Menes said:

Can someone post the interview? I can't find it.

Yes, please.

Menes said:

laurarichardson said:

They need to knock it off. That was her brother and she is doing what he asked her to do. In fact she is doing what any sibling that cared would do.

So, if everything she said is true, does that mean that he preempted his forseable death because his plans were interrupted by the overdose?

I believe so or perhaps he was in so much pain he did take those pills by accident. We may never know but we now know he knew his time was short.

MMJas said:

Menes said:

Can someone post the interview? I can't find it.

Yes, please.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099vzcp

----

Her interview starts at 2:00 hour mark. It is really interesting.

laurarichardson said:

MMJas said:

Yes, please.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099vzcp

----

Her interview starts at 2:00 hour mark. It is really interesting.

Thank you.

If Tyka knows something that noone else does, it's a bit fucked up. I mean it's been 18 months, but in the interview she appears to be saying 'Wait for the book. The book will reveal all!'

fortuneandserendipity said:

Mumio said:

We don't need to know anymore. She KNEW. We've been saying it since she told us last year.

She KNEW what exactly? Or just being cryptic, bc it runs in the family genes. And she has a book to sell? (to borrow LR's summation of Mayte Garcia's motives).

fortuneandserendipity said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

If Tyka knows something that noone else does, it's a bit fucked up. I mean it's been 18 months, but in the interview she appears to be saying 'Wait for the book. The book will reveal all!'

She is his sister it would be fucked up if you know something that she did not know.

The truth is that when she explains everything in her book or in future interviews the insane idea that Prince was a drugged out rock star who had deep emotional pain and could not share his emotions due to shame will be blown out of the water.

I will be glad when this happens so alll of the arm chair therpist can relax. The sad thing is that because people think she killed her brother and want to make up these crazy drug addict stories she really has no choice but to reveal exactly what was wrong which I am sure he would not have wanted.

I am good with knowing he was ill and probaly gobbled down pain pills for actual pain which really would make him like any other human.

Not some ridculous super human sterotype who could gobble down pain pills for 30 years, record thousands of songs,travel and work like a demon without missing a step which has been laughable from the very beginning.

Don't forget as well, short autopsy report says under 'Cause of death - other significant conditions: not applicable'. Meaning effectively, no terminal illness contributed to his death.

How can it be any clearer? If an illness had signicantly contributed IT WOULD BE on that form!

Nope.

"None" and "Not Applicable" have two different meanings in the legal world.

His autopsy report said "N/A"

fortuneandserendipity said:

Don't forget as well, short autopsy report says under 'Cause of death - other significant conditions: not applicable'. Meaning effectively, no terminal illness contributed to his death.

How can it be any clearer? If an illness had signicantly contributed IT WOULD BE on that form!

[Edited 10/25/17 12:58pm]

fortuneandserendipity said:

Don't forget as well, short autopsy report says under 'Cause of death - other significant conditions: not applicable'. Meaning effectively, no terminal illness contributed to his death.

How can it be any clearer? If an illness had signicantly contributed IT WOULD BE on that form!

How many times have you been told the short report will not include other health issues if they did not directly cause his death?

Any addtional information concerning his health would be in the long report which we are never going to see and I suspect Prince was well aware of this thus not dying from illness but by taking too many meds.

If you want to believe Tyka is lying go ahead. Not sure why you are so pressed about it.

laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

If Tyka knows something that noone else does, it's a bit fucked up. I mean it's been 18 months, but in the interview she appears to be saying 'Wait for the book. The book will reveal all!'

She is his sister it would be fucked up if you know something that she did not know.

The truth is that when she explains everything in her book or in future interviews the insane idea that Prince was a drugged out rock star who had deep emotional pain and could not share his emotions due to shame will be blown out of the water.

I will be glad when this happens so alll of the arm chair therpist can relax. The sad thing is that because people think she killed her brother and want to make up these crazy drug addict stories she really has no choice but to reveal exactly what was wrong which I am sure he would not have wanted.

I am good with knowing he was ill and probaly gobbled down pain pills for actual pain which really would make him like any other human.

Not some ridculous super human sterotype who could gobble down pain pills for 30 years, record thousands of songs,travel and work like a demon without missing a step which has been laughable from the very beginning.

It is fucked up if she knows something other people don't, and then saves it for a book 2 yrs+ later.

What do you mean by drugged out rock star? Has anyone on here tried to compare P to Jim Morrison. Are you sure now? Tbh, I was starting to think you were veering in direction of 'even Tyka might've slipped the pill to get rich off...' interspersed with your general narrative 'P was terminally ill but someone killed him anyway' ffs

Bone pain doesn't equal terminal illness btw. Neither does opiate withdrawal, jsuk.

laurarichardson said:

If you want to believe Tyka is lying go ahead. Not sure why you are so pressed about it.

There's several here that are battling this out like they have stock shares in the outcome. Ridiculous.

i guess that makes since why someone told Mayte, he wasn't doing well.

laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Don't forget as well, short autopsy report says under 'Cause of death - other significant conditions: not applicable'. Meaning effectively, no terminal illness contributed to his death.

How can it be any clearer? If an illness had signicantly contributed IT WOULD BE on that form!

How many times have you been told the short report will not include other health issues if they did not directly cause his death?

Any addtional information concerning his health would be in the long report which we are never going to see and I suspect Prince was well aware of this thus not dying from illness but by taking too many meds.

If you want to believe Tyka is lying go ahead. Not sure why you are so pressed about it.

LOL. I myself made reference to an illness needing to contribute directly to his death in order to qualify as a 'cause of death'. You must have me confused with someone else. Either that, or you're making stuff up

Now for digging into the nuance....

If his illness was terminal it would definitely have qualifed for inclusion on autopsist's short report. This is why: if he is at death's door from long-standing illness, how can the ME possibly deem it not worthy of mention. How can a terminal illness be deemed 'not applicable' in respect of 'Other significant conditions'. I'll explain further...

Remember, the ME's short-form report' - 'Other significant conditions' text does NOT come under bolded heading 'Cause' and the four underlines, only one of which is filled in - 'fentanyl' (i.e. direct causes). If you pay more attention, you'll realise that 'other significant conditions' indicate INDIRECT causes of death, which could be a terminal illness. Really think about what 'Other significant conditions' means before you next post. To iterate, there are 4 underlines under 'cause' - which is a lot by any stretch of the imagination - and then 'other significant conditions' follow thereafter. Surely a terminal illness warrants mention, rather than ascribed 'not applicable'. Sorry but that effectively means 'none'.

Mumio said:

laurarichardson said:

If you want to believe Tyka is lying go ahead. Not sure why you are so pressed about it.

There's several here that are battling this out like they have stock shares in the outcome. Ridiculous.

Well, when you read some of the wacko stuff on here you do have to do some fact-checking.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Well, when you read some of the wacko stuff on here you do have to do some fact-checking.

I am GOOD with believing what his sister said. There's also been other info out there that completely fits in with this. What I won't be doing though is arguing over this. She's given an answer and she knows better than most people.

A terminal illness is not applicable to the cause of Ps death.

It would NOT be on the short form.

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

How many times have you been told the short report will not include other health issues if they did not directly cause his death?

Any addtional information concerning his health would be in the long report which we are never going to see and I suspect Prince was well aware of this thus not dying from illness but by taking too many meds.

If you want to believe Tyka is lying go ahead. Not sure why you are so pressed about it.

LOL. I myself made reference to an illness needing to contribute directly to his death in order to qualify as a 'cause of death'. You must have me confused with someone else. Either that, or you're making stuff up

Now for digging into the nuance....

If his illness was terminal it would definitely have qualifed for inclusion on autopsist's short report. This is why: if he is at death's door from long-standing illness, how can the ME possibly deem it not worthy of mention. How can a terminal illness be deemed 'not applicable' in respect of 'Other significant conditions'. I'll explain further...

Remember, the ME's short-form report' - 'Other significant conditions' text does NOT come under bolded heading 'Cause' and the four underlines, only one of which is filled in - 'fentanyl' (i.e. direct causes). If you pay more attention, you'll realise that 'other significant conditions' indicate INDIRECT causes of death, which could be a terminal illness. Really think about what 'Other significant conditions' means before you next post. To iterate, there are 4 underlines under 'cause' - which is a lot by any stretch of the imagination - and then 'other significant conditions' follow thereafter. Surely a terminal illness warrants mention, rather than ascribed 'not applicable'. Sorry but that effectively means 'none'.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Nope.

"None" and "Not Applicable" have two different meanings in the legal world.

His autopsy report said "N/A"

fortuneandserendipity said:

Don't forget as well, short autopsy report says under 'Cause of death - other significant conditions: not applicable'. Meaning effectively, no terminal illness contributed to his death.

How can it be any clearer? If an illness had signicantly contributed IT WOULD BE on that form!

[Edited 10/25/17 12:58pm]

Surely a terminal illness warrants mention, rather than ascribed 'not applicable'. Sorry but that effectively means 'none'. Also, why does LR accuse people of saying things they didn't.

As I have said above there is a legal distinction between none and not applicable.

I know this, trust me.

fortuneandserendipity said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Nope.

"None" and "Not Applicable" have two different meanings in the legal world.

His autopsy report said "N/A"

[Edited 10/25/17 12:58pm]

Surely a terminal illness warrants mention, rather than ascribed 'not applicable'. Sorry but that effectively means 'none'. Also, why does LR accuse people of saying things they didn't.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

A terminal illness is not applicable to the cause of Ps death.

It would NOT be on the short form.

fortuneandserendipity said:

LOL. I myself made reference to an illness needing to contribute directly to his death in order to qualify as a 'cause of death'. You must have me confused with someone else. Either that, or you're making stuff up

Now for digging into the nuance....

If his illness was terminal it would definitely have qualifed for inclusion on autopsist's short report. This is why: if he is at death's door from long-standing illness, how can the ME possibly deem it not worthy of mention. How can a terminal illness be deemed 'not applicable' in respect of 'Other significant conditions'. I'll explain further...

Remember, the ME's short-form report' - 'Other significant conditions' text does NOT come under bolded heading 'Cause' and the four underlines, only one of which is filled in - 'fentanyl' (i.e. direct causes). If you pay more attention, you'll realise that 'other significant conditions' indicate INDIRECT causes of death, which could be a terminal illness. Really think about what 'Other significant conditions' means before you next post. To iterate, there are 4 underlines under 'cause' - which is a lot by any stretch of the imagination - and then 'other significant conditions' follow thereafter. Surely a terminal illness warrants mention, rather than ascribed 'not applicable'. Sorry but that effectively means 'none'.

Look at the form. 'Other significant conditions' doesn't imply to me direct cause. Cause is in 'bold' font, as are numbers 1 through 4. 'Other significant conditions' does not appear bolded. Unless you know something i don't regarding minnesotan law, I don't see why a terminal issue does not merit mention as an indirect cause of death. There is no such mention, so i believe he wasn't suffering from anything terminal.

fortuneandserendipity said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

A terminal illness is not applicable to the cause of Ps death.

It would NOT be on the short form.

Look at the form. 'Other significant conditions' doesn't imply to me direct cause. Cause is in 'bold' font, as are numbers 1 through 4. 'Other significant conditions' does not appear bolded. Unless you know something i don't regarding minnesotan law, I don't see why a terminal issue does not merit mention as an indirect cause of death. There is no such mention, so i believe he wasn't suffering from anything terminal.

No, he wasn't. She is so much full of shit Tyka. She is changing his narrative. Only Andre can verify all of the information and I trust this man.

fortuneandserendipity said:

If Tyka knows something that noone else does, it's a bit fucked up. I mean it's been 18 months, but in the interview she appears to be saying 'Wait for the book. The book will reveal all!'

In Sharon's Q & A, she acted like she didn't know.

In my career I have reviewed numerous autopies, I have cross-examined medical examiners, and I have used medical examiners as expert witnesses (for both criminal and civil cases). On a short form autopsy only the direct cause of death will be listed and underlying conditions will not be listed.

fortuneandserendipity said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

A terminal illness is not applicable to the cause of Ps death.

It would NOT be on the short form.

Look at the form. 'Other significant conditions' doesn't imply to me direct cause. Cause is in 'bold' font, as are numbers 1 through 4. 'Other significant conditions' does not appear bolded. Unless you know something i don't regarding minnesotan law, I don't see why a terminal issue does not merit mention as an indirect cause of death. There is no such mention, so i believe he wasn't suffering from anything terminal.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

A terminal illness is not applicable to the cause of Ps death.

It would NOT be on the short form.

fortuneandserendipity said:

LOL. I myself made reference to an illness needing to contribute directly to his death in order to qualify as a 'cause of death'. You must have me confused with someone else. Either that, or you're making stuff up

Now for digging into the nuance....

If his illness was terminal it would definitely have qualifed for inclusion on autopsist's short report. This is why: if he is at death's door from long-standing illness, how can the ME possibly deem it not worthy of mention. How can a terminal illness be deemed 'not applicable' in respect of 'Other significant conditions'. I'll explain further...

Remember, the ME's short-form report' - 'Other significant conditions' text does NOT come under bolded heading 'Cause' and the four underlines, only one of which is filled in - 'fentanyl' (i.e. direct causes). If you pay more attention, you'll realise that 'other significant conditions' indicate INDIRECT causes of death, which could be a terminal illness. Really think about what 'Other significant conditions' means before you next post. To iterate, there are 4 underlines under 'cause' - which is a lot by any stretch of the imagination - and then 'other significant conditions' follow thereafter. Surely a terminal illness warrants mention, rather than ascribed 'not applicable'. Sorry but that effectively means 'none'.

It IS applicable. It would explain why he was taking fentanyl/other opiates.

^ this stands.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

In my career I have reviewed numerous autopies, I have cross-examined medical examiners, and I have used medical examiners as expert witnesses (for both criminal and civil cases). On a short form autopsy only the direct cause of death will be listed and underlying conditions will not be listed.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Look at the form. 'Other significant conditions' doesn't imply to me direct cause. Cause is in 'bold' font, as are numbers 1 through 4. 'Other significant conditions' does not appear bolded. Unless you know something i don't regarding minnesotan law, I don't see why a terminal issue does not merit mention as an indirect cause of death. There is no such mention, so i believe he wasn't suffering from anything terminal.

In that case, do you work in Minnesota? Are all states the same? You do understand, to a layman, that 'Other significant conditions' points to underlying causes, which obviously include painful conditions that in turn incur fentanyl and opiate use.

Why even have 'Other significant conditions' on there if it's always going to be marked N/A ?! Makes no sense. Because, if terminal illnesses are excluded, then wtf is the point?

fortuneandserendipity said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

A terminal illness is not applicable to the cause of Ps death.

It would NOT be on the short form.

It IS applicable. It would explain why he was taking fentanyl/other opiates.

Not necessarily. Prince could have had an addiction to opiates for awhile and around 2013/2014, have an unrelated illness, potentially terminal, diagnosed. It could then explain why that illness was not on the short form, since P didn't die from that illness but rather a fentanyl overdose. He may have been taking opiates for pain and not necessarily for the terminal illness. IMHO.

[Edited 10/25/17 15:44pm]

They're a bit too funny for what's at stake.
But this thread shows a lot of clever people opinions.
At least it helps me process several possiblities,
none of them are easy but it's helpful,
in absence of indisputable truths.

[Edited 10/25/17 15:43pm]