laytonian said:

rogifan said:

disch said: Except we don't know for certain what happened on the plane. There is no official investigation that concluded it was an overdose. I understand why people would logically come to that conclusion but we don't know for certain. My point is if he really was in grave condition would he be taking in a show at the Dakota just two days before he died? One would assume he really wouldn't be in any condition to do that. Or be hanging out at a record store buying CDs.

We DO know what happened on the plane. You know why? Because obviously, Judith and Kirk have been interrogated by investigators. They can't change the story.

Your rejection of legitimate reports from Minneapolis journalists who *did know* a lot more than anyone else about P, is telling. You can't reject everything -- especially while making stuff up yourself.

I'm naive of course so I have a question: I don't get why they can't change their story if they want to for the media (we all know the media doesn't always get the right info). Will the investigators come in to correct if they are saying something different? As an aside....I don't trust the media but I'm also not sure why someone couldn't just say whatever regardless of what they may have formally said to those who are investigating the situation, whether they are being truthful or not.

[Edited 7/6/16 14:59pm]

Mumio said:

laytonian said:

We DO know what happened on the plane. You know why? Because obviously, Judith and Kirk have been interrogated by investigators. They can't change the story.

Your rejection of legitimate reports from Minneapolis journalists who *did know* a lot more than anyone else about P, is telling. You can't reject everything -- especially while making stuff up yourself.

I'm naive of course so I have a question: I don't get why they can't change their story if they want to for the media (we all know the media doesn't always get the right info). Will the investigators come in to correct if they are saying something different? As an aside....I don't trust the media but I'm also not sure why someone couldn't just say whatever regardless of what they may have formally said to those who are investigating the situation, whether they are being truthful or not.

[Edited 7/6/16 14:59pm]

.

The Feds don't take kindly to people fudging on little details. Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading; she went to prison for lying to Federal investigators. In this case, we have a variety of state and federal investigators comparing notes. A cover story is seen as self-protecting.
I wouldn't want to be put on a witness stand and have to testify about my various versions of a story -- especially if I was the one charged.
Kirk has a criminal defense attorney; I don't know (and I doubt) if Judith Hill does. But Judith's version could be used against Kirk (and vice versa) if there's anything about "knowing what was going on".

What a mess.
.

laytonian said:

Mumio said:

I'm naive of course so I have a question: I don't get why they can't change their story if they want to for the media (we all know the media doesn't always get the right info). Will the investigators come in to correct if they are saying something different? As an aside....I don't trust the media but I'm also not sure why someone couldn't just say whatever regardless of what they may have formally said to those who are investigating the situation, whether they are being truthful or not.

[Edited 7/6/16 14:59pm]

.

The Feds don't take kindly to people fudging on little details. Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading; she went to prison for lying to Federal investigators. In this case, we have a variety of state and federal investigators comparing notes. A cover story is seen as self-protecting.
I wouldn't want to be put on a witness stand and have to testify about my various versions of a story -- especially if I was the one charged.
Kirk has a criminal defense attorney; I don't know (and I doubt) if Judith Hill does. But Judith's version could be used against Kirk (and vice versa) if there's anything about "knowing what was going on".

What a mess.
.

Not saying there was any omissions made to the feds nor state authorities, but who would monitor or care if the story was different for the media?

And yeah....what a mess.

[Edited 7/6/16 15:15pm]

laytonian said:

Mumio said:

I'm naive of course so I have a question: I don't get why they can't change their story if they want to for the media (we all know the media doesn't always get the right info). Will the investigators come in to correct if they are saying something different? As an aside....I don't trust the media but I'm also not sure why someone couldn't just say whatever regardless of what they may have formally said to those who are investigating the situation, whether they are being truthful or not.

[Edited 7/6/16 14:59pm]

.

The Feds don't take kindly to people fudging on little details. Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading; she went to prison for lying to Federal investigators. In this case, we have a variety of state and federal investigators comparing notes. A cover story is seen as self-protecting.
I wouldn't want to be put on a witness stand and have to testify about my various versions of a story -- especially if I was the one charged.
Kirk has a criminal defense attorney; I don't know (and I doubt) if Judith Hill does. But Judith's version could be used against Kirk (and vice versa) if there's anything about "knowing what was going on".

What a mess.
.

Wouldn't only official statements be used in an investigation and not statements made to a journalist? Martha Stewart lied to investigators, not the press. I think "under oath" is what matters, not that I advocate lying, although I doubt Judith Hill knows much. And, she may have held back from the press anything that could incriminate Kirk but that doesn't mean she won't say or hasn't already said more to investigators. Anyway, whatever her relationship to Prince, she did not live in Minneapolis and there's a lot she wouldn't see. Kirk would have access to much more. Further, she's spent most of her time with him in the last two years; that's not much perspective in terms of what's changed in his life. I'm sure Kirk has a defense attorney because the focus is on him, not her. Just my thoughts.

teach49 said:

laytonian said:

.

The Feds don't take kindly to people fudging on little details. Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading; she went to prison for lying to Federal investigators. In this case, we have a variety of state and federal investigators comparing notes. A cover story is seen as self-protecting.
I wouldn't want to be put on a witness stand and have to testify about my various versions of a story -- especially if I was the one charged.
Kirk has a criminal defense attorney; I don't know (and I doubt) if Judith Hill does. But Judith's version could be used against Kirk (and vice versa) if there's anything about "knowing what was going on".

What a mess.
.

Wouldn't only official statements be used in an investigation and not statements made to a journalist? Martha Stewart lied to investigators, not the press. I think "under oath" is what matters, not that I advocate lying, although I doubt Judith Hill knows much. And, she may have held back from the press anything that could incriminate Kirk but that doesn't mean she won't say or hasn't already said more to investigators. Anyway, whatever her relationship to Prince, she did not live in Minneapolis and there's a lot she wouldn't see. Kirk would have access to much more. Further, she's spent most of her time with him in the last two years; that's not much perspective in terms of what's changed in his life. I'm sure Kirk has a defense attorney because the focus is on him, not her. Just my thoughts.

.

If an investigator wants to impeach a story, they will find other "utterances" on the subject.

It doesn't have to be official testimony. It can be something that was told to someone else; not even in the media. Not all of that will stand up in court, but a deposition would be used to get one's response to various versions of a story.

It's smart of Kirk to get a criminal defense attorney.

.

Mumio said:

laytonian said:

.

The Feds don't take kindly to people fudging on little details. Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading; she went to prison for lying to Federal investigators. In this case, we have a variety of state and federal investigators comparing notes. A cover story is seen as self-protecting.
I wouldn't want to be put on a witness stand and have to testify about my various versions of a story -- especially if I was the one charged.
Kirk has a criminal defense attorney; I don't know (and I doubt) if Judith Hill does. But Judith's version could be used against Kirk (and vice versa) if there's anything about "knowing what was going on".

What a mess.
.

Not saying there was any omissions made to the feds nor state authorities, but who would monitor or care if the story was different for the media?

And yeah....what a mess.

[Edited 7/6/16 15:15pm]

.

Investigators would care. For instance, if Person 1 denies having knowledge of any drug usage and then Person 2 tells investigators that Person 1 *did know*, then Person 1's initial story would be suspect.

But I fail to see how "no one knew". Roger Friedman reported in 2009 that P was "popping pain pills" in lieu of surgery and it was discussed here.
http://prince.org/msg/7/310635

laytonian said:

Mumio said:

Not saying there was any omissions made to the feds nor state authorities, but who would monitor or care if the story was different for the media?

And yeah....what a mess.

[Edited 7/6/16 15:15pm]

.

Investigators would care. For instance, if Person 1 denies having knowledge of any drug usage and then Person 2 tells investigators that Person 1 *did know*, then Person 1's initial story would be suspect.

But I fail to see how "no one knew". Roger Friedman reported in 2009 that P was "popping pain pills" in lieu of surgery and it was discussed here.
http://prince.org/msg/7/310635

But it's an open investigation...so I wouldn't think they'd say anything because that would create a problem for them. Not at this point anyway, so whatever she or he said to the media wouldn't be challenged.

laytonian said:

Mumio said:

Not saying there was any omissions made to the feds nor state authorities, but who would monitor or care if the story was different for the media?

And yeah....what a mess.

[Edited 7/6/16 15:15pm]

.

Investigators would care. For instance, if Person 1 denies having knowledge of any drug usage and then Person 2 tells investigators that Person 1 *did know*, then Person 1's initial story would be suspect.

But I fail to see how "no one knew". Roger Friedman reported in 2009 that P was "popping pain pills" in lieu of surgery and it was discussed here.
http://prince.org/msg/7/310635

I somehow missed that thread.

morningsong said:

Me too. Wow..some comments on it that were prophetic.

BillieBalloon said:

morningsong said:

I somehow missed that thread.

Me too. Wow..some comments on it that were prophetic.

Scarily so.

laytonian said:

So Prince has been popping pain pills since 2009 (at least) and somehow he lasted 7 years. world tours, new albums etc. Wow he really is the GOAT then. Btw, Roger Friedman is a gossip journalist who used to (or maybe stil does) work for Fox News. I wouldn't trust him with much of anything.

rogifan said:

laytonian said:

.

Investigators would care. For instance, if Person 1 denies having knowledge of any drug usage and then Person 2 tells investigators that Person 1 *did know*, then Person 1's initial story would be suspect.

But I fail to see how "no one knew". Roger Friedman reported in 2009 that P was "popping pain pills" in lieu of surgery and it was discussed here.
http://prince.org/msg/7/310635

So Prince has been popping pain pills since 2009 (at least) and somehow he lasted 7 years. world tours, new albums etc. Wow he really is the GOAT then. Btw, Roger Friedman is a gossip journalist who used to (or maybe stil does) work for Fox News. I wouldn't trust him with much of anything.

Prince had to start somewhere, very rarely does pain management jump to fentanyl in the beginning.

disch said:

I'll admit I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to drug dependency (though my father is an alcoholic) but I think it's only fair to Prince and his memory not to label him as something when we don't know that was the case (not saying you are). I'm assuming someone doesn't have to be using painkillers for an extended period of time to accidentally OD?

morningsong said:

2009 is 7 years ago. That's a long time to be popping pain killers. And for most of that time P looked and sounded as good as ever. It was only later in 2015 when he started to not look well/looked really skinny (though I would argue that big Afro didn't make him look any younger). Whatever he was allegedly doing sure didn't seem to impact him work wise; his performances were as good as ever...listen to his voice from the Oakland P&M show...I get chills every time I listen to it.

rogifan said:

morningsong said:

Prince had to start somewhere, very rarely does pain management jump to fentanyl in the beginning.

2009 is 7 years ago. That's a long time to be popping pain killers. And for most of that time P looked and sounded as good as ever. It was only later in 2015 when he started to not look well/looked really skinny (though I would argue that big Afro didn't make him look any younger). Whatever he was allegedly doing sure didn't seem to impact him work wise; his performances were as good as ever...listen to his voice from the Oakland P&M show...I get chills every time I listen to it.

Yep it's a long time, but nobody says it was everyday for 7 years. I have no idea how many different types of pain medication there are, nor their various families. What goes where or any of the profession information. But when it started, then it could have started simple, given breaks inbetween, moving up the scale of strength, eventually you need the big guns. I can see it taking 7 years. And if people are being very honest, hindsight is 20/20. There may be some stories that'll start surfacing in a few months.

Mumio said:

laytonian said:

.

Investigators would care. For instance, if Person 1 denies having knowledge of any drug usage and then Person 2 tells investigators that Person 1 *did know*, then Person 1's initial story would be suspect.

But I fail to see how "no one knew". Roger Friedman reported in 2009 that P was "popping pain pills" in lieu of surgery and it was discussed here.
http://prince.org/msg/7/310635

But it's an open investigation...so I wouldn't think they'd say anything because that would create a problem for them. Not at this point anyway, so whatever she or he said to the media wouldn't be challenged.

.

Au contraire
Anything that's said, especially publicly, at any time, can be used by the investigators.

That's how they catch people. Even a second or third interview can result in a story changing and red flags going up.

.

rogifan said:

laytonian said:

.

Investigators would care. For instance, if Person 1 denies having knowledge of any drug usage and then Person 2 tells investigators that Person 1 *did know*, then Person 1's initial story would be suspect.

But I fail to see how "no one knew". Roger Friedman reported in 2009 that P was "popping pain pills" in lieu of surgery and it was discussed here.
http://prince.org/msg/7/310635

So Prince has been popping pain pills since 2009 (at least) and somehow he lasted 7 years. world tours, new albums etc. Wow he really is the GOAT then. Btw, Roger Friedman is a gossip journalist who used to (or maybe stil does) work for Fox News. I wouldn't trust him with much of anything.

.

I don't like Fox News any more than you do, but Friedman is well-regarded.

laytonian said:

Mumio said:

But it's an open investigation...so I wouldn't think they'd say anything because that would create a problem for them. Not at this point anyway, so whatever she or he said to the media wouldn't be challenged.

.

Au contraire
Anything that's said, especially publicly, at any time, can be used by the investigators.

That's how they catch people. Even a second or third interview can result in a story changing and red flags going up.

.

Jill did have a lawyer, so I'm sure they went over what she should and shouldn't say.

[Edited 7/6/16 17:43pm]

disch said:

morningsong said:

I agree. Read about half of it so far. Need a break, its too early and its overwhelming. I wonder if P read it too...Remember, he DID have some kind of surgery the year after this.. So he did try to correct the problem in some way..Maybe it didnt completely take the pain away so he continued with the pills. Sadly, he may have been depende t on them by that point..and maybe he oy "thought" he still needed them. Its curious but taking opiates for an extended time can actually cause the original pains to worsen..leading to taking more or something stronger..A vicious spiral..He very may well have gotten that pain under control if he had started a pain mangement regimen after getting past the withdrawal/addiction ztage...
[Edited 7/7/16 2:07am]

laytonian said:

So? He still ran a gossip column. The definition of gossip is something that is not confirmed to be true.

rogifan said:

Right. But what is confirmed is that prince died from an overdose of Fentanyl.
Unless you are disputing that? This Friedman guy said he heard rumours prince was popping pain pills from 2009 due to hip pain. What is it you don't believe? That prince was taking painkillers from 2009? or that he was taking painkillers at all?

RachB65 said:

Very easily could have played out like that. Strange the people who say they didn't know vs, the people who say they knew he was taking pain pills.

morningsong said:

For me that will be the tell...if we start hearing stories from people on the inside. Still I have a hard time believing it was an addiction that spanned many years. And by addiction I mean needing this stuff whether he was actually in pain or not. I say this because I think it would be hard for there not to be signs eventually.

BillieBalloon said:

I'm not disputing that he was taking painkillers. I'm just not convinced that he'd been abusing them since 2009 (or earlier). Though it seems like I'm in the minority here.

rogifan said:

Who said he was abusing them? A person can take pain pills for legitimate reasons. Prince had hip pain..I think that has been established. To treat that pain he took painkillers. If you class that as abuse then that's an I'll informed opinion. We don't know he was abusing them. All we know is he was taking them and died from an overdose. IF we get more information about his pill history that points to abuse then and only then can we conclude that he was abusing pain pills. We still don't know what medication caused his overdose on the plane and why.

rogifan said:

I don't know the extent of the pain, it's not omething I have knowledge in.. from what I've read the strength of these things make it very easy to become depedent in a short period of time especially if your one who is genetically predisposed to addiction. It seems it's more common than most people are aware. A lot of people are on these things and maybe spotting it isn't as easy as it is in recreational users. Again any number of scenerios could have played out.

prince in 1986:




Party all night, hangin' out
In the streets more than I be at home
I take a pill to wipe away my doubts
But a pill can't cure my bein' alone

Vodka and 7 straight to my brain
Put me under false impressions
Hide all my pain
Somebody help me, I'm losing control

This is what it's like
In the Dream Factory, oh

Everybody got the big dreams
(Hey lordy)
But nobody got the bucks
Love and trust will help you make it in a world
(Everybody)
Where there ain't no love, ain't no love

Dig, a man came up to me
Smile in his eyes, he told me
I was a saint, so I'm quittin' my friends
Much to their surprise
I can't live up to the picture that they paint
Ah, somebody help me
I'm losing control
(Ow)
I guess I'm just a sucker
In the Dream Factory, oh
Lordy
La, la, la, la, la
(Sucker)
Got to drive
(It's just a dream)
(It's just a dream)
(It's just a dream)
Look out
Do you wanna party?
Do want a pill?
How about a false impression?
(Thrills, spills, chills)
This is what it's like
In the Dream Factory, oh
Ow, yeah
Up a little bit
(Dream Factory, oh)
Party all night, hang up on the side
I said uh
(Do you wanna party?)
I can't make up my mind
(How about a false impression?)
I can't seem to live with no pictures
(Thrills, spills, chills)
Somebody got to help me
(Just a sucker)
I'm losing control
(Just a sucker)
I guess I'm just a sucker
In the Dream Factory, oh
Guess I'm just a sucker
In the Dream Factory, oh
(Just a sucker, motherfucker

RachB65 said:

morningsong said:

Scarily so.

I agree. Read about half of it so far. Need a break, its too early and its overwhelming. I wonder if P read it too...Remember, he DID have some kind of surgery the year after this.. So he did try to correct the problem in some way..Maybe it didnt completely take the pain away so he continued with the pills. Sadly, he may have been depende t on them by that point..and maybe he oy "thought" he still needed them. Its curious but taking opiates for an extended time can actually cause the original pains to worsen..leading to taking more or something stronger..A vicious spiral..He very may well have gotten that pain under control if he had started a pain mangement regimen after getting past the withdrawal/addiction ztage... [Edited 7/7/16 2:07am]

,

He apparently had surgery on the left hip only. We don't know if the right one started being a problem.
Like most people in "pain management", he likely was managed for quite awhile. BUT, apparently he had no regular doctor for the past few years until he saw Schulenberger on April 7th.
To me, that says there was no life-threatening other illness because he'd be under some kind of treatment for that....even within the last year or so and would know a doctor. He did almost everything "locally".

morningsong said:

RachB65 said:

I agree. Read about half of it so far. Need a break, its too early and its overwhelming. I wonder if P read it too...Remember, he DID have some kind of surgery the year after this.. So he did try to correct the problem in some way..Maybe it didnt completely take the pain away so he continued with the pills. Sadly, he may have been depende t on them by that point..and maybe he oy "thought" he still needed them. Its curious but taking opiates for an extended time can actually cause the original pains to worsen..leading to taking more or something stronger..A vicious spiral..He very may well have gotten that pain under control if he had started a pain mangement regimen after getting past the withdrawal/addiction ztage... [Edited 7/7/16 2:07am]

Very easily could have played out like that. Strange the people who say they didn't know vs, the people who say they knew he was taking pain pills.

I have not heard one person who knew him say he was on pain pills. The only people saying this are people who remain anonomus. Just about everyone that worked with him has said they did not know about any drugs and a few have mentioned hip problems.