Elvis Decoded

Aaron...Spelling - The Final Word

2011-12-14T19:41:00.003-05:00

From the August 15, 1972, property settlement agreement, signed by Elvis Aaron Presley, clear proof that Elvis acknowledged the double-A spelling, and signed his name accordingly. This double-A spelling and signature should resolve the "Aron or Aaron?" question.

The Pharmacist...And The Doctor

2011-09-01T15:18:00.022-04:00

The Pharmacist...

And The Doctor...(from "The King and Dr. Nick," page 175)...

Ginger Alden Reconsidered

2011-07-06T13:22:00.004-04:00

I’d like to add one final word on the Ginger Alden Revisited topics I’ve discussed at the links below. Over the years, Ms. Alden has been attacked and maligned by many Elvis fans often because of the stories told by those who wanted to cast her in a very negative light. But if you take away these biased claims, and read an unbiased account of what happened at Graceland that day, the facts look very different.

Consider the eyewitness account from paramedic Ulysses Jones, for example. In a conversation with a longtime friend and trusted source of mine, Jones stated the following regarding Ginger Alden’s appearance and demeanor when he entered Elvis’s upstairs suite on August 16, 1977 (this quote is from my source after speaking with Mr. Jones several years ago):

“He [Jones] said that he noticed Ginger several times while they were there, and that, no doubt in his mind, she was not dressed and ‘made up,’ she was very distraught, had obviously been crying a lot, and was still dressed in, he thought, either a very pale yellow or maybe light blue robe. I asked him about three or four different times whether he was sure that she was not already dressed and he stated emphatically that there was no doubt in his mind about that.”

Jones was an objective, unbiased party to these events, and he spoke about the situation with no personal involvement or investment outside of his duties as a paramedic that day, and he had no reason to lie or shade the truth about what he witnessed. Jones was there. Was Dick Grob? No. Was Dean Nichopoulos? No. Were “the maids”? No.

8/16/77: Ginger Alden Revisited

2011-06-16T13:27:00.032-04:00

UPDATE (07/06/11): Ginger Alden Revisited, Part II, is linked below.

On August 16, 1977, Ginger Alden (Elvis's fiancée) was with Elvis in his upstairs suite, and at 2:20 that afternoon she found his lifeless body on the floor of the bathroom. Since then, Ginger's actions that day have been described in various ways, most of which are very much at odds with the facts. With Ginger's long-awaited book in the works, I am going to revisit this topic in the hope that by the time the book is published, at least some fans will be able to approach it with a clearer understanding of what really happened that day, and a fairer and more reasonable view of Ginger's involvement in the day's events.

Part I is here.

Part II is here.

Vernon & The Autopsy Permission Form

2011-06-05T19:47:00.014-04:00

The autopsy permission form was taken from Baptist Memorial Hospital to Graceland shortly after Elvis was pronounced dead on August 16, 1977. The form was to be presented to Vernon Presley for his signature, and information about the autopsy procedure would at that time be provided and explained to him. But right before this discussion took place, Vernon had to have been notified that Elvis was dead. Who told him? And who then talked to him about the autopsy? My analysis is linked here.

UPDATE (6/10/11): Further comments on the autopsy permission form from Dr. Nichopoulos, illustrating that it was apparently he who initiated and handled the situation, not Dick Grob:

Nichopoulos: “…it was left to me to break the news to Vernon that his boy was dead.”

When Nichopoulos told Vernon that Elvis had died: “Vernon heard me without understanding the meaning of my pronouncement.”

Dr. Nichopoulos notes that Vernon initially refused to grant permission for the autopsy, but that he was persuaded by Dr. Nichopoulos’s plea that he needed to “know if I did something wrong.”

Dr. Nichopoulos says he walked away from Vernon after Vernon refused to grant permission for the autopsy, but that Vernon then called after him, instructing Nichopoulos to make sure they “put my boy back together.” Nichopoulos does not mention the autopsy permission form.

Nichopoulos: “I took an authorization from the emergency room and went out to Elvis’s house to tell his daddy what had happened…”

Nichopoulos: “I don’t recall [seeing Dick Grob at the hospital]. I don’t remember whether he was in town or not.”

Nichopoulos states that he decided an autopsy should be performed, that he got the autopsy permission form from a nurse, and that he would tell Vernon and Minnie Mae [Elvis’s grandmother] about Elvis’s death.

Nichopoulos says that, “…I related the news to them [Vernon, Minnie Mae, and others in the room], and I talked about things for awhile. And then somewhere in the course of events, I asked him for permission for an autopsy, which he granted.”

At no time does Nichopoulos mention anything about Dick Grob dealing with the autopsy permission form, nor speaking with Vernon at Graceland. And while these statements from Nichopoulos are not totally consistent from account to account, they nonetheless are consistent on the overall narrative.

Review: The Post Mortem Documents

2011-04-20T16:54:00.018-04:00

Over the years there has been continuing confusion in public resources (books, articles, message boards, etc.) as to the documents relating to Elvis’s death. These documents are the autopsy report, the Medical Examiner’s report, the death certificate, and the Permission for Autopsy form. Below is an overview of the facts pertaining to each, and how they are different:

The Autopsy Report: This report (Postmortem #A77-160) was put together by the Baptist Memorial Hospital pathologists who performed the autopsy. The autopsy report is not a public document; it was prepared for the Presley family and is the property of the Presley family. It is not “under seal,” nor is it, as a private medical record, subject to judicial seal. Because the autopsy report is a private medical record, it will not be released at any time.

The Medical Examiner’s Report: This is the 2-page report signed and submitted by the Shelby County Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Francisco. This document is officially titled, “Report of Investigation by County Medical Examiner,” and is designated Case #77-1944. This 2-page report is not the autopsy report.

The Death Certificate: This is the death certificate completed and signed by Dr. Francisco and filed with the state of Tennessee. Per Tennessee statute, death certificates become public documents at the end of a 50-year period, which means this document will be released in 2027. The death certificate, while not available to the public, is not “under seal,” but is simply not a public document based on Tennessee law.

The Permission for Autopsy Form: This is the form (BMH #29-51) signed by Vernon Presley to grant permission for the autopsy. The signing of the form was witnessed by Dr. George C. Nichopoulos and Richard H. Grob.

The Autopsy Photographer

2011-03-26T20:16:00.007-04:00

I had a very interesting conversation this afternoon with the person who took the Elvis autopsy photos on the evening of August 16, 1977. We discussed where at Baptist Memorial Hospital the photos were taken, what the photos show, the film developing process, and several other topics related to this photographer's job that day.

Cranial Autopsy - The Body of Evidence

2011-01-11T13:09:00.005-05:00

There has been debate for years on whether a cranial procedure had been performed as part of the autopsy. Based on my research, I have concluded that yes, this procedure was done.

My analysis is linked here.

"Jesse" Makes A Mistake

2010-12-04T18:49:00.011-05:00

The character of “Jesse,” as we see “him” in the public domain, is a composite personification of all the beliefs held by the alivers. He talks about his devotion to numerology, how August 16, 1977, was a “hoax” (but not really) planned by Colonel Parker, and how he was a super crime-fighter, even assisting the Feds in the last year or so of his life. Alivers contend that Elvis was caught up in the FBI investigation into the sale of his JetStar airplane, which was part of a larger investigation known as Operation Fountain Pen. In Dr. Hinton’s book, “Jesse” plays the role of the aliver version of Elvis perfectly, even commenting on his decision not to enter the Witness Protection Program (due to the mythical danger he was in, of course, and the alleged threats against his life and possibly the lives of family members). On page 47 of Hinton’s book, from one of the many letters to Hinton from “Jesse,” we find the following comment:

“…I chose not to be in the Witness Protection program…”

Here, “Jesse” is playing the aliver version of Elvis, the Elvis that had to escape the dangers that faced him in August 1977. But what this comment really tells us is that whomever is playing the role of “Jesse” in this ridiculous con-game is *NOT* Elvis Presley, because as I outlined in my September 30 post, Elvis never knew about Operation Fountain Pen, nor the specific investigation into the JetStar deal. Thus, he was never a witness. He was never threatened. He was never in any danger. His family was never in any danger. And because of this, the Witness Protection program was never even part of the story. Why would they offer “witness protection” to someone who was never a witness, and knew nothing of the investigation?

