New topic
PrintablePennyPurple said:
AGAIN Laura, not everybody has those side effects. Ok....this is verging on invasive and obsessive. You need to let this specific issue go. Geez, the man may no longer be in the physical but I feel this is disrespectful to speak about his personal habits to this degree. And, it's irrevelant due to the fact that there is no one who can speak to this (thank heavens!). Nor would anyone want to! Just, why? Why even bring it up? I'll say it again....it's irrevelant and frankly, no one's business. Honestly....smdh "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
. Paisley Park was never declared a "crime scene". There were several people going in and out of PP on 4/21/16, and several days thereafter. The search warrant came too late, because the crime scene was already contaminated by then. Sheila E. even admitted to "things being touched and moved", i.e, Prince's personal laptop.
"With love, honor, and respect for every living thing in the universe, separation ceases, and we all become one being, singing one song." - Prince Roger Nelson (1958-2016) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Regarding Prince's headaches. Headaches can be brought on by many things. Prince was known to go without eating any food for several hours or maybe even days. Heck, that's enough to give me a headache. He could have been dehydrated, which can cause headaches. Not getting enough rest can causes headaches. It could have been any number of prescriptions that could have caused his headaches. So many things can cause headaches.
"With love, honor, and respect for every living thing in the universe, separation ceases, and we all become one being, singing one song." - Prince Roger Nelson (1958-2016) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Another thing that keeps coming to mind is that you would think that if Prince did have a dependency for pain pills, that he would have overdosed or had serious problems prior to April 21, 2016? You would think that all the people that worked closely with him and especially someone like KJ, who was his right hand man, so to speak, would know that Prince had a problem? I don't care how private a man Prince was, someone would have leaked the story of his pain pill dependency. And, if he was taking street drugs, dont you think he would have an arrest record for possession of illegal drugs prior to his death? People on social media want to label Prince as just another "junkie", but that person will never be me. I seriously doubt that Prince would take illegal street drugs, especially taking pills that are laced with other drugs. I still hold true to what my heart tells me and my heart tells me that Prince took those pills thinking they were legit pain pills and not counterfeit pills. Just my 2-cents for the day!!
"With love, honor, and respect for every living thing in the universe, separation ceases, and we all become one being, singing one song." - Prince Roger Nelson (1958-2016) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
stlmuziqlvr said: This is truly unsettling...an unlicensed person travels across state lines with controlled substances in his backpack and nothing happens? Does not compute...
Because of the MN - 604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW: https://www.revisor.mn.go...id=604a.01 AK'S attorney made this statement..... "Mauzy said the medication in Andrew Kornfeld's possession was intended for a Minnesota doctor who had been put on standby to evaluate and potentially treat Prince. The attorney said Kornfeld never intended to give the medicine to Prince directly and never gave him any medication. He also said the state's Good Samaritan laws would give Andrew Kornfeld immunity from any prosecution since he was the one who called 911." .....found in this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/0...-kornfeld/ "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Andrew Kornfeld arrived at PP with Kirk and Meron. Prob picked him up either from the airport or hotel. ST article here: http://www.startribune.co...0338131/#1 "Court records show that Andrew Kornfeld arrived at Paisley Park the morning of April 21. Sources have told the Star Tribune that he arrived with Kirk Johnson — Prince’s longtime friend, drummer and business associate - and Meron Burke, Prince's assistant." This article is incredibly informative.....might be worth a read as it may just answer some questions pondered in this thread. "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
They could have been discussing the whole thing amongst themselves in one of the offices before calling on Prince. After all, he was known to sleep till late. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
))
Sure is strange. But the doctor was in PP for giving blood results to Prince, so he had at least consulted Prince. It was written somewhere that the doctor prescribed Kirk the pills for Prince for privacy reasons and later denied it, which comes as no surprise if he did prescribe them. Either that or Kirk was asking for the pills and then giving them to Prince.
Another thing about all the mislabelled pills that totally baffles me: how the hell did he keep track of what was what?
About Dr. Fink saying he saw Prince take aspirin all the time: perhaps he saw him take pills from an aspirin bottle.
Prince coud have been using these meds for a long time and not necessarily abusing them. That probably only happened as time went by, as he aged, after his hip surgery, etc. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
How does the "Good Samaritan" law cover Andrew? Just asking because it doesn't make sense to me. Andrew did not administer Narcan nor did he perform any life saving acts. There was no licensed MD on scene. The drugs were illegally in Andrew's care and control and they were illegally transported interstate. How and why would that law apply? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cloveringold85 said:
. Paisley Park was never declared a "crime scene". There were several people going in and out of PP on 4/21/16, and several days thereafter. The search warrant came too late, because the crime scene was already contaminated by then. Sheila E. even admitted to "things being touched and moved", i.e, Prince's personal laptop.
Hey Clover..I'm pretty sure PP was declared a crime scene on 5/6/16. I never understood this. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the date | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
precioux said: cloveringold85 said:
I believe you are correct. . Paisley Park was never declared a "crime scene". There were several people going in and out of PP on 4/21/16, and several days thereafter. The search warrant came too late, because the crime scene was already contaminated by then. Sheila E. even admitted to "things being touched and moved", i.e, Prince's personal laptop.
Hey Clover..I'm pretty sure PP was declared a crime scene on 5/6/16. I never understood this. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the date | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zenarose said: How does the "Good Samaritan" law cover Andrew? Just asking because it doesn't make sense to me. Andrew did not administer Narcan nor did he perform any life saving acts. There was no licensed MD on scene. The drugs were illegally in Andrew's care and control and they were illegally transported interstate. How and why would that law apply? This article... http://www.presspubs.com/...icle_fe059d14-6dd2-11e5-8576-2fc3f25abb98.html ....includes the following explanations: "Minnesota has a law entitled the “Good Samaritan Law." It places a legal duty on people to provide reasonable assistance to others that have been exposed to or are in peril of grave physical harm. Reasonable assistance could mean simply attempting to get help from law enforcement or medical personnel. To further encourage people to help others, the law protects lay-people from civil liability for negligence committed while voluntarily providing emergency care. This immunity exists both at the scene of the emergency and while transporting someone to a location where professional care can be rendered. While the law protects someone who negligently acts in good faith, it does not protect a person who acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner." Andrew placed the 911 call thereby summoning "medical personnel"; and, while he might be considered negligent in bringing the meds across state lines, he did act in "good faith". That is my interpretation of how this law provides immunity. "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zenarose said: precioux said: Hey Clover..I'm pretty sure PP was declared a crime scene on 5/6/16. I never understood this. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the date Ok, what I'm pulling up is that on Tuesday 5/10/16, authorities went back to PP in order to "be thorough" with the "ongoing criminal investigation"....somehow along the line it was discussed and questioned as to "why PP was not secured on 4/21/16" and that "PP had become contaminated" as a direct result of not securing PP in a timely fashion | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cloveringold85 said: Regarding Prince's headaches. Headaches can be brought on by many things. Prince was known to go without eating any food for several hours or maybe even days. Heck, that's enough to give me a headache. He could have been dehydrated, which can cause headaches. Not getting enough rest can causes headaches. It could have been any number of prescriptions that could have caused his headaches. So many things can cause headaches.
