Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • 16 Replies
  • 633 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lovelidae

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 75
    • Show only replies by lovelidae

Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
So I was reading a few excerpts some people posted from the autopsy report and I was wondering why did the investigators go back to take more hair samples six weeks after "death"? I mean we know this case has been unusual but why would they wait so long if they needed more samples? I thought all samples were collected during the autopsy. Most people bury their deceased family members within days or a couple of weeks after they die so why would they wait 6 weeks to collect more samples. In most cases the deceased would have been long buried, so that chance would not be taken to wait so long. Also, didn't they say he had more than one autopsy performed? So you mean to tell me that after multiple autopsies these guys still didn't have enough samples to test for toxicology? And why were they taking hair 6 weeks later for toxicology when the big news at that time was how they had taken brain tissue to test for toxicology? Am I making any sense in why I am confused by this, because this just doesn't sit right with me.

Here is where I got this information:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... kson1.html

This is the exerpt:
"The report also reveals how, six weeks after Jackson's death, coroner's officials traveled to Forest Lawn Memorial Park to take hair samples from Jackson's head "for potential toxicology testing." In the presence of Jackson's sister La Toya, "samples were collected by plucking with gloved hands." Jackson, who was viewed in a "secured lobby," was "supine in a yellow casket with blue lining."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline loyalfan

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1641
    • Show only replies by loyalfan

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 11:32:30 AM
YOU ARE KIDDING ARNT YOU...??????THEY OPENED THE CASKET?????
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline See

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 196
    • Show only replies by See

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 11:36:01 AM
If I´m not mistaken, nails and hair are the only thing that keep growing for some time after death...
Also hair can give investigators a very good results about any toxins in a body...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lovelidae

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 75
    • Show only replies by lovelidae

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: "See"
If I´m not mistaken, nails and hair are the only thing that keep growing for some time after death...
Also hair can give investigators a very good results about any toxins in a body...

Yes I understand this. That is why hair is plucked at the autopsy. Hair is plucked so that the hair follicle can be analyzed not the hair itself. The follicle will give you the most accurate chemical readings. So no matter how the hair has grown postmortem the follicle will read the same. My question is why wait another 6 weeks? Most people will have buried their dead by then so why wait 6 weeks to take more samples? What would they have done if he would have been buried? Any coroner worth their salt is going to take more than enough samples, especially with such a controversial high profile case. It's still not adding up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline mjsweety

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 99
    • Show only replies by mjsweety

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 11:56:00 AM
thats a "hair raising" discovery!!
Seriously, you make a good point , will look into it asap!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline reading_on

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 463
    • Show only replies by reading_on
    • http://www.spendingcents.com

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 11:57:08 AM
Quote from: "lovelidae"
Quote from: "See"
If I´m not mistaken, nails and hair are the only thing that keep growing for some time after death...
Also hair can give investigators a very good results about any toxins in a body...

Yes I understand this. That is why hair is plucked at the autopsy. Hair is plucked so that the hair follicle can be analyzed not the hair itself. The follicle will give you the most accurate chemical readings. So no matter how the hair has grown postmortem the follicle will read the same. My question is why wait another 6 weeks? Most people will have buried their dead by then so why wait 6 weeks to take more samples? What would they have done if he would have been buried? Any coroner worth their salt is going to take more than enough samples, especially with such a controversial high profile case. It's still not adding up.

I thought that when you get samples from a person it will tell in lengths what time frame and concentrations were in the body. Like if you were being poisoned slowly they could get a sample from different sections to tell how long it had been happening. Maybe the section that grows after the person has passed will show the amount of toxin in the body at the time of death.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is just putting on its shoes.

Mark Twain

Offline mjjveritas

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 902
    • Show only replies by mjjveritas

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 11:58:33 AM
lovelidae, Yes, I believe to get info about toxins or DNA you definitely need the hair follicle and not just the strand of hair.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Raven

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 709
    • Show only replies by Raven
    • http://www.myspace.com/ravenmyspace

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 12:35:23 PM
I guess it depends on what sort of suspicions might be raised after some results are in. First the standard set of tests are being performed, then it is decided to do additional or more elaborate tests depending on the results. Some toxins are more present in hair than in the body, it also gives a timeline.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lovelidae

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 75
    • Show only replies by lovelidae

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 12:38:16 PM
Okay, thanks guys for all the input.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lisap27

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1100
    • Show only replies by lisap27

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 12:40:40 PM
they said there was an unidentified reisude on the hair 2,what would that be!! and also wouldn't the body be really stinky by now, i mean six weeks is a long time even embalming i think you would still be stinky, plus did anyone notice they said in the TMZ one that DR Murray did CPR on the floor!! not the bed!!  :shock:

and that reviving someone off propofol had a high success rate unless they'd been dead for quite sometime!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline mirandacnc

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 405
    • Show only replies by mirandacnc

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: "lisap27"
they said there was an unidentified reisude on the hair 2,what would that be!! and also wouldn't the body be really stinky by now, i mean six weeks is a long time even embalming i think you would still be stinky, plus did anyone notice they said in the TMZ one that DR Murray did CPR on the floor!! not the bed!!  :shock:

and that reviving someone off propofol had a high success rate unless they'd been dead for quite sometime!!


WELL HE WAS ON THE F**KIN PHONE WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND FOR 45 MINUTES SO ITS POSSIBLE THAT MJ COULDVE BEEN DEAD FOR A WHILE..
 :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Raven

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 709
    • Show only replies by Raven
    • http://www.myspace.com/ravenmyspace

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
Quote from: "lisap27"
and that reviving someone off propofol had a high success rate unless they'd been dead for quite sometime!!
I don't know where you got that info from, but it is exactly what's been bothering me too from the very beginning.

Propofol is neuroprotective, which means it protects the brain from damage.

Besides it's use as an anesthetic, it is also an important substance used with cryopreservation. Cryopreservation is an alternative to burial or cremation, where the deceased is preserved at low temperature for future revival: Cryopreservation. The very first step in the cryopreservation protocol is to inject the deceased person with propofol as soon as possible in order to preserve the brain.

Therefore, it is remarkable that UCLA was not able to resuscitate MJ.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lisap27

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1100
    • Show only replies by lisap27

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 12:57:24 PM
Quote from: "Raven"
Quote from: "lisap27"
and that reviving someone off propofol had a high success rate unless they'd been dead for quite sometime!!
I don't know where you got that info from, but it is exactly what's been bothering me too from the very beginning.

Propofol is neuroprotective, which means it protects the brain from damage.

Besides it's use as an anesthetic, it is also an important substance used with cryopreservation. Cryopreservation is an alternative to burial or cremation, where the deceased is preserved at low temperature for future revival: Cryopreservation. The very first step in the cryopreservation protocol is to inject the deceased person with propofol as soon as possible in order to preserve the brain.

Therefore, it is remarkable that UCLA was not able to resuscitate MJ.

it was in the autopsy report, i read through 51 pages of it last night and this stood out to me with all the different stories of when he actually died!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Raven

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 709
    • Show only replies by Raven
    • http://www.myspace.com/ravenmyspace

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 01:09:36 PM
Quote from: "lisap27"
Quote from: "Raven"
Quote from: "lisap27"
and that reviving someone off propofol had a high success rate unless they'd been dead for quite sometime!!
I don't know where you got that info from, but it is exactly what's been bothering me too from the very beginning.

Propofol is neuroprotective, which means it protects the brain from damage.

Besides it's use as an anesthetic, it is also an important substance used with cryopreservation. Cryopreservation is an alternative to burial or cremation, where the deceased is preserved at low temperature for future revival: Cryopreservation. The very first step in the cryopreservation protocol is to inject the deceased person with propofol as soon as possible in order to preserve the brain.

Therefore, it is remarkable that UCLA was not able to resuscitate MJ.

it was in the autopsy report, i read through 51 pages of it last night and this stood out to me with all the different stories of when he actually died!!
OK thanks, I was not able to read the full report yet.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline katy (MJFAN7)

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3063
    • Show only replies by katy (MJFAN7)

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 09, 2010, 09:18:22 PM
Quote from: "lovelidae"
This is the exerpt:
"The report also reveals how, six weeks after Jackson's death, coroner's officials traveled to Forest Lawn Memorial Park to take hair samples from Jackson's head "for potential toxicology testing." In the presence of Jackson's sister La Toya, "samples were collected by plucking with gloved hands." Jackson, who was viewed in a "secured lobby," was "supine in a yellow casket with blue lining."

Michael J. is definitely alive. I thought he had nothing but peach fuzz on his scalp?? How can you take samples of peach fuzz?  :shock:   ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


أملي هو فيكم.

Offline L.O.V.Eispower

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 97
    • Show only replies by L.O.V.Eispower

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 10, 2010, 06:07:34 AM
Quote
Michael J. is definitely alive. I thought he had nothing but peach fuzz on his scalp?? How can you take samples of peach fuzz?
Quote
 

OMG so true!! :o  :o now even the autopsies are contradicting each other!! omgsh wat does this mean?? is the new one fake?? or wat??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
[size=200]When words fail, music speaks..[/size]



[size=150]Music is my life...michael you are my music and therefore my life =) [/size]


[size=150]Believe in L.O.V.E and magic[/size]

Offline Kirsche

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2082
    • Show only replies by Kirsche
    • http://www.myspace.com/chrischl

Re: Something confusing about the autopsy report?

  • on: February 10, 2010, 08:10:28 AM
Quote from: "L.O.V.Eispower"
Quote
Michael J. is definitely alive. I thought he had nothing but peach fuzz on his scalp?? How can you take samples of peach fuzz?
Quote
 

OMG so true!! :o  :o now even the autopsies are contradicting each other!! omgsh wat does this mean?? is the new one fake?? or wat??


I think that these reports are fake...some says Michael Jackson, next page it's Michael J. Jackson, next Page it's Michael Joseph Jackson...


Then it says that he had dark curly hair on his head, when they moved the wig...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
[
OKAY, EVERBODY! THAT\'S A WRAP!

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
459 Views
Last post February 08, 2010, 05:52:06 PM
by MDM77
28 Replies
1836 Views
Last post February 18, 2010, 03:16:41 PM
by ~Souza~
12 Replies
807 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 09:04:32 AM
by Grace
8 Replies
598 Views
Last post February 10, 2010, 10:46:43 AM
by MeandMyShadow
4 Replies
361 Views
Last post February 10, 2010, 08:45:18 PM
by fannynanny