find out it's not Michael.

Blessings

No worries, thanks for trying!    Things have a way of "popping up" when you think about them hard enough...something tells me we'll find out about the information on the ID tag eventually...just have to wait and watch.

[Snoopy71]

Christopher Rogers....( Michael? Prince? or a "real person")
 
I didn't know if this should be a new thread topic or not...so I'll mention it here
 
It came up in chat that some people felt the witness Christopher Rogers could have been Michael or perhaps even Prince in disguise. Some people even felt that his movements, hands, speech etc...were like that of Michaels, or possibly Prince.

At first I dismissed it as too far fetched until I saw the photo of Michael in Jermaine's book "You are not alone" disguised as "Uncle Willy" (I personally never would have known it was MJ!). And we know Michael has had a history of being in disguises.

Here's the picture of Michael as "Uncle Willy" that I am referring to...and one of Christopher Rogers. 

Anyone else think this is possible or is this a dead end pursuit?
 
 

[voiceforthesilent]

Hi Snoopy...I followed that discussion yesterday too but I don't participate because I'm working during the time of the trial.  I was like you - at first I thought it was a little silly. We've seen Michael in several people and they can't all be Michael...or can they? Probably not. LOL.

But you and others are right - there is something off about this person. He makes you stop and take notice of him.

I remember watching a video online of a musician (can't remember who) who was going to meet Michael for the first time and he waited in the studio excitedly. He said after a few minutes an older white gentleman came in and went to the bathroom. He didn't think anything of it but when the person came out it was Michael. This person was amazed because he didn't know it was Michael in disguise. So, if he can be that convincing in person think about how convincing he can be on camera.

Personally, there were more than one occasions where this person (Christopher Rogers) made comments and because I was mostly listening and not watching, I thought he sounded a lot like the slowed down version of Michael's "drugged up" recording from last week. It made me smile anyway.

Let's see what today brings. I'm sure we're in for some surprises.

Blessings

[YouRnotAlone7]

My...how informative was Mr. Cardiologist today!  Actor?  And did the guard behind the attorney have a flashlight between his legs?  Wot Wot!
 lolol/

[Datroot]

Looks like MJ is holding something - why would a dead body on a slab be holding  something?

[msgitm]

Christopher Rogers....( Michael? Prince? or a "real person")
 
I didn't know if this should be a new thread topic or not...so I'll mention it here
 
It came up in chat that some people felt the witness Christopher Rogers could have been Michael or perhaps even Prince in disguise. Some people even felt that his movements, hands, speech etc...were like that of Michaels, or possibly Prince.

At first I dismissed it as too far fetched until I saw the photo of Michael in Jermaine's book "You are not alone" disguised as "Uncle Willy" (I personally never would have known it was MJ!). And we know Michael has had a history of being in disguises.

Here's the picture of Michael as "Uncle Willy" that I am referring to...and one of Christopher Rogers. 

Anyone else think this is possible or is this a dead end pursuit?
 
 

Anything is possible in this case! I’ve been looking at hands, eyes and mannerisms since this trial began. This coroner/witness in particular was off the charts on the weirdness scale. He reminded me of  Peter Falk in Columbo, fumbling, confused, can’t get his words out, etc. Was MJ a Columbo fan?

[PureLove]

The only possible disguise that Michael was into could be Dave Dave. I do not believe the rest. And personally I believe that Michael would prefer to stay BEHIND the camera as he is the director of the show. But to have fun, maybe he could disguise himself once or twice but he can not be disguised all the time around. He would prefer to watch his show and direct it instead of getting in front of the camera and act in it. That could be done for a short period of time but not always.

[_Anna_]

someone here said that LIVE streamings from inside the court are allowed only to InSession and that for OJ Simpson the InSession sign appeared on the transmission. I don't see InSession in any of the live streamings of his trial, nor on any other trial streaming on InSession site.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldZ-Fv0uhxQ[/youtube]

[crazymadam]

Do you guys really think Michael is still alive as the trial goes on?
 
I've been a member of this forum for a while now, and read all there is, but really now?  WTF??

