True or not?

nick
nick

7:17 PM - Dec 14, 2005 #1

Although Betty Ting Pei, Dr Chu and Raymond Chow all testified that Bruce appeared to be sleeping peacefully/normally at Betty's flat, when he arrived at Queens Elizabeth Hospital his hair was plastered to his head with sweat, his body and clothes were soaked through. Is this correct?
Quote
Share

tom bleecker
tom bleecker

10:35 PM - Dec 14, 2005 #2

>Although Betty Ting Pei, Dr Chu and Raymond Chow all testified that Bruce appeared to be sleeping peacefully/normally at Betty's flat, when he arrived at Queens Elizabeth Hospital his hair was plastered to his head with sweat, his body and clothes were soaked through. Is this correct?<

I can't recall if that's correct but, regardless, I don't understand the connection between Bruce being wet and his sleeping. Is the connection you're wanting to make that if Bruce were dead at Betty's, then he couldn't have been sweating? Calling Tom Britt!

With regard to Bruce being wet, keep in mind that that evening there was a raging typhoon pounding Hong Kong. I've been at Betty's apartment, and the trek between her front door and where the ambulance would have parked is uncovered. I think in all probability the cause of Bruce (and his clothes) being wet would have been the torrential rain. Unless, of course, one of the attendants walking alongside with an umbrella (ala Michael Jackson), which I highly doubt.

Second, if you're suggesting that Bruce being wet is indication of his having a fever, this isn't necessarily a given. Patients with fevers usually don't sweat. They're just warm to the touch. They do, occasionally, however, sweat when they break a fever.

Best
Quote
Share

nick
nick

6:41 PM - Dec 15, 2005 #3

do you think Bruce went straight in to coma on July 20? therefore different to the events that happened on May 10th - having a fit, bathed in sweat etc ? Wouldn't the brain swelling be extremely painful?
Quote
Share

tom bleecker
tom bleecker

6:52 PM - Dec 15, 2005 #4

>do you think Bruce went straight in to coma on July 20? therefore different to the events that happened on May 10th - having a fit, bathed in sweat etc ?<

Hard to say. It makes sense that had he had a seizure in Betty's apartment, all hell would have broken loose and Betty would have been incapable of handling him; I mean, her bedroom would have been thrashed, one would think.

>Wouldn't the brain swelling be extremely painful?<

Not being a doctor, I can only comment superficially. The brain is unlike most of the body in that it doesn't have pain sensors. Neurosurgeons can literally operate on a person's brain without anesthesia. That said, Bruce did complain of a headache, which I'm assuming was caused by the increased pressure. I know that when I've had too much alcohol, in the early morning hours I get a headache from too little water in my brain. That would lead me to believe that the brain must have some sort of nerve network. In any case, I think it's fair to assume that the tragic events of May 10th and July 20th are directly related. There are just too many common physical factors.

Best
Quote
Share

TB
TB

6:54 PM - Dec 15, 2005 #5

well, I suppose "Nice Nick" is better. And being so close to Christmas, maybe "Saint Nice Nick" is even better!

Cheers
Quote
Share

Tom Britt
Tom Britt

1:59 AM - Dec 16, 2005 #6

>Although Betty Ting Pei, Dr Chu and Raymond Chow all testified that Bruce appeared to be sleeping peacefully/normally at Betty's flat, when he arrived at Queens Elizabeth Hospital his hair was plastered to his head with sweat, his body and clothes were soaked through. Is this correct?<

I can't recall if that's correct but, regardless, I don't understand the connection between Bruce being wet and his sleeping. Is the connection you're wanting to make that if Bruce were dead at Betty's, then he couldn't have been sweating? Calling Tom Britt!

With regard to Bruce being wet, keep in mind that that evening there was a raging typhoon pounding Hong Kong. I've been at Betty's apartment, and the trek between her front door and where the ambulance would have parked is uncovered. I think in all probability the cause of Bruce (and his clothes) being wet would have been the torrential rain. Unless, of course, one of the attendants walking alongside with an umbrella (ala Michael Jackson), which I highly doubt.

Second, if you're suggesting that Bruce being wet is indication of his having a fever, this isn't necessarily a given. Patients with fevers usually don't sweat. They're just warm to the touch. They do, occasionally, however, sweat when they break a fever.

Best
>With regard to Bruce being wet, keep in mind that that evening there was a raging typhoon pounding Hong Kong<

Click on the link below and you will see that "Typhoon Dot" made landfall in HK on July 17, 1973 as a category two typhoon. She rapidly weakend to a tropical depression. On the 18th of July she moved off the China coast just North of Taiwan.

She rapidly picked up speed and moved North. On July 20, 1973 she again made landfall (as a tropical depression) on the island of Cheju-Do, South Korea. Cheju-Do is about 800 miles from HK. When you click on the link, scroll down to read all about "Dot".

http://www.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc/atcr/197 ... wnp/05.pdf

Here is another page, this one is in color.

http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typho ... 05.html.en

Keep in mind, the numbers are the dates. 17 is July 17th at Hong Kong, 20 is July 20th at Cheju-Do, South Korea.

If Bruce was wet, it was not due to a typhoon. Calling Tom Bleecker.
Quote
Share

TRUTH
TRUTH

4:01 AM - Dec 16, 2005 #7

Bruce ingested a poison and he reacted as such. Sweats, headache, vomiting, ending with the result of a congestive rectum and nasal airways, all points to poison, poisons like pesticides, etc. Back in the 70's pesticides were being used all the time on farms for vegetation and it would have been easy to get at high doses none diluted and poison someone slowly.
Quote
Share

TB to TB
TB to TB

6:02 AM - Dec 16, 2005 #8

>With regard to Bruce being wet, keep in mind that that evening there was a raging typhoon pounding Hong Kong<

Click on the link below and you will see that "Typhoon Dot" made landfall in HK on July 17, 1973 as a category two typhoon. She rapidly weakend to a tropical depression. On the 18th of July she moved off the China coast just North of Taiwan.

She rapidly picked up speed and moved North. On July 20, 1973 she again made landfall (as a tropical depression) on the island of Cheju-Do, South Korea. Cheju-Do is about 800 miles from HK. When you click on the link, scroll down to read all about "Dot".

http://www.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc/atcr/197 ... wnp/05.pdf

Here is another page, this one is in color.

http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typho ... 05.html.en

Keep in mind, the numbers are the dates. 17 is July 17th at Hong Kong, 20 is July 20th at Cheju-Do, South Korea.

If Bruce was wet, it was not due to a typhoon. Calling Tom Bleecker.
>If Bruce was wet, it was not due to a typhoon. Calling Tom Bleecker.<

Well, if not a typhoon, then rain. Yes, that's it. Rain. I'm positive it was rain. And as I recall there was a report that suggested that some of those raindrops came from typhoon Dorothy. I mean, they had been whipping around the atmosphere for days and hadn't been carried off to Korea, so in a sense it was typhoon rain. Not all of it, mind you, just some of it. But it was a typhoon that tore that ornament from Bruce's roof on the 19th?

Anyway, I commend you for a great piece of investigative work. No question that you're correct, and here's why -- the night that Bruce died, Linda made a statement to the press that he had died while walking beside her in their garden. Who would stroll through their garden with a typhoon raging overhead? Well, now that I think about it, you probably would, but you've always been in a class all by yourself. Onward, lad!

Happy holidays. I hope Santa leaves you his customary lump of coal in your stocking.
Quote
Share

TB or not TB
TB or not TB

7:13 PM - Dec 16, 2005 #9

Arguing over a dead man.

Something wrong there.
Quote
Share

tom bleecker
tom bleecker

7:57 PM - Dec 16, 2005 #10

>Arguing over a dead man. Something wrong there.<

I wouldn't say anyone is arguing, but simply engaged in a debate in a quest for the truth. If you think about it, such debates go on every day in every police department, district attorney's and defense counsel's office, courtroom, and forensics lab throughout the world. And as far as investigative journalism, the bookshelves are filled with books that address the deaths of hundreds of notable people - Monroe, Kennedy(s), Jon Benet Ramsey, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman - I could add appreciably to this list. In my view, what would be wrong is to simply dismiss an individual's suspicious death simply because he or she died.

Happy holidays
Quote
Share