The spider bit ...mentioned in the Autopsie report ?

Started by Hopeless, May 18, 2010, 03:54:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

HopelessTopic starter

May 18, 2010, 03:54:14 AM Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest

I have thought about the spider bit and found some weird things :
Michael in front of the court house has a white sock at his left foot...they say he had a spider bite, but the pictures you found from the bite are at his right leg, not foot ! There you don't need a sock and it's the wrong leg !
I am sure that such a big thing made a scare or a darker pigmentation and i surch the autopsie report and yes the dark pigmentation was mentioned exactly at the area we saw it, at his right leg !
I don't know who was the wright MJ, but i wondered about the differences...left foot, right leg !
I have some problems to open the sides so i edit the pictures in the next minutes.

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/06/1 ... l-jackson/

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/a5cFl_LS ... t3fzyMyVsG

Here the pictures from the autopsie report...left side, his right leg, left to see there is a notice i can't read exactly...2...inches area hyperpigmentation ?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... son19.html

It was the same area we could see at the pictures, but why MJ has his white socks at the wrong leg ?
Weird at all...who is dead ???????????


XspeechlessX

May 18, 2010, 04:55:52 AM #1 Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest

Maybe the picture/video you saw was flipped?  :?



"Call the man
Who deals in love beyond repair
He can heal the world
Of hearts in need of care
Shine a light ahead
When the next step is unclear
Call the man
He\'s needed here"

- I never can say goodbye

HopelessTopic starter

May 18, 2010, 05:01:25 AM #2 Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest

That's my first thought, but there was so much difference pictures shows him in front of court...all shows his left foot in white sock and much different pictures from him showing his spider bit...all his right leg with the bit.
:o


Bee Bee

May 18, 2010, 12:51:26 PM #3 Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest

Hmm, that's weird, I've never thought about that. Makes me think of those horror stories about it not being a spider bite. But then again, there are photos of the wound/scars, and I don't think you'd get a scar of that type from a needle. But I'm not a docter.  :?



If you'd only come to me, my heart wouldn't be full of sorrow
But now all I can do is hope and pray that you'll come to me
tomorrow

TruthBeTold

May 18, 2010, 04:03:07 PM #4 Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest

You have been completely brainwashed about the use of doubles by Michael. Now you confused as to whether it was really Michael who was bitten. Of course it was Michael that was bitten..this whole double shit needs to stop, yes, maybe 1 double, but not as many as you may think when you read certain peoples blogs.


HopelessTopic starter

May 18, 2010, 04:10:16 PM #5 Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest

I am sure it's a spider bit. In front of the leg, i have no idea to inject something there....i had never heard so, there is no vene.
But who has the bit and who was at court whit the other swollen foot ?
:?
And it made me helpless to read at the autopsie report that they mentioned the darker pigmented area at the same place where we could see the spider bit...in front of his right leg...
If i had a longtime deap and open wound, it will be a dark pigmented area for years...i have neurodermitis and sadly know how it was when the skin was open for months....when it closed there be darker skin and after years it gets better and better.


HopelessTopic starter

May 19, 2010, 05:01:21 AM #6 Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest

Such wounds make dark pigmentation at first but they became lighter every year.....after 7 years i wonder if if was always seen.
What if the man with the spider bit died earlier ?
Maybee 2004 ? After 2 years it was seen as a dark pigmentation area, i am sure.
The autopsie report was discussed before...it seems like the date was changed and it has a old seal. That seal was taken untill 2004 or 2005. i am not sure now.
:o


Similar topics (5)