[paula-c]

Thank you pepper, that's what jumps into my eyes:
the same day the U.S. deficit reach highest ever level, Ben Bernanke is getting reaffirmed in his job.
 

• August 25, 2009 The United States budget deficit for 2009 will reach $1.6 trillion, the highest ever recorded.
  

• August 25, 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama nominates Ben Bernanke for his second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I find this very interesting considering the Federal Reserve is NOT a government agency.
On a s**ty note - we hear so much pee talk in court but nada on da poop. Not to be gross but there is no mention of any testing. Surely there would be some fecal matter, especially if he had 3 jars of pee in him.  Is MJ too shy to add in this detail?
Anyway, according to Henry C. Lee, forensics expert who assisted law enforcement in over 6, 000 major criminal crime investigations, including O. J. Simpson, states an analysis is done on the properties and effects of serums (blood, semen, saliva, swear, fecal matter), this is called serology. I need to have another look through the bogus AR to see what's listed under this section.

 
 
 
 

   You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 26 mins 13 secs ago You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login  Full Moon Tonight!! Me And My Pack Of Unicorns Will Go Galloping Tonight. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 

 
 
 
  The Great Moon HoaxDuring the final week of August 1835, a long article appeared in serial form on the front page of the New York Sun. It bore the headline:

 

GREAT ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERIES LATELY MADE BY SIR JOHN HERSCHEL, L.L.D. F.R.S. &c. At the Cape of Good Hope [From Supplement to the Edinburgh Journal of Science]   GREAT ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERIES LATELY MADE BY SIR JOHN HERSCHEL, L.L.D. F.R.S. &c. At the Cape of Good Hope [From Supplement to the Edinburgh Journal of Science] You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login The article began by triumphantly listing a series of stunning astronomical breakthroughs that the famous British astronomer, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, had apparently made "by means of a telescope of vast dimensions and an entirely new principle." Herschel, the article declared, had established a "new theory of cometary phenomena"; he had discovered planets in other solar systems; and he had "solved or corrected nearly every leading problem of mathematical astronomy." Then, almost as if it were an afterthought, the article revealed Herschel's final, stunning achievement: he had discovered life on the moon! The article continued on and offered an elaborate account of the fantastic sights viewed by Herschel during his telescopic observation of the moon. It described a lunar topography that included vast forests, inland seas, and lilac-hued quartz pyramids. Readers learned that herds of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login wandered across the plains of the moon; that blue unicorns perched on its hilltops; and that spherical, amphibious creatures rolled across its beaches. The highpoint of the narrative came when it revealed that Herschel had found evidence of intelligent life on the moon: he had discovered both a primitive tribe of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, and a race of winged humans living in pastoral harmony around a mysterious, golden-roofed temple. Herschel dubbed these latter creatures the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or "man-bat". The article, of course, was an elaborate hoax. Herschel had not really observed life on the moon, nor had he accomplished any of the other astronomical breakthroughs credited to him in the article. In fact, Herschel was not even aware until much later that such discoveries had been attributed to him. However, the New York Sun managed to sell thousands of copies of the article before the public realized that it had been hoaxed   Although the Sun managed to sell many copies of the moon hoax, it is not clear whether people at the time actually believed the story, or simply found it to be an entertaining topic of debate. Various eyewitnesses to the hoax assure us that the credulity was general. For instance, one reporter, writing 18 years after the event, recalled how the hoax was received at Yale College: Yale College was alive with staunch supporters. The literati—students and professors, doctors in divinity and law—and all the rest of the reading community, looked daily for the arrival of the New York mail with unexampled avidity and implicit faith. Have you seen the accounts of Sir John Herschel's wonderful discoveries? Have you read the Sun? Have you heard the news of the man in the Moon? These were the questions that met you every where. It was the absorbing topic of the day. Nobody expressed or entertained a doubt as to the truth of the story. However, many discussions of the hoax that appeared in papers at the time of its first publication were openly skeptical of it. For instance, on August 29, 1835 the New York Commercial Advertiser had this to say about the hoax: It is well done, and makes a pleasant piece of reading enough, especially for such as have a sufficient stock of available credulity; but we can hardly understand how any man of common sense should read it without at once perceiving the deception. Without referring to the monstrosities of the story itself, can any one suppose for a moment that such preparations as are described, should have been made without a word of notice in the english papers? Preparations going on for years—an object of glass of twenty-four feet in diameter—a donation of ten thousand pounds by the king—consultations with Sir David Brewster—and other extravagancies not less preposterous   Authorship of the hoax is usually attributed to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, a Cambridge-educated reporter who was working for the Sun. However, Locke never publicly admitted to being the author of the hoax, and rumors have persisted that others were also involved in the production of the story. Two men in particular have been mentioned in connection with the hoax: Jean-Nicolas Nicollet, a French astronomer who was travelling through America at the time (though he was in Mississippi, not New York, when the moon hoax appeared), and Lewis Gaylord Clark, editor of the Knickerbocker Magazine. However, there is no real evidence to suggest that anyone but Locke was the author of the hoax. Despite the intense public speculation about the moon story, the Sun never publicly conceded that it was a hoax. On September 16, 1835 the Sun did publish a column in which it discussed the possibility that the story was a hoax, but it never confessed to anything. Quite the contrary. It wrote that, "Certain correspondents have been urging us to come out and confess the whole to be a hoax; but this we can by no means do, until we have the testimony of the English or Scotch papers to corroborate such a declaration." This is the closest the Sun ever came to an admission of guilt. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login   You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login   Day One: Tuesday Morning, August 25, 1835 GREAT ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERIES Lately Made BY SIR JOHN HERSCHEL, L.L.D, F.R.S, &c. At The Cape of Good Hope. [From Supplement to the Edinburgh Journal of Science]

[voiceforthesilent]

Do you guys really think Michael is still alive as the trial goes on?
 
I've been a member of this forum for a while now, and read all there is, but really now?  WTF??

Hi - it's good to hear from you...even though you've been around

Yes, I believe more than ever now. If you've spent any time watching the trial you will come away with a sense that either this has to be a hoax or the California judicial system is in deep, deep trouble. To have an investigator from the coroner's office move evidence and leave fingerprints on the evidence? And for her to openly admit that she didn't do a good job at investigating...then or ever? Really? I felt bad for her because it seemed like she was on trial.

I'm not sure if everyone is involved but I do believe it's not 100% real.

The other thing that is quite convincing for me is the death and autopsy photo's. Those are both fake. No doubt in my mind. They aren't even close to the description given by the EMT's. Then there is the slip (I believe intentional) of 8/25/2009 on the autopsy photo.

Hang in there - I think the best is still yet to come.

Paula - great article about the full moon and unicorns. Funny (or not) that the Sun never did come out and confess that it was a hoax. Sounds so familiar to the garbage they spread about Michael and others...and never come out and take responsibility for their actions.

Those physicians today were quite interesting. The cardiologist, in particular. I loved how they just let him talk and talk even though much of what he said went against the defense instead of for it. And the baffled look on his face when Flanagan kept contradicting Murray's written statements.

Edit: In fact, this reminds me of what I've read about the 2005 trial where Sneddon and his group would try to feed or force the witness into saying what they wanted them to say.

Well - one more day closer to the truth. And hopefully to seeing Michael return.

Blessings to you all

[MJonmind]

Anna, there must be many more comparison/contrasts that could be found with the OJ trial and this one. Both on the 9th floor with the media on the 12th. In this clip, OJ gives a speech in his own defense. I wonder if Murray will be allowed to defend himself yet in court, maybe near the end.

Bashir: "The reason that has been given for why you didn't go to jail is
because, because you reached a financial settlement with the family?"

Jackson: "Yeah, I didn't want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ, and
all that stupid stuff, you know, it wouldn't look right. I said, look, get
this over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous, I've had
enough, go."

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Since MJ's planned this hoax for 20 years, he may have known that this current trial would also be televised, only it's for his "murder" by Murray. "My life is a movie."