0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
...i have no reason to believe that the autopsy announcement made to media by the coroner's office was fake.
Ok so propofol can kill.But is there any proof that Mike took that...? 8-)
Quote from: "Jennie"So bottom line, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you believe Michael is dead. Correct?I don't think it's rational to dismiss everything as fake (hoax), but there are lots of things that can be false. I believe that the affidavit was not faked and i have no reason to believe that the autopsy announcement made to media by the coroner's office was fake. These 2 things alone for me are huge hurdles for any hoax theory. Ofcourse, there have been many strange things since MJ's death and many unanswered questions, but i think the confusion, contradiction and mystery has been largely fuelled by a complete lack of information from the LAPD and Coroner. They chose to keep some details private, and many witnesses will obviously not want to speak in public before a trial commences. There are so many medical staff who will give evidence who have not yet spoken. I think people have to be sensible about this.
So bottom line, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you believe Michael is dead. Correct?
Quote from: "somekindofsign"Ok so propofol can kill.But is there any proof that Mike took that...? 8-)Yes propofol kills. Any anesthetic can kill. That's one of the reasons surgery is risky. Some vets don't even want to use it unless absolutely necessary - like for cleaning teeth really well. And people die from it. You didn't hear about it before. Michael made it famous. People in the medical profession that have easy access to it take - they shoot up and die.
Yes, that´s pretty obvious. I was just implying that this only proves preciselly JUST that propofol kills, not that Mike "died" from that, nor even that he took that.
Pardon me, i hadn't realised that you made the initial comment before the official autopsy/toxicology reports were out. However, now that they are out, would you say that the evidence in there is valid/invalid? If it is invalid, how so?Murray could still win the case if his lawyers do not present the incriminating evidence properly, or if there is not enough evidence to convict him of said charge. Or if the police contaminated evidence. Does not mean he did not do it, particularly as he admitted to being there and administering. In fact, i am so interested in what is going to be his defence now that he pleaded not guilty. There is so much evidence against him involving negligence that I don't see how he can form a defence, but he obviously thinks he can. An eye-opener.
Started by Infinitylady The Illuminati Theory
Started by farhatmjj Introduce yourself
Started by MP7 « 1 2 3 » The Funeral, The Body & Forest Lawn
Started by supermj4eva Hoax Videos
Started by mykidsmum « 1 2 » Michael Jackson News