Mrs. Mayte finally admitted he did have migraine headache on HLN last night. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotACleverName said: zenarose said: How does the "Good Samaritan" law cover Andrew? Just asking because it doesn't make sense to me. Andrew did not administer Narcan nor did he perform any life saving acts. There was no licensed MD on scene. The drugs were illegally in Andrew's care and control and they were illegally transported interstate. How and why would that law apply? This article... http://www.presspubs.com/...icle_fe059d14-6dd2-11e5-8576-2fc3f25abb98.html ....includes the following explanations: "Minnesota has a law entitled the “Good Samaritan Law." It places a legal duty on people to provide reasonable assistance to others that have been exposed to or are in peril of grave physical harm. Reasonable assistance could mean simply attempting to get help from law enforcement or medical personnel. To further encourage people to help others, the law protects lay-people from civil liability for negligence committed while voluntarily providing emergency care. This immunity exists both at the scene of the emergency and while transporting someone to a location where professional care can be rendered. While the law protects someone who negligently acts in good faith, it does not protect a person who acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner." Andrew placed the 911 call thereby summoning "medical personnel"; and, while he might be considered negligent in bringing the meds across state lines, he did act in "good faith". That is my interpretation of how this law provides immunity. Leaves a lot of gray area to me. Somehow it seems wrong for him to not be charged when he broke several laws. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotACleverName said: zenarose said: How does the "Good Samaritan" law cover Andrew? Just asking because it doesn't make sense to me. Andrew did not administer Narcan nor did he perform any life saving acts. There was no licensed MD on scene. The drugs were illegally in Andrew's care and control and they were illegally transported interstate. How and why would that law apply? This article... http://www.presspubs.com/...icle_fe059d14-6dd2-11e5-8576-2fc3f25abb98.html ....includes the following explanations: "Minnesota has a law entitled the “Good Samaritan Law." It places a legal duty on people to provide reasonable assistance to others that have been exposed to or are in peril of grave physical harm. Reasonable assistance could mean simply attempting to get help from law enforcement or medical personnel. To further encourage people to help others, the law protects lay-people from civil liability for negligence committed while voluntarily providing emergency care. This immunity exists both at the scene of the emergency and while transporting someone to a location where professional care can be rendered. While the law protects someone who negligently acts in good faith, it does not protect a person who acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner." Andrew placed the 911 call thereby summoning "medical personnel"; and, while he might be considered negligent in bringing the meds across state lines, he did act in "good faith". That is my interpretation of how this law provides immunity. Calling 911 when someone is already dead has nothing to do with the Good Sam law. If Andrew had arrived on the scene and Prince was in need of those drugs as a life or death matter and he administered them he would be covered. Bringing these drugs across state lines without a medical license violets Federal laws because Prince was alive and well when Andrew was coming with meds and Prince could have gone to a hospital or down the road to Hazeldon. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotACleverName said: zenarose said: How does the "Good Samaritan" law cover Andrew? Just asking because it doesn't make sense to me. Andrew did not administer Narcan nor did he perform any life saving acts. There was no licensed MD on scene. The drugs were illegally in Andrew's care and control and they were illegally transported interstate. How and why would that law apply? This article... http://www.presspubs.com/...icle_fe059d14-6dd2-11e5-8576-2fc3f25abb98.html ....includes the following explanations: "Minnesota has a law entitled the “Good Samaritan Law." It places a legal duty on people to provide reasonable assistance to others that have been exposed to or are in peril of grave physical harm. Reasonable assistance could mean simply attempting to get help from law enforcement or medical personnel. To further encourage people to help others, the law protects lay-people from civil liability for negligence committed while voluntarily providing emergency care. This immunity exists both at the scene of the emergency and while transporting someone to a location where professional care can be rendered. While the law protects someone who negligently acts in good faith, it does not protect a person who acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner." Andrew placed the 911 call thereby summoning "medical personnel"; and, while he might be considered negligent in bringing the meds across state lines, he did act in "good faith". That is my interpretation of how this law provides immunity. Good samaratian law applies to people In grave physical harm, hard to apply that to a dead guy. I always wondered why Andrew made the call, obviously on his fathers advice, on his fathers attorneys advice. Still do not see how him calling 911 about a dead person has anything to do with that law | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: NotACleverName said: This article... http://www.presspubs.com/...icle_fe059d14-6dd2-11e5-8576-2fc3f25abb98.html ....includes the following explanations: "Minnesota has a law entitled the “Good Samaritan Law." It places a legal duty on people to provide reasonable assistance to others that have been exposed to or are in peril of grave physical harm. Reasonable assistance could mean simply attempting to get help from law enforcement or medical personnel. To further encourage people to help others, the law protects lay-people from civil liability for negligence committed while voluntarily providing emergency care. This immunity exists both at the scene of the emergency and while transporting someone to a location where professional care can be rendered. While the law protects someone who negligently acts in good faith, it does not protect a person who acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner." Andrew placed the 911 call thereby summoning "medical personnel"; and, while he might be considered negligent in bringing the meds across state lines, he did act in "good faith". That is my interpretation of how this law provides immunity. Calling 911 when someone is already dead has nothing to do with the Good Sam law. If Andrew had arrived on the scene and Prince was in need of those drugs as a life or death matter and he administered them he would be covered. Bringing these drugs across state lines without a medical license violets Federal laws because Prince was alive and well when Andrew was coming with meds and Prince could have gone to a hospital or down the road to Hazeldon. Prince had NOT been pronounced at the time of Andrew's call. You can "debate" this all day long but the law is the law. Andrew has not been charged with any crime. It doesn't appear that he will be, either. Andrew had nothing to do with the death of Prince. No way. No how. "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"And I know you're not just what you say to me
And I'm not the only moment you're made of..." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotACleverName said: laurarichardson said: Calling 911 when someone is already dead has nothing to do with the Good Sam law. If Andrew had arrived on the scene and Prince was in need of those drugs as a life or death matter and he administered them he would be covered. Bringing these drugs across state lines without a medical license violets Federal laws because Prince was alive and well when Andrew was coming with meds and Prince could have gone to a hospital or down the road to Hazeldon. Prince had NOT been pronounced at the time of Andrew's call. You can "debate" this all day long but the law is the law. Andrew has not been charged with any crime. It doesn't appear that he will be, either. Andrew had nothing to do with the death of Prince. No way. No how. we are not talking about Andrew killing prince, we are talking about why he wasn't charged, the Good Samaritan law as written in Minnesota just does not apply, that may be how they spun it, but looks like they just gave him a pass | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
everyone that breaks a law, and then calls 911 from a crime scene does not get off simply because they called for an ambulance. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said: NotACleverName said: This article... http://www.presspubs.com/...icle_fe059d14-6dd2-11e5-8576-2fc3f25abb98.html ....includes the following explanations: "Minnesota has a law entitled the “Good Samaritan Law." It places a legal duty on people to provide reasonable assistance to others that have been exposed to or are in peril of grave physical harm. Reasonable assistance could mean simply attempting to get help from law enforcement or medical personnel. To further encourage people to help others, the law protects lay-people from civil liability for negligence committed while voluntarily providing emergency care. This immunity exists both at the scene of the emergency and while transporting someone to a location where professional care can be rendered. While the law protects someone who negligently acts in good faith, it does not protect a person who acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner." Andrew placed the 911 call thereby summoning "medical personnel"; and, while he might be considered negligent in bringing the meds across state lines, he did act in "good faith". That is my interpretation of how this law provides immunity. Good samaratian law applies to people In grave physical harm, hard to apply that to a dead guy. I always wondered why Andrew made the call, obviously on his fathers advice, on his fathers attorneys advice. Still do not see how him calling 911 about a dead person has anything to do with that law Just curious about your thoughts here.....are you implying that upon hearing the scream and rushing to the elevator, Andrew first phoned his Father, who, in turn, phoned his counsel, for advice on how to proceed? "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said: NotACleverName said: Prince had NOT been pronounced at the time of Andrew's call. You can "debate" this all day long but the law is the law. Andrew has not been charged with any crime. It doesn't appear that he will be, either. Andrew had nothing to do with the death of Prince. No way. No how. we are not talking about Andrew killing prince, we are talking about why he wasn't charged, the Good Samaritan law as written in Minnesota just does not apply, that may be how they spun it, but looks like they just gave him a pass Go back a few pages.....some are. Simply presenting my opinion on that speculation. "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said: everyone that breaks a law, and then calls 911 from a crime scene does not get off simply because they called for an ambulance. Did you read any of the info in the links I included in my posts? That will help clear up any questions. Numerous states have implemented these Good Samaritan laws. "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotACleverName said: LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said: Good samaratian law applies to people In grave physical harm, hard