MICHAEL JACKSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE Stone-Faced Stare

[bonnie2013]

Re the 2005 licence pic, in my experience for quite some time now, they do not want you to smile in any official document pics, such as licence and passports.

Exactly... they used to let people smile in identification photos, but in recent years they do not allow smiling for some reason.

[bec]

Re the 2005 licence pic, in my experience for quite some time now, they do not want you to smile in any official document pics, such as licence and passports.

Exactly... they used to let people smile in identification photos, but in recent years they do not allow smiling for some reason.

Because it works better for facial recognition technology.

[bec]

Also, Ps. MJ was in Bahrain in July of 2005, not in LA to get his DL renewed/pic taken.

[MJonmind]

I'm thinking the so-called Drivers 2005 is more like from the nineties. On the right is MJ from the time of Oprah's interview in 93.

[Rayanna_Rain]

I'm thinking the so-called Drivers 2005 is more like from the nineties. On the right is MJ from the time of Oprah's interview in 93.

His face looks aged a bit in the DL picture. Also his eyebrows are thicker in the DL picture. Also he doesn't have the greased down baby hairs that were oh so popular in the 90s (lol). Plus if it were 90s he would definitely be smiling. So I think not, but that just my opinion.

[Thriller4ever]

oops...I didn't see the spike lee pic was posted in the forum...

sorry RK ...

<3

[ellyd]

Given, we take the published document as the true DL record (why not signed if the stamp requires a signature, but well...) that someone really leaked (or "as if" leaked if this is meant to train our brains again for revealing "how"), these are some of my thoughts.

As of June 2005, California required digital finger prints to be taken. Prior to 2005, they took ink finger prints.
The application date of the document says July 2005.
Whether "digital" means more likelihood of faking documents via electronic falsification or less chance to forge identities - authorities would probably say less chance.

As fingerprints were stored in the driver's license chip, identification could be easy in the hospital - given the body was carrying the same fingers.

2010 marks another step in increased security features in CA as to DL (sources among others: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login)
The fact of changes in security features made it imperative to have a DL expire before 2010 and make the hoax happen before 2010. This timing and features lead us to several alternative scenarios.

(I will not look at the question why a patient in an ambulance who wasn't involved in a car accident would carry his DL in his pockets when he came out of bed. Let's say somebody cared to provide the card to the ambu staff.)

The person giving his finger prints must have seen the CDM office in person in 2005 due to the new method of taking finger prints / old ink records were not applicable anymore. Since 2005, CA requires a "live scan" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.)

Scenario 1)
MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005
MJ providing his photo
Identification of MJ's body as MJ at UCLA -> everything correct, no sting
MJ dead

Scenario 2)
MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005
MJ providing his photo
MJ not at UCLA / identification of wrong body as MJ at UCLA (not according to standard procedure -> indication for sting)
other person dead
[Does not fit TS_comment's statement that MJ did not plan to be at UCLA - if MJ changed plans and was there, this would kill the sting at least as to wrong identification procedure.]

Scenario 3)
Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005
MJ providing his photo (digitally via web?) -> authorities issuing license violating standard procedure -> indication for sting (corruption?)
Wrong identification of body as MJ at UCLA (if they compared finger prints, they had no chance but identify the body as MJ, if they only looked at the photo, still not following standard procedure -> indication for sting, but minor)
other person dead
[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]

Scenario 4)
Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005 -> authorities NOT issuing license according to standard procedure (verification or corruption issue?) -> indication for sting
Other person providing his photo (after surgery?) -> authorities issuing license according to standard procedure (who will judge pictures)
Other person giving personal data identical to MJ -> authorities NOT issuing license according to standard procedure (verification or corruption issue?) -> indication for sting
Identification of body rightly as MJ at UCLA according to documents provided = cover-up successful
other person dead
[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]

If the sting is targeted at authorities in CA, given the a.m. scenarios, it is most likely the Department of Justice.

Q. What is Live Scan?
A. Live Scan is the electronic process used to obtain fingerprints. Fingerprints previously were obtained using ink and cardstock quality cards. In the past ink cards took months or even years to analyze. Technological advances now enable us to digitally obtain prints, and then electronically transmit the images to the Department of Justice for review.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If they did accept a third person's finger prints as MJ's without any rejection, this is proof of slatternliness which combined with any additional corruption attempt may lead to forgery of identities, forgery of "breeding" ID documents and thus is the root to support / cover any further criminal activity. Imagine what can be done with your (falsely stored / deciphered) finger prints not only on electronic highways.
Given the potential impact and weight of the consequences, I could imagine scenario 4 with target DoJ getting some positive taste. This would also explain the coop of the judge, the DA, etc. etc.

The pictures do show different persons.
It is Johnathan with Doe eyes vs. Joe Handsome. There are two and it is not only the chin cleft. Facial features don't match (jaw angle etc.) that's why the hairs had to cover the sides despite it is against DL picture directive.

Remaining question for me is how did they find a terminally ill patient who would die 4 years later.
Except: he was there all the time as a decoy, unfortunately got ill and the agency sting was just made up to make the story look more dramatic.

[Rayanna_Rain]

Someone already brought that up in another post, I forgot who though,

[scorpionchik]

Handsom Michael in 2005
 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

and this is a perfect video with matching song

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97U8O9Z63yQ[/youtube]

[scorpionchik]

Given, we take the published document as the true DL record (why not signed if the stamp requires a signature, but well...) that someone really leaked (or "as if" leaked if this is meant to train our brains again for revealing "how"), these are some of my thoughts.

As of June 2005, California required digital finger prints to be taken. Prior to 2005, they took ink finger prints.
The application date of the document says July 2005.
Whether "digital" means more likelihood of faking documents via electronic falsification or less chance to forge identities - authorities would probably say less chance.

As fingerprints were stored in the driver's license chip, identification could be easy in the hospital - given the body was carrying the same fingers.

2010 marks another step in increased security features in CA as to DL (sources among others: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login)
The fact of changes in security features made it imperative to have a DL expire before 2010 and make the hoax happen before 2010. This timing and features lead us to several alternative scenarios.

(I will not look at the question why a patient in an ambulance who wasn't involved in a car accident would carry his DL in his pockets when he came out of bed. Let's say somebody cared to provide the card to the ambu staff.)

The person giving his finger prints must have seen the CDM office in person in 2005 due to the new method of taking finger prints / old ink records were not applicable anymore. Since 2005, CA requires a "live scan" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.)

Scenario 1)
MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005
MJ providing his photo
Identification of MJ's body as MJ at UCLA -> everything correct, no sting
MJ dead

Scenario 2)
MJ providing his finger prints in July 2005
MJ providing his photo
MJ not at UCLA / identification of wrong body as MJ at UCLA (not as to standard procedure -> indication for sting)
other person dead
[Does not fit TS_comment's statement that MJ did not plan to be at UCLA - if MJ changed plans and was there, this would kill the sting at least as to wrong identification procedure.]

Scenario 3)
Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005
MJ providing his photo (digitally via web?) -> authorities issuing license not as to standard procedure -> indication for sting (corruption?)
Wrong identification of body as MJ at UCLA (if they compared finger prints, they had no chance but identify the body as MJ, if they only looked at the photo, still not following standard procedure -> indication for sting, but minor)
other person dead
[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]

Scenario 4)
Other person providing his finger prints in July 2005
Other person providing his photo (after surgery?) -> authorities issuing license as to standard procedure
Other person giving personal data identical to MJ -> authorities NOT issuing license as to standard procedure (verification or corruption issue?) -> indication for sting
Identification of body rightly as MJ at UCLA according to documents provided = cover-up successful
other person dead
[Questionable scenario as to intentional forgery of documents / entrapment / violation of law / DWD patient known longer than 6 months?]

If the sting is targeted at authorities in CA, given the a.m. scenarios, it is most likely the Department of Justice.

Q. What is Live Scan?
A. Live Scan is the electronic process used to obtain fingerprints. Fingerprints previously were obtained using ink and cardstock quality cards. In the past ink cards took months or even years to analyze. Technological advances now enable us to digitally obtain prints, and then electronically transmit the images to the Department of Justice for review.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If they did accept a third person's finger prints as MJ's without any rejection, this is proof of slatternliness which combined with any additional corruption attempt may lead to forgery of identities, forgery of "breeding" ID documents and thus is the root to support any criminal activity. Imagine what can be done with your (falsely stored / deciphered) finger prints not only on electronic highways.
Given the potential impact and weight of the consequences, I could imagine scenario 4 with target DoJ getting some positive taste. This would also explain the coop of the judge, the DA, etc. etc.

The pictures do show different persons.
It is Johnathan with Doe eyes vs. Joe Handsome. There are two and it is not only the chin cleft. Facial features don't match (jaw angle etc.) that's why the hairs had to cover the sides despite it is against DL picture directive.

Remaining question for me is how did they find a terminally ill patient who would die 4 years later.
Except: he was there all the time as a decoy, unfortunately got ill and the agency sting was just made up to make the story look more dramatic.

Can you conclude in 1 sentence your post?

[ellyd]

Summary:

a) MJ is dead

b) MJ is not dead and somebody cared to provide false finger prints either in 2005 or later which were not checked properly by DoJ and produced a forged ID card.

b1) Source of false finger prints was a terminally ill DWD patient (who would die timely up to 4 yrs later) serving a sting operation against the DoJ.
b2) Source of false finger prints was a decoy that existed all through the years and no sting is set up.

Unfortunately 1 sentence was not enough. ;-)
Merry Christmas!

[scorpionchik]

Summary:

a) MJ is dead

b) MJ is not dead and somebody cared to provide false finger prints either in 2005 or later which were not checked properly by DoJ and produced a forged ID card.

b1) Source of false finger prints was a terminally ill DWD patient (who would die timely up to 4 yrs later) serving a sting operation against the DoJ.
b2) Source of false finger prints was a decoy that existed all through the years and no sting is set up.

Unfortunately 1 sentence was not enough. ;-)
Merry Christmas!

1.Dead person's finger prints have not been checked to verify identity.
2.Finger prints cannot be false. 3.Michael's finger prints had been taken many times in his life time,so it could not be mistaken with other prints. 

[ellyd]

1.Dead person's finger prints have not been checked to verify identity.
2.Finger prints cannot be false. 3.Michael's finger prints had been taken many times in his life time,so it could not be mistaken with other prints.

1. We don't know this.

2. Sure, if the wrong person provides them or if the wrong finger prints were manufactured onto the ID card.
Within a corruption case, both is feasible.

3. That's exactly the point.
His finger prints were at least available from the trial and certainly from the raid(s) at Neverland.

Source: Fingerprints of Jackson, boy on magazines
NEVERLAND RANCH
December 13, 2004
Fingerprints of Michael Jackson and those of his accuser have been found on "pornographic magazines" seized during a raid on the pop singer's Neverland ranch, a source familiar with the case told CNN. Investigators raided Jackson's Los Olivos, California, property based on allegations of child molestation in November 2003 and seized a variety of items from the entertainer's estate, including items from his bedroom and master bath, sources said.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Michael Jackson's Fingerprints Not On Any Propofol Bottles
Posted on Oct 03, 2011 @ 10:30AM   

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

On December 3, 2004, Jackson's Neverland ranch was raided again. The media had been tipped off and were in place to cover the raid. Soon after, a story emerged that was hardly the smoking gun the District Attorney must have hoped for, given the extravagance of the search. Fingerprints were found, not from material collected during the raid, but from a magazine that the DA has had in his possession for over a year. Is it possible that the prosecution, if they are the source of the leak, actually think the media-consuming public is as stupid as that? If the fingerprint story is accurate -- and there is no way of knowing that -- then there are various ways the boy's fingerprints could have appeared on that magazine. Jackson and the boy could have looked at the magazine together; the boy could have discovered and perused the magazine on his own, or, the fingerprints could have been planted by a DA desperate to convict Jackson. At the eleventh hour, fingerprints were found. What an amazing coincidence!
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Here we go again.

[scorpionchik]

1.Dead person's finger prints have not been checked to verify identity.
2.Finger prints cannot be false. 3.Michael's finger prints had been taken many times in his life time,so it could not be mistaken with other prints.

1. We don't know this.

Perhaps you don't, but that also was investigated here since Autopsy report appeared unless I missed something that discovered thereafter.

[scorpionchik]

THIS IS INTERESTING COMMENT

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

AP.9 Ditches Coco For NBA Baller's Wife, Rihanna Spazzes Out On Fan, Michael Jackson Driver's License Pops Up

Monday, Dec 24, 2012 11:50AM

3. The King's Back

Why in the world would Michael Jackson's 2005 driver's license be coming up right now? Seems a bit strange to think that three years after his untimely death that this would not only pop up but become a relevant topic. Pretty interesting though to see Michael in a new light. TMZ has the exclusive shot: