rogifan said:

bonatoc said:

Furthermore, aside being a beautiful goodbye, it does say nothing about the weight loss and the screaming deterioration of his looks.
It drives me mad, I wanna go like : "Thank you Prince, I was one of the closest people, and not once did I alert medical authorities or relatives
to force you into detox/rehab, or at least a serious health check".

Better for the last inner circle to remain silent under these particular circumstances.

Good lord it was an Instagram post paying tribute to her boss right after he passed. She's not going to talk about weight loss or health issues or whatever. We have no idea what his inner circle was/wasn't doing.

I admit that we have no idea of this, but hey, we have a pretty good fucking idea of the end result.

It did not happen overnight.

If we saw/noticed it from a public distance, what does that tell you about the closest people?

bonatoc said:

Whether or not an entourage should warn an authority when a close one is putting himself in danger,
looks rather difficult in the U.S.A, morally (this "Freedom above all" thing they have) and legally (this "Freedom above all" thing they stick to).

I dunno, yeah, you could say that an adult is responsible for his own safety.

But here's why it sounds like hypocrisy to me.
If we stick to the rationale, let's :

1. get rid of speed limit signs, because, after all, an adult is responsible for his own safety.
2. get rid of "do not lean over this cliff", because, after all...
3. get rid of public messages warning that the wrong alimentation causes all kind of health problems, because... (back to the chorus)
4. get rid of warnings about the misuse of a medication, ...

In Europe, not acting when proved you knew the situation is darn reprehensible, in France it's called
"non-assistance à personne en danger", which doesn't require much translation.

The ultra-legal mentality is the U.S.A. seems to have, for fear of retaliation,
turn the responsibility of a person to wave a red flag when his neighbour is in a life-threatening danger
into vapor.

So convenient.

What Instagram has to do with it, you tell me.

[Edited 9/3/16 11:59am]

bonatoc said:

Whether or not an entourage should warn an authority when a close one is putting himself in danger,
looks rather difficult in the U.S.A, morally (this "Freedom above all" thing they have) and legally (this "Freedom above all" thing they stick to).

I dunno, yeah, you could say that an adult is responsible for his own safety.

But here's why it sounds like hypocrisy to me.
If we stick to the rationale, let's :

1. get rid of speed limit signs, because, after all, an adult is responsible for his own safety.
2. get rid of "do not lean over this cliff", because, after all...
3. get rid of public messages warning that the wrong alimentation causes all kind of health problems, because... (back to the chorus)
4. get rid of warnings about the misuse of a medication, ...

In Europe, not acting when proved you knew the situation is darn reprehensible, in France it's called
"non-assistance à personne en danger", which doesn't require much translation.

The ultra-legal mentality is the U.S.A. seems to have, for fear of retaliation,
turn the responsibility of a person to wave a red flag when his neighbour is in a life-threatening danger
into vapor.

So convenient.

What Instagram has to do with it, you tell me.

[Edited 9/3/16 11:59am]

Well, the first one? You could kill someone else if you don't do the speed limit.

The second? You fall off the cliff, you die. And potentially kill someone else.

The last two? Merely warnings – do at your own risk.

With health care, though, you have to consider that a person has a right to refuse treatment – every medical professional has to accept and respect that. They can warn, they can offer, but they can't FORCE you to take it. And yes, America has that, too – the idea that you have to help someone at immediate risk (basically, if they're bleeding and unconscious, or drowning), but you cannot force ongoing treatment on ANYONE, regardless of how much you want to. It's called preserving dignity, man. Even if dignity can kill you. You cannot force someone against their will to continue treatment if they don't want it, with the exception of children, who do not have the brains to consider the outcome of a choice. Once you become an adult, unless you have developmental problems? You have to let that person do them, whether you like it or not, unless you can prove (And again, this takes a very, VERY long time, and you better have a metric crapton of evidence to prove it!) they can't care for themselves.

I'm still waiting for proof that Prince could not care for himself. Sure, he was a bit weird, but that does not equal an inability to decide for himself. And apparently, Judith got him to agree to treatment, it was just too late. You can't keep him in the hospital once he's out of immediate danger without a court order. And believe me, that's a long fight. There are reason for that, you know: to protect citizens from being forcibly treated by the unscrupulous, which has happened many, MANY times over the course of history.

SpookyNopetopus said:

Well, the first one? You could kill someone else if you don't do the speed limit.

The second? You fall off the cliff, you die. And potentially kill someone else.

The last two? Merely warnings – do at your own risk.

With health care, though, you have to consider that a person has a right to refuse treatment – every medical professional has to accept and respect that. They can warn, they can offer, but they can't FORCE you to take it. And yes, America has that, too – the idea that you have to help someone at immediate risk (basically, if they're bleeding and unconscious, or drowning), but you cannot force ongoing treatment on ANYONE, regardless of how much you want to. It's called preserving dignity, man. Even if dignity can kill you. You cannot force someone against their will to continue treatment if they don't want it, with the exception of children, who do not have the brains to consider the outcome of a choice. Once you become an adult, unless you have developmental problems? You have to let that person do them, whether you like it or not, unless you can prove (And again, this takes a very, VERY long time, and you better have a metric crapton of evidence to prove it!) they can't care for themselves.

I'm still waiting for proof that Prince could not care for himself. Sure, he was a bit weird, but that does not equal an inability to decide for himself. And apparently, Judith got him to agree to treatment, it was just too late. You can't keep him in the hospital once he's out of immediate danger without a court order. And believe me, that's a long fight. There are reason for that, you know: to protect citizens from being forcibly treated by the unscrupulous, which has happened many, MANY times over the course of history.

Don't "man" me like dignity's meaning was a foreign concept to me.
I understand your point of view, but your "unscrupulous" speak to me of medieval plots,
not about someone who, a week before his death, has a major, major alert
which gravity everyone in the close circle is aware of.

But you're right America, let's use the immediate danger stuff,
and call 911 immediately after the guy is found unconscious in an elevator.
Oh shoo, too late.
But at least he passed away with DIGNITY, right?

You just explained the american hypocrisy very well : "even if dignity can kill you".
Again, how convenient. What a bunch of crap.

A lot of stars went into rehab because they had other profiles than irresponsible yaysayers in their circle,
thank God for them. They not only insisted, they got over all the curses, the so-called protections,
and unstopppably went for what was most important : the life of a human being.

While you're still "waiting for proof", the crude and actual fact is that he could not take care of himself at the time :
either by ignorance, though it has been made clear that doctors in Moline were strongly opposed
to the idea of him leaving so early the hospital bed.
Or by his own will, which, under the circumstances that I just described, suggests a suicidal tendency.

Either one, he was in danger.

We're not talking about cancer treatment, or the euthanasia of an elder.

We're talking about someone who OD'ed on the strongest opiods available.




But hey, have a spoon of this cough syrup, and go home take some rest,
I'm your assistant, "I'm there for you, and alwayswill be" — or whatever horrendous grand posthumous stating crosses their mind.




In the words of the Late Bob George : "Fuck that".

[Edited 9/3/16 13:19pm]

Man, really, you're ridiculouz. You want to be emotional and bratty, go right ahead; my point went right over your head, but you'll be okay when you grow up a little, man. I'm not going to argue with a child, BRO. Continue throwing a tantrum, that'z okay.

SpookyNopetopus said:

Man, really, you're ridiculouz. You want to be emotional and bratty, go right ahead; my point went right over your head, but you'll be okay when you grow up a little, man. I'm not going to argue with a child, BRO. Continue throwing a tantrum, that'z okay.

You're not personnaly under attack.
It's the system that allows for this to happen that drives me crazy.

Posting a petronizing answer with no substance is childish as well. Good to be amidst pure hearts.

If you have no more arguments in defense of what I perceive as a "let things go their way" attitude,
which I personnaly find immoral in that particular case, then refrain from posting,
because I could not care less of your personal opinion about what goes over or under my head,
and neither do the other orgers.

Again, your point of view stands.
But that does not mean I choose to adhere to it.

nursev said:

Menes said:

I don't think she was lazy, ignorant or garbage. She was probably in awe because she got a once in a lifetime opportunity to work with/for the man himself. Poor thing will always be a mess for not being able to do anything but say "Ok" and "Yes Prince". I seriously don't think she knew how to intervene.

I will get hate for this but so be it. I think Prince hired incompetent folks who were just pretty faces. If she cared for Prince so much why did she leave him alone in a health crisis? And dont gimme that boss shit...Im not buying it. Truth is none of these muthafuckas stayed with Prince. He died alone in a fucking elevator. So whether it was posted in April or August Im not buying it.

I know you are sad and angry Prince died, we're all. But shit like that just happens: part of life, no matter how hard it is to swallow. If your boss tells you to go home, you will have to leave his office.

At such a moment you can only express your worries and offer to stay with him for his own safety. But if he doesn't want it, you will have to leave the building, simple as that. You can't lock yourself to a radiator or something, he would have called the police to remove you and you would have lost your job.

You can't blame the people working in PP for going home after their work was done, they are not guilty of Prince's death. I know you are upset about Prince's death, but how upsetting would it be for someone like Meron to read your reply here?

Best be careful with saying things like this: PP staff -already mourning the loss of their boss/friend- might read this forum and might start to feel really confused and guilty, even if it wasn't really their fault that Prince died alone in an elevator. You might tip someone -already in an emotional state over the loss of a personal friend- over the suicidal edge with saying stuff like this.

nursev said:

Prince was my hero, but he was no saint. He did alot of suspect things in his life as Im sure most of us have made mistakes. But yeah the people who were around him had something to gain and were not truly his friends.

They were employees whom he hired himself. Of course these people had something to gain, isn't that why you go to work everyday: to earn money? Don't be so quick to judge please.

SpookyNopetopus said:

Okay I know this is hard, so I will say it again: you cannot force medical care on a legally competent adult. Disagreeing with how that adult chooses to care for himself is not enough to force your preferred treatment on them. Even mentally ill people can refuse treatment. The sole exception is lifesaving treatment of the sort an emt performs, like CPR to keep you from dying right that moment, and once that person is awake and aware, medical personnel is required to stop and obtain consent to continue treatment. Ever wonder why you are required to sign documentation for treatment every time you go to a hospital? That's because they have to prove you consented to treatment, and it isn't absolute proof against later suit. Women have won suits against doctors after insisting on sterilization that they wanted at one point. Declaring a person legally incompetent is a long, long process, and requires a lot of documentation and fact finding, which can take years. You have to prove they're a danger to themselves, an IMMEDIATE danger. And you're still limited in what you can do to them. A suicidal person can only be held for three days, and then you have to release them. A person suffering anorexia nervosa can be treated against their will, because they do have a dangerous mindset. None of us knows if Prince was a danger to himself or anyone else. None of us know what was wrong with him. Was he seriously ill? Probably! Likely, even. But that is simply not enough to force him to do something he didn't want to do. Blaming everyone for not making him do x y or z is just plain useless -- WTF would you have them do, tie him up and kidnap him? He'll only have to indicate he is unwillingly there, and guess who has felony kidnapping charges? They do! There's no proof they weren't trying; I would love for you to prove he absolutely would have lived had someone stayed. Possibly, possibly not. Paisley Park is a large complex, and Prince was hardly so weak or incompetent that he didn't retain the ability to defend himself against forcible contact for a reasonable amount of time, I'm willing to bet -- my niece with cerebal palsy is about his size, and that girl packs a healthy wallop when she doesn't want to do something. You would have a time of it getting her tO go anywhere against her will. Oh, you'd eventually win, but good luck not getting your ass handed to you at least once. Someone who isn't mentally damaged will be that much tougher to handle. I'm reasonably sure I could manhandle Prince if I had to and got a good hold on him, but I am also reasonably sure I would be black and blue and likely seriously injured on top of it. Long story short, y'all are gonna have to stop with this bullshit - y'all don't know half as much as y'all think you do about Prince and what was going on. Quit making shit up in your heads because you THINK you would have done a better job. You might not have had any better luck than anybody else.

AMEN!!!

I don't deny the reality of the situation, nor the basic grounds for the actual law.

I try to discuss how (I think) it should be.
And please do not petronize people who try to go further than what is in place.
It's not that I don't understand the law, I say I consider it really flawed
in the particular case of addiction.

Here's the catch : How do you assert that the obtained consent is made by someone in full posession of his free will?
How can you genuinely trust the opinion of a serious addict, when you propose him
to cut off the only thing that keeps him going?

Do you really think a junkie is going to think straight, and not get terrified at the prospective of being in need,
because that's what treatment is a part of?
Of course he's going to run away from doctors!

How can this be legal consent if the person is in no position to give a real, proper, conscient consent of his own?
It should be a legal obligation to detox the person up to the point
where she realizes and understands exactly what she's going through, and then make a choice.

I don't think many addicts would chose inevitable death, if asked once sobered up.

funkaholic1972 said:

SpookyNopetopus said:

Okay I know this is hard, so I will say it again: you cannot force medical care on a legally competent adult. Disagreeing with how that adult chooses to care for himself is not enough to force your preferred treatment on them. Even mentally ill people can refuse treatment. The sole exception is lifesaving treatment of the sort an emt performs, like CPR to keep you from dying right that moment, and once that person is awake and aware, medical personnel is required to stop and obtain consent to continue treatment. Ever wonder why you are required to sign documentation for treatment every time you go to a hospital? That's because they have to prove you consented to treatment, and it isn't absolute proof against later suit. Women have won suits against doctors after insisting on sterilization that they wanted at one point. Declaring a person legally incompetent is a long, long process, and requires a lot of documentation and fact finding, which can take years. You have to prove they're a danger to themselves, an IMMEDIATE danger. And you're still limited in what you can do to them. A suicidal person can only be held for three days, and then you have to release them. A person suffering anorexia nervosa can be treated against their will, because they do have a dangerous mindset. None of us knows if Prince was a danger to himself or anyone else. None of us know what was wrong with him. Was he seriously ill? Probably! Likely, even. But that is simply not enough to force him to do something he didn't want to do. Blaming everyone for not making him do x y or z is just plain useless -- WTF would you have them do, tie him up and kidnap him? He'll only have to indicate he is unwillingly there, and guess who has felony kidnapping charges? They do! There's no proof they weren't trying; I would love for you to prove he absolutely would have lived had someone stayed. Possibly, possibly not. Paisley Park is a large complex, and Prince was hardly so weak or incompetent that he didn't retain the ability to defend himself against forcible contact for a reasonable amount of time, I'm willing to bet -- my niece with cerebal palsy is about his size, and that girl packs a healthy wallop when she doesn't want to do something. You would have a time of it getting her tO go anywhere against her will. Oh, you'd eventually win, but good luck not getting your ass handed to you at least once. Someone who isn't mentally damaged will be that much tougher to handle. I'm reasonably sure I could manhandle Prince if I had to and got a good hold on him, but I am also reasonably sure I would be black and blue and likely seriously injured on top of it. Long story short, y'all are gonna have to stop with this bullshit - y'all don't know half as much as y'all think you do about Prince and what was going on. Quit making shit up in your heads because you THINK you would have done a better job. You might not have had any better luck than anybody else.

AMEN!!!

Amen to what?
To a country that rules its laws based on the possible lawsuits one action can provoke?
Hospital facing a lawsuit, felony charges, I mean what the fuck?
So legislation is made in order to cover the asses of sane persons,
the person ill can go fuck (and kill) herself.

Amen to the fact that a mentally ill person is even asked if she's okay with treatment, which is pure aberration?

Amen to that, really? Why not sing the anthem, while you're at it?
This is the lurid face of America, my friend.
Nothing to be proud of.
You sound like you accept the current state of the law without even discuss it,
just because it guarantees you and every other citizen the freedom to O.D.
Then why the war on drugs? If such is freedom, then why prohibite heroin?
Oh, the hypocrisy...

None of us knew?
What did they administrate to Prince in Moline, some candies?
Stop it already with this "no one knew", I don't buy it for a minute.

This I find utterly absurd : it may be considered wrong to miss the reflex of handing your hand to someone who suddenly falls,
and you may face charges for not saving them.
But here's a person who is falling in fucking slo-mo, and the fall takes days, weeks and months,
and yet it's okay to watch her until the impact of the ground kills her?

Yeah, Amen, bro.
Whatever.

[Edited 9/4/16 3:26am]

1Sasha said:

I think he was a danger to himself at least for that last week. Who says he agreed to see Dr. Kornfeld? That call went out on the 20th - not right after he got back from Moline. It appeared to be an intervention, which is usually planned without the addict/patient's consent. I have stated this before and been attacked for it, but I believe people around him knew and did nothing. The addict/patient should not be in control. Both Hazelden and the Mayo Clinic treat celebrities all the time. Why didn't someone approach either place? I have no sympathetic feelings for this woman. The only ones who seemed to have told the truth were the chef and his wife.

Exactly. I mean think about it.
Here's a system that can bring people to be scared to help a public person
for fear of legal retaliations.

Oh say can you see the gloom of it all?

rogifan said:

I happened to come across Prince's personal assistant Meron Bekure's Twitter account this morning. I don't think a lot is known about her. According to her LinkedIn profile she graduated from St. Cloud State university in 2012 with a degree in community health. Anyway as I was looking at her Twitter account I came across a statement she shared from Instagram after Prince's passing. It's very beautiful. What a beautiful soul. 💜 Got me all in tears again.😢

Never imagined I would be writing this, nor do I know how to put all of this into words! You were truly just one of a kind, not enough words/or stories will do any justice to describe who you were to all of us! You were not only my boss, but an amazing and caring family, most creative/innovative being, the disciplinary, the toughest/brilliant leader, who taught and influenced all of us around you. And I forgot completely hysterical! You inspired and pushed me everyday to think beyond limitations and eliminate words such as can't, don't, shouldn't cuz with you there was no such thing! It was God's will for me to have experienced your life in your last couple of years with you. It truly has molded me into a new Meron! I'm so thankful to have all the beautiful memories, to have met the most amazing/talented people from all over the world, built amazing friendships and bonds. It has been super odd for the last few of days not waking up to a bunch of emails with hundreds of things to do for the day, but that chapter now is done. Now you remain in our hearts forever. One thing I know for sure is, God is intentional in all things, and he loves you more than all of us and the world put together so he took you away. Though this all still hasn't really processed just yet, and I'm completely heartbroken, I can rest knowing that you are in the hands of the greatest. 💜Rest In Peace Preeeence💜 #ripprince

Yes it is a lovely message and I don't want to stir things up too much especially since it is sadly too late for it now, but I too am starting to question things a little, in particular to what degree was this lady involved in her "personnal assistance" for Prince. How much did she see, how close did she get? I also notice from your additional comments above that she had a degree in Community Health so if this is the case she was presumably familiar and aware of certain issues that affect human lives. Basically what I am saying is that she was not stupid or ignorant. I too believe that not enough has been done for Prince in terms of helping him get out of whatever situation he was in. I find it odd and I don't think anything should have been considered an hindrance or used as an excuse to not help. It is possible that no one had the guts to do so. The people he employed may have been scared of his reaction(s). Very likely, since he is known to have had a certain temper at times. Whatever the reasons, it seems to me that no one really wanted to take that responsibility or dared to try anything for fear of the consequences in their own lives. Who knows what the real reasons were, but imo if you really care about someone that much, you try everything you can to save them, even if there are obstacles in the way. I would certainly do this for my close ones. But then again, it all depends on how much you do care about / love them in the first place.

Well said, CherryMoon57.

bonatoc said:

funkaholic1972 said:

AMEN!!!

Amen to what?
To a country that rules its laws based on the possible lawsuits one action can provoke?
Hospital facing a lawsuit, felony charges, I mean what the fuck?
So legislation is made in order to cover the asses of sane persons,
the person ill can go fuck (and kill) herself.

Amen to the fact that a mentally ill person is even asked if she's okay with treatment, which is pure aberration?

Amen to that, really? Why not sing the anthem, while you're at it?
This is the lurid face of America, my friend.
Nothing to be proud of.
You sound like you accept the current state of the law without even discuss it,
just because it guarantees you and every other citizen the freedom to O.D.
Then why the war on drugs? If such is freedom, then why prohibite heroin?
Oh, the hypocrisy...

None of us knew?
What did they administrate to Prince in Moline, some candies?
Stop it already with this "no one knew", I don't buy it for a minute.

This I find utterly absurd : it may be considered wrong to miss the reflex of handing your hand to someone who suddenly falls,
and you may face charges for not saving them.
But here's a person who is falling in fucking slo-mo, and the fall takes days, weeks and months,
and yet it's okay to watch her until the impact of the ground kills her?

Yeah, Amen, bro.
Whatever.

[Edited 9/4/16 3:26am]

Nobody ever said it was okay. Least of all me. You have to prove Prince was an addict, and that he couldn't decide for himself. And if you cannot understand the difference between an emergency as in life or death, they're going to die right this second if you do not intervene and a person who is gravely ill but in no immediate danger of dying, then I can't help you. If a person does not want to treat their illness, whatever it may be, you cannot force them to. You can disagree, you can try to talk them into treating themselves, but at some point, you have to accept that they're not going to, and deal with it. You can even remove yourself from their life if you do not agree with what they choose to do, but there's no real way you can MAKE them accept treatment if they want to. That's what I'm trying to get across to you,and what you need to freaking understand. You have no actual recourse to force your will upon them. 'Because I said so!” is not sufficient, nor should it be. You're not talking to a child, you're talking to an adult. Forced rehab has a very, VERY low chance of working over the long term -- because the addict has to want to continue the program you put them in. I have seen many a person who goes to forced rehab, come out, and go right back to what they were doing. The one that wanted to go in, however, will usually succeed because he wanted to do it. They might be ill, and not always in perfect control of themselves, but rarely do I find an addict to be unable to decide for themselves. Many of them can and do decide many, many things for themselves, including to get help. They have to sign consent forms too, you know, unless it's part of a court order. There are many, MANY reason why American laws are what they are, including the fact that in VERY recent history, gay and lesbian people were given electroshock therapy to force them to become straight (all that did was damage their brains by the way), ordered by their parents and given by unethical doctors simply because at the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. The laws are in place to protect the patient in queztion, not to zave the doctor.

You may BELIEVE that Prince was unable to care for himself or decide for himself, but that does not make it fact. Merely your belief. You have to remember that these people you are treating with such contempt worked with him, spent time with him, knew him MUCH better than you ever could. The fact that you do not agree with what I am saying means nothing. You weren't there, you have no more idea of what was actually going on than I do. And I am going to take the word of Judith Hill, who was with Prince in Moline, over some dude a continent away armchair diagnosing from his computer. Fuck that.

1Sasha said:

I think he was a danger to himself at least for that last week. Who says he agreed to see Dr. Kornfeld? That call went out on the 20th - not right after he got back from Moline. It appeared to be an intervention, which is usually planned without the addict/patient's consent. I have stated this before and been attacked for it, but I believe people around him knew and did nothing. The addict/patient should not be in control. Both Hazelden and the Mayo Clinic treat celebrities all the time. Why didn't someone approach either place? I have no sympathetic feelings for this woman. The only ones who seemed to have told the truth were the chef and his wife.

And if they did everything they knew to do and it didn't work? Not every intervention will work.

SpookyNopetopus said:

But it's not a question of who did what or didn't,
I'm pretty sure it's hard on Meron Bekure,
she knew the man personally, I mean, she talked to the him daily...

I don't want to burn the inner circle on a public bonfire,
it's what allowed for a situation like this to grow that is at stake.

If I ever witness a "Prince Act" see the light of day,
I would like it to be on the subject of addiction, not copyrights.

I understand the "adult" thing,
but that's precisely my point. How come the law recognizes
that opiods are potent enough to alter one's mind,
and I'm quite sure a bunch of laws derive from this very fact,
and on the other hand consider a person
who is under an influence so potent, she's in perfect condition
to take an informed, objective, let's say ADULT decision?

It's not a question of being an adult.
As you shall not drive while being drunk,
you shall not be allowed to take a decision of life and death upon yourself
if you're incapacitated. There must be some kind of law
that invalidates a contract if one of the parties consciousness were to be altered

at the time of the signature.

I think the law should force a person addicted on opiods,
to stay under medical surveillance until a real detox has kicked in.
I personally wouldn't care if this is the person's choice.
Let her free after that, but at least as a society I would get the feeling
we recognize that this stuff is so potent it's simply alters your free will.

Because a drug addict, when he lives in a Big White Mansion
and has money, puts his life and his life only at risk, that may be okay?
But when the drug addict is poor and needs money,
then it's the same as letting a dangerous person behind a wheel.
The rich drug addict could hurt people as well.
Killing a pregnant mother while driving high.

The law lets a person decide of her fate when she clearly can't think straight.
The law lets a person free to get out of the hospital, burdened by the worst physical addiction there is.
Without making sure at least some medical personel is following the situation,
even if the budget at hand allows to do so.

I don't blame anyone.
People follow the law that is current when the events take place.

But it takes brave people to break the mold,
and force a situation to happen.
Again, let me point at many examples of stars that went sent to rehab by their close relatives or family.
Why the same didn't happen for Prince is plain unjust.

I have trouble with his assistant telling her grief publicly,
because it puts a great deal of people including myself in a need to know what happened,
and the person who grieves clearly does not wish to justify herself.
It's probably unfair to blame her for not having been an hero when it was needed.
I'p pretty sure it's haunting all of the inner circle at the moment.
That's why I think silence is better for now, coming from people who were close.
There's just to much of us that want to know what went wrong.