to apply that to a dead guy. I always wondered why Andrew made the call, obviously on his fathers advice, on his fathers attorneys advice. Still do not see how him calling 911 about a dead person has anything to do with that law Just curious about your thoughts here.....are you implying that upon hearing the scream and rushing to the elevator, Andrew first phoned his Father, who, in turn, phoned his counsel, for advice on how to proceed? Yes, they arrived at 9 a.m. I can not believe that someone did not check on him immediatly, even if the meeting was not happening at that moment, I simply do not believe they did not find him dead for 45 minutes. After they find him, They do not know what to do, Andrew says I will call my dad, his dad says don't do anything, his dad calls his attorney and then calls Andrew back and says Andrew calls 911, and tell the detectives I did not give you the drugs, then he has his attorney call the cops and say the good samaratin law applies. When Andrew & Co found prince dead, and Andrew has drugs on him, do think his first priority is to tell the truth about what happened or cover his ass and his daddy's ass | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotACleverName said: LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said: everyone that breaks a law, and then calls 911 from a crime scene does not get off simply because they called for an ambulance. Did you read any of the info in the links I included in my posts? That will help clear up any questions. Numerous states have implemented these Good Samaritan laws. Good Samaritan laws do not apply to dead people. Weather or not he was declared dead, he had not just died, he was way dead, and they do not have to make a decision on the spot as to weather or not they would charge Andrew. but upon further review, well almost immediately it was evident that prince had died many many many hours before being found. How on earth would someone calling 911 for a person long dead, be cleared by a law that applies to people that are in grave danger | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
is there any truth to the rumour of wolf blitzer reporting a shooting at PP? Is that true or just a conspiracy theory. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said: NotACleverName said: Just curious about your thoughts here.....are you implying that upon hearing the scream and rushing to the elevator, Andrew first phoned his Father, who, in turn, phoned his counsel, for advice on how to proceed? Yes, they arrived at 9 a.m. I can not believe that someone did not check on him immediatly, even if the meeting was not happening at that moment, I simply do not believe they did not find him dead for 45 minutes. After they find him, They do not know what to do, Andrew says I will call my dad, his dad says don't do anything, his dad calls his attorney and then calls Andrew back and says Andrew calls 911, and tell the detectives I did not give you the drugs, then he has his attorney call the cops and say the good samaratin law applies. When Andrew & Co found prince dead, and Andrew has drugs on him, do think his first priority is to tell the truth about what happened or cover his ass and his daddy's ass Are you speculating here or do you have a link that details what I bolded? And you are using the plural "they" instead of "he". Do you think all three were waiting for direction from Andrew's dad? There has been no info about what transpired during the 45 mins (or maybe I missed it....do you know?). PP is a large facility that encompasses 65,000 sf, if I remember correctly, and would imagine it would take a while to search. Alternately, perhaps the three of them, AK/MB/KJ, arrived at 9:08 or 9:09 but said around 9 AM. Who knows? "Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence......." ~ DESIDERATA ~ Max Ehrmann | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Why would he not call 911 first? It is a long time,covering ass big time with the phone calls Anyhow the pills in bottles,wrong labels nothing adds up.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NotACleverName said: LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said: Yes, they arrived at 9 a.m. I can not believe that someone did not check on him immediatly, even if the meeting was not happening at that moment, I simply do not believe they did not find him dead for 45 minutes. After they find him, They do not know what to do, Andrew says I will call my dad, his dad says don't do anything, his dad calls his attorney and then calls Andrew back and says Andrew calls 911, and tell the detectives I did not give you the drugs, then he has his attorney call the cops and say the good samaratin law applies. When Andrew & Co found prince dead, and Andrew has drugs on him, do think his first priority is to tell the truth about what happened or cover his ass and his daddy's ass Are you speculating here or do you have a link that details what I bolded? And you are using the plural "they" instead of "he". Do you think all three were waiting for direction from Andrew's dad? There has been no info about what transpired during the 45 mins (or maybe I missed it....do you know?). PP is a large facility that encompasses 65,000 sf, if I remember correctly, and would imagine it would take a while to search. Alternately, perhaps the three of them, AK/MB/KJ, arrived at 9:08 or 9:09 but said around 9 AM. Who knows? Yes I am speculating about what went on after prince was found. Paisley is big, and had he been found in a room he does not frequent, or someplace different than usual, i might cut them some slack in regards to the time line, but a sick guys apartment is upstairs and you don't find him in the elevator for 45 Minutes, not buying. The only thing I ever heard about the time from when they arrived to when he was found was they were looking for him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |