Lovejunky said:

laurarichardson said

--What would be the chances that someone I'll would have all articles of clothing on backwards? One or two pieces maybe but everything backward having pills in pocket when he did not like pants with pockets. The police are holding back information for a reason and the longer this is draging on the more I think the worst.

Do you think what happened to him could be so terrible that the TRUTH will be supressed...?

Lovejunky said:

And no one is talking outside of law enforcement. I still think there are at least a dozen people who know the truth, outside of law enforcement and the ME office, and I am stunned nothing has come out.

1Sasha said:

And no one is talking outside of law enforcement. I still think there are at least a dozen people who know the truth, outside of law enforcement and the ME office, and I am stunned nothing has come out.

Yes it is very surprising how after 7 months, everyone is still so very tight-lipped. Maybe that'a good thing in that LE is closing in or closing the gaps. I know once the nfo can be legally released which I believe is 30 years in MN, I will be too old to care or maybe even remember.

laurarichardson said:

joytotheworld said:

Please don't blast me for asking...where is the part about the eyewitnesses? I am playing catch up and somehow missed that. Thank you for your patience.

--- Please see the article from a few weeks back. http://www.fox9.com/news/...412-story. Potential witnesses are mentioned.

Laura, thank you. BTW, I enjoy reading your posts and clarifying mis-information.

laurarichardson said:

Lovejunky said:

This totally GUTTED me...I didnt know you had it confirmed Olivia..!!!!

I thought it was just some stupid conspiracy rumour...

There is no way he put his clothes on like that...

WHat are the chances of putting all four items on the wrong way...????

He was so impeccible..always...there is just NO way he would put his clothes on like that..

(I KNOW..

I just repeated myself.....)

Dear GOD...

How can someone so dear and precious,

One who always Praised your Glories come to such an awful pitiful end...?

--What would be the chances that someone I'll would have all articles of clothing on backwards? One or two pieces maybe but everything backward having pills in pocket when he did not like pants with pockets. The police are holding back information for a reason and the longer this is draging on the more I think the worst.

Regarding the backward clothes...could it be that since the pants were the yoga type and presuming pull on pants..and other articles also pull-on/or slip over...they were originally put on backwards to begin with say when he started his day? I wear these type of black pants to the gym and have easily done just that as well as put them on inside out. I didnt notice until back home and removing them that they were on wrong.

joytotheworld said:

1Sasha said:

laurarichardson said:

joytotheworld said:

Please don't blast me for asking...where is the part about the eyewitnesses? I am playing catch up and somehow missed that. Thank you for your patience.

--- Please see the article from a few weeks back. http://www.fox9.com/news/...412-story. Potential witnesses are mentioned.

Laura, I specifically went back and re-read the article you mentioned above to verify "potential witnesses" ...I did not catch that the 1st time, go 'round, nor did I catch the portion that read "Premature disclosure of data contained....could result in potential evidence being altered or destroyed"

Wth?!! Am I reading this CORRECTLY?!

1. "potential evidence=evidence found but not confirmed to be evidence of foul play"

2. WHO else would have access to this potential evidience besides law enforcement that was on site, and the search warrant is sealed as to not tip anyone off in the department(sounds ridiculous because it's stated in the article).....could this mean they may be investigating the officers that acquired (or possibly planted) the evidence??????????????

Maybe electronic devices and computers located in homes of other people (not in PP)? Unless they are destroying hard drives, everything is still there.

precioux said:

laurarichardson said:

precioux said:

Laura, I specifically went back and re-read the article you mentioned above to verify "potential witnesses" ...I did not catch that the 1st time, go 'round, nor did I catch the portion that read "Premature disclosure of data contained....could result in potential evidence being altered or destroyed"

Wth?!! Am I reading this CORRECTLY?!

1. "potential evidence=evidence found but not confirmed to be evidence of foul play"

2. WHO else would have access to this potential evidience besides law enforcement that was on site, and the search warrant is sealed as to not tip anyone off in the department(sounds ridiculous because it's stated in the article).....could this mean they may be investigating the officers that acquired (or possibly planted) the evidence??????????????

--Remember the police and the DEA did not execute a search warrant until a week or so after the funeral had taken place and people had been inside. Once again why is the DEA involved in a simple overdose case? Who was running around in the Paisley Park from the time P's body was discovered and the search warrant was discovered.

The week delay in executing a search warrant can be detrimental to a case. A defense lawyer will bring up your exact points as defense that the scene was contaminated to raise doubt. The investigation faces an uphill battle on that issue.

laurarichardson said:

precioux said:

Laura, I specifically went back and re-read the article you mentioned above to verify "potential witnesses" ...I did not catch that the 1st time, go 'round, nor did I catch the portion that read "Premature disclosure of data contained....could result in potential evidence being altered or destroyed"

Wth?!! Am I reading this CORRECTLY?!

1. "potential evidence=evidence found but not confirmed to be evidence of foul play"

2. WHO else would have access to this potential evidience besides law enforcement that was on site, and the search warrant is sealed as to not tip anyone off in the department(sounds ridiculous because it's stated in the article).....could this mean they may be investigating the officers that acquired (or possibly planted) the evidence??????????????

--Remember the police and the DEA did not execute a search warrant until a week or so after the funeral had taken place and people had been inside. Once again why is the DEA involved in a simple overdose case? Who was running around in the Paisley Park from the time P's body was discovered and the search warrant was discovered.

And what may have been removed and/or left behind and/or altered during that week where PP was left unsupervised?

I beleive there was ample time and motive for evidence to have been altered.

[Edited 12/2/16 11:34am]

Lovejunky said:

oliviacamron said:

Lovejunky said:

This totally GUTTED me...I didnt know you had it confirmed Olivia..!!!!

I thought it was just some stupid conspiracy rumour...

There is no way he put his clothes on like that...

WHat are the chances of putting all four items on the wrong way...????

He was so impeccible..always...there is just NO way he would put his clothes on like that..

(I KNOW..

I just repeated myself.....)

Dear GOD...

How can someone so dear and precious,

One who always Praised your Glories come to such an awful pitiful end...?

As I've analyzed this over and over I came up with a unlikely theory. Prince wore his socks inside out because of the seams at the toe are uncomfortable. Problem with this theory is that all his clothing were top quality custom made right? You can buy seamless socks that cost more. His socks were probably cashmere lined with silk? Another theory, Prince was wearing his shirts backwards lately for the look , maybe? Supposedly he had pills in his back pocket? His pants backwards then that means the pills were in his front pocket but in the back?

But if he put the bottle of pills in his back pocket or even his front how if the pants were inside out. Kind of hard to put a pill bottle in your pocket if you pants are turned inside out. I know what the reporter said he was told but perhaps Prince did not have a pill bottle in his pocket when he was found. Originally the tabs were saying it was percocet and then we heard nothing else about that substance at all. Some things don't add up.

LBrent said:

laurarichardson said:

precioux said:

Laura, I specifically went back and re-read the article you mentioned above to verify "potential witnesses" ...I did not catch that the 1st time, go 'round, nor did I catch the portion that read "Premature disclosure of data contained....could result in potential evidence being altered or destroyed"

Wth?!! Am I reading this CORRECTLY?!

1. "potential evidence=evidence found but not confirmed to be evidence of foul play"

2. WHO else would have access to this potential evidience besides law enforcement that was on site, and the search warrant is sealed as to not tip anyone off in the department(sounds ridiculous because it's stated in the article).....could this mean they may be investigating the officers that acquired (or possibly planted) the evidence??????????????

--Remember the police and the DEA did not execute a search warrant until a week or so after the funeral had taken place and people had been inside. Once again why is the DEA involved in a simple overdose case? Who was running around in the Paisley Park from the time P's body was discovered and the search warrant was discovered.

Exactly,...and I will state this again....on 4/21/16 crime scene technicians were SUMMONED to PP. That particular unit does not just automatically come to a scene, there has to be reason for them to be summoned in the first place. That being said, WHY was PP not declared a crime scene until 5/6/16, when there was OBVIOUSLY enough reason to summon the crime scene technicians out?

oliviacamron said:

LBrent said:

And what may have been removed and/or left behind and/or altered during that week where PP was left unsupervised?

I beleive there was amble time and motive for evidence to have been altered.

I know Brent. I'm afraid the sheriffs know they messed up and might do something to cover there own asses.

I remember when 4/21 first happened and I was hearing this information for the first time and my post is probably archived in that older thread, but when the ME report listed his clothing the one thing that I questioned was why weren't his shoes on the list.

His sox, underwear, TShirt, Shirt, pants and his HAT are listed...But no shoes. I thought that was odd. Who wears their HAT in the house...but no shoes?

Of course, as usual, someone who wasn't interested in entertaining questions about odd information possibly meaning foul play, turned the discussion into a melee and distracted things with trolling that eventually changed the course of the conversation. Yet the question was minimized and dismissed but never answered.

I even gave various scenarios that popped out to me why P not wearing shoes when found seemed odd.

Anyway, just a thought...

LBrent said:

LBrent, I thought the same thing. Where were his shoes? Plus, there have been reports of at least one phone call (Will Smith - what time, and who called whom), emails (sent and received - again, what time, and to and from whom). It was stated that he no longer had security, so after he was dropped off (if alone), who locked the main gate (was it locked from inside PP). Lots of basic questions, such as where the lights were on in the building complex. Lots of questions.

oliviacamron said:

LBrent said:

laurarichardson said:

oliviacamron said:

laurarichardson said:

-- If he felt ill and was trying to get help why put on everything but shoes?

In that improbable theory I stated, he would not have been going for help. He would have died immediately.

Well he was in the elavator so from the begining I think the assumption was he was getting help but we don't know he might have just collasped while going to or from his living quarters or coming from some other area of the building.

In the last picture taken of him, the one at Walgreens, wasn't he wearing that stocking cap, and was in all black? If he was, then it sounds to me like he was in the same clothes and just took his shoes off.

PennyPurple said:

In the last picture taken of him, the one at Walgreens, wasn't he wearing that stocking cap, and was in all black? If he was, then it sounds to me like he was in the same clothes and just took his shoes off.

Was his clothes backwards earlier in the day?

Another thing I said right at the first, even before the ME report was back...I said that mebbe someone with access to the PP security system TURNED IT OFF. That was also dismissed as silly. Until another orger who lives near PP was told by a connect they knew personally that PP's security system was OFF that night.

As time went on I think this was also mention by the media. I'm not sure cuz I stopped paying attention to the thread cuz the same folks insisted on disrupting conversations and pints made were lost in the endless battles. I gave up trying to discuss it.

But if my posts are archived, the points I tried to make months ago were that if he was last seen at 8p or so, by whom? Security footage should show who, no?

And if securitywas off the company would have records of who ordered it off, no?

And for how long?

I also asked how the folks got into PP that morning. Who had a key/security access?

Again, the disrupters shut that line of questions down.

I was more emotional then and didn't have the calmn to ask questions, put out possible scenrios AND try to wade through deliberately disruptive posts, plus deal with what was/is my real life concerns.

As those of you who frequent this thread and others like it, there are several who aren't interested in entertaining possible scenarios of what might've happened on the plane and what might've happened the night of 4/20 into the morning of 4/21...Yet they continue to visit this thread to disrupt and distract and be rude.

If they aren't interested, we've already heard that. Why continue to come back repeatedly to disrupt the conversation?

Anyway, I see that as time has passed details have dribbled out. Hopefully more will come out.

Weknow it's FAR from cut and dried.

[Edited 12/2/16 12:38pm]

PennyPurple said:

In the last picture taken of him, the one at Walgreens, wasn't he wearing that stocking cap, and was in all black? If he was, then it sounds to me like he was in the same clothes and just took his shoes off.

I asked this months ago and it was discovered that the pic was NOT in Walgreen's parking lot.

TMZ misrepresented a pic of P taken at DMV.

As a matter of fact if you search the archived thread, an orger from Minnesota said she had Google Mapped it. And another orger from Minnesota's sis-in-law I think, was the DMV worker who took P's driver's license pic.

I'm telling y'all, searching the old discussions about all this now that some time has passed might be helpful for those asking questions that were asked back in May/June?July/Aug 2016.

If you weren't there for those first threads you'll be shocked.

And take note of the past AND current disrupters.

Jus sayin

PennyPurple said:

In the last picture taken of him, the one at Walgreens, wasn't he wearing that stocking cap, and was in all black? If he was, then it sounds to me like he was in the same clothes and just took his shoes off.

Last pic @ Walgreens...he did have the stocking cap on, not sure if clothes were on backwards though, as I think he had a black jacket on as well