If "Jesse" were Elvis, he would know all of this.

To all thinking people, this is a clear and very revealing error made by the con artists playing this ridiculous “Jesse” game.

DNA: Sleight of Hand

2010-11-29T21:02:00.021-05:00

It's April 2008. Who is "Eliza Presley"?

Deecoded - Dee Presley's Letter

2010-11-15T14:26:00.011-05:00

This is a transcription of the letter Dee Presley wrote on October 28, 2010, to Sam Coplin regarding the eBook released under her name in July, 2010. The third page (the second post script) was likely added later, and intended for someone else. In [brackets] are words that I am not sure of, or the proper spelling of a name or word.

The letter can be found at Elvis Express Radio.

Page 1

Sam-

I am still [in_sting / in _sting] the release of the material that was released in July 2010 which I called you about. I was not aware it even existed until 10/27/10. I called Barnes and Noble and came up with this information. You and Phillip [Scheldt] name [are] [showing] up and me as the authorized authors, I have never or I will never publish or allow any more "sensation" [sensational?] material to be released using my name in any way. I am trying to find out who made a contract to market this. I have not signed any contract with you or any one [releasing] an electronic book.

Page 2

I am seeking legal advice at this time hoping to see what options I have. I trust you might be also interested since at this time you and Phillip [Scheldt] seem to be [involved], you told me yesterday you had nothing to do with any contracts or any marketing of the material - I hope not -

I want this stopped immediately.

Thanks

Dee Presley

P.S. I just was informed by someone working on [cleaning/clearing] this up that Phillip Scheldt – stated on the [website] he was representing me – I never heard of him until this came up or have I ever been in any working relationship with him.

Page 3

P.S. I am still waiting to hear from Sam Coplin, he has not replied or sent any information – who sold the material, or to whom, or any contracts signed by me, I will keep you informed and post any messages from him or his partner – Phillip?? Also I don’t have any working contract with him on any book material.

I am sorry, needless to say as you already know when I put him on notice my plan to seek legal advice and find out who is responsible for the embarrassment and agony this has caused me and my family. It was immediately stopped but I feel the damage [was] already done.

I only wish I had known earlier. We are still [searching].

[Handwriting at end of page cannot be read.]

UPDATES - November 11, 2010

2010-11-11T14:58:00.005-05:00

Two updates today:

"Dee Stanley's eBook" is updated here.

"EP & OPFOPEN - A House of Cards?" is updated here.

Pop Odyssey Radio - October 28, 2010

2010-10-27T15:15:00.005-04:00

Cory Cooper and I will be on Gary Patterson's radio show on Thursday, October 28, 2010, at 9:00pm EDT. This will be a 2-hour segment and we will be discussing a variety of Elvis topics.

http://popodysseyradio.com/

Dee Stanley's eBook

2010-10-22T14:41:00.007-04:00

UPDATE (11-11-10): I have finally finished reading and digesting this book, as it was tough to get through considering the multiple flaws. I am now very curious about who published this eBook, and how the book was released, given the statement from Dee Stanley that she had nothing to do with it. I am also interested to see how this mess is reconciled with the Stanley brothers' statements: David denies any connection to the book (but does not deny knowledge of it prior to publication); Rick denies any knowledge of the book; and Billy says he knew about the book and tried to stop its publication. If Billy is telling the truth, are we also to believe that over the past 3 months or so since the book's release, that no one bothered to mention it to David and Rick? Very strange.

10/22/10: Against Marty Lacker's sage advice, and against my better judgment, I am now reading the "book" that Dee Stanley put out a few months ago. Really.

EP & OPFOPEN - A House of Cards?

2010-09-30T18:02:00.016-04:00

UPDATE (11-11-10): At some point I hope to post a full analysis and commentary on the OPFOPEN case based on my discussions with the retired FBI agent who initiated and worked undercover on the case. For now, however, there are several key pieces of information to consider, all of which come straight from this FBI agent:

1. Elvis Presley was not involved in any way with OPFOPEN. In fact, Elvis never knew about OPFOPEN.

2. Vernon Presley did not know about OPFOPEN until after Elvis's death on August 16, 1977, which means that while Elvis was alive, neither Vernon nor Elvis knew of this active FBI investigation.

3. Elvis Presley's life was never in danger due to the OPFOPEN case, nor was he threatened by anyone involved in this case.

These three points are critical in evaluating the many claims pertaining to Elvis's alleged (mythical) role in federal law enforcement, especially in the last year or so of his life.

9/30/10: Elvis fans for years have suggested Elvis was actively involved in the FBI's OPFOPEN case—an acronym for the FBI’s international undercover case called, “Operation Fountain Pen”—and in 1977 he was in fear for his life. The claims, stories, and myths are numerous and the tales of intrigue never-ending.

But is the story true? Did Elvis help Bureau undercover agents pursue certain Organized Crime and White-Collar-Crime figures determined to use “offshore banks” and “bogus” securities to bring about economic havoc here, in the United States, and abroad? Was Elvis working behind the scenes on the JetStar deal gone awry? Speaking with the retired FBI agent who initiated and worked undercover on the OPFOPEN case, the short answer is "No." But, he said, there are details Elvis fans might be interested in learning.

UPDATE: Aaron...Spelling, Part II

2010-09-27T16:06:00.002-04:00

Aaron...Spelling, Part II, has been updated with another image showing the double-A spelling of Elvis's middle name prior to August 1977. This document is from 1972.

Alice McFarland and Fox 8 News

2010-08-19T16:30:00.008-04:00

This is a Non-Disclosure Agreement purportedly entered into between Fox 8 News and "Eliza Presley." Can anyone point out the most glaring anomaly, among so many other problems with the document?

Note that this agreement pertains to the "commercial value" of shared information.

January, 1978: The Poolhouse

2010-06-17T11:51:00.004-04:00

My latest commentary on the poolhouse door and whether Al Strada would have been at Graceland in January 1978 is posted here.

Updates...

2010-06-09T16:47:00.001-04:00

Updates coming soon on the poolhouse photo (the iron bars visible in the top part of the door, and the timeframe of Al Strada's post-August 1977 employment with the estate), the question of the cranial autopsy, and perhaps a few dollar figures on the costs associated with Elvis's funeral. These updates are based on follow-up research relevant to topics that are discussed in Elvis Decoded.

Busted

2010-05-08T22:06:00.018-04:00

Yet another example of an aliver con-job. Elvis in 1975, on the left; a man the alivers have claimed for years is Elvis post-1977, on the right.

"Put your head on my shoulders."

UPDATE (5/12/10): Commentary is posted here.

Elvis Decoded on Facebook

2010-05-02T00:13:00.000-04:00

Elvis Decoded is now on Facebook.

The Billy Stanley Set-Up

2010-04-21T15:57:00.005-04:00

Billy Stanley (one of Elvis's stepbrothers) has recently stated in an interview with Discovering Elvis that he feels he was set up when he was approached about the identity of the man in the infamous Muhammad Ali/Jesse Jackson photo. Stanley was asked by an aliver to identify the man, and not knowing that the photo was taken in 1984, Stanley replied that the man was Elvis Presley.

Was Billy Stanley really set up, as he claims, or is there another explanation? My commentary on this question is posted here.

Rejected: The Lloyds of London Insurance Claim

2010-03-20T22:44:00.054-04:00

One of the standard "go-to" pieces of evidence the alivers use to prove/support the death hoax is the Lloyds of London insurance policy, which they claim was purchased but never cashed/paid out. Thus, they reason, the insurance policy supports the hoaxed death theory since Elvis and the estate would be guilty of insurance fraud if the policy had been paid out.

First, this policy was never purchased.

Second, this theory ignores the fact that Elvis Presley and his family had multiple insurance policies that would have been affected upon Elvis’s death. Or, are we to believe that one the biggest earners in the entertainment industry had just one insurance policy? Really? Just one?

Finally, this piece of evidence, like so many other pieces of evidence offered up by the alivers, is researched only so far as it supports their death hoax theory. Once they decide a fact supports their theory, they stop researching. In this case, someone (who?) reports that a life insurance policy is still active, and well, that’s good enough for them. No research into whether the policy was purchased. No research into who reported that a life insurance policy was purchased. No research into how this information was obtained (since insurers closely protect customers’ medical and insurance information). No research into other insurance policies, and whether they were cashed or are still active.

Nothing.

To make a long story short, the estate deposited a lump sum death benefit check from the United States Treasury on February 21, 1978. This eliminates the "Lloyds of London" theory the alivers use to support a death hoax, since this check represents a financial benefit for the estate as a direct result of the death.

Delusions: 74

2010-02-12T13:49:00.017-05:00

Several months ago I sat down to go over the Petition for Paternity that was filed by "Eliza Presley" with the Chancery Court, and part of that examination led me to review a few other documents and photos that have surfaced over the past year or two. One of these is an image that shows a title page from one of Dr. Hinton's books with two signatures just below the title. One of the signatures reads "Elvis Presley," while the other reads, "Jesse Presley." After the "Jesse Presley" signature, we see the added notation, "age 74." This title page is from the book that "Eliza Presley" was trying to sell on her website in 2009, an offer that has since been withdrawn.

Several questions come to mind when contemplating this title page with these two signatures, and the "age 74" notation:

Since when does a celebrity, in the course of signing an autograph, also write his or her age? Has anyone seen an autograph from George Clooney that reads, "George Clooney age 48"? What about an autograph from Julia Roberts, signed, "Julia Roberts age 42"? Does the person who signed the name "Jesse Presley" and wrote "age 74" think that those people who have not already been indoctrinated into the strange labyrinth constructed by "the true believers" might somehow be convinced of the signature’s authenticity based on this "age 74" notation? That is, if the "age 74" note were not there, would there be some suspicion or question as to the identity of the signer? But that by adding "age 74," that suspicion would be alleviated, and the uninitiated would then conclude, "Oh, it says 'age 74' right here next to 'Jesse Presley,' so that means it had to have been signed by Elvis Presley, since Elvis would have been 74 years old when this signature was made." Is this "age 74" notation actually intended to convince people of the authenticity of these signatures?

Really now, how stupid, how gullible, how naïve, and how ignorant does the character of "Jesse" think people are? Does he/she really believe that "age 74" would be enough to change someone’s mind about this whole "Jesse" scheme?

Finally, "Jesse," whom we are told is really Elvis Presley, writes in the Hinton book that Elvis died in 1977, and that at the time of Elvis’s death, "Jesse" came to life. If that is the case, then why did “Jesse” write that he is 74? Shouldn’t the note have read, "age 32"?

Enquiring minds...

Aaron...Spelling, Part II

2010-01-30T18:14:00.010-05:00

In addition to the two documents cited previously, we also have an October 22, 1970, gun application that features the double-A spelling and the signature of Elvis A. Presley. This proves conclusively that Elvis was using the name "Aaron" long before Vernon used the double-A spelling on the grave marker.

UPDATE (9/27/10): Another example of the double-A spelling being used prior to August 1977 is posted below. This is from a Quitclaim Deed signed by Priscilla Presley on August 15, 1972.

Gladys Presley's Death Certificate

2010-01-29T15:39:00.027-05:00

I recently obtained a copy of Gladys Presley's death certificate. The cause of death listed in the document is in line with the cause of death reported to the public.

Harvey Team Lead

2010-01-26T13:20:00.009-05:00

I had the honor and privilege recently of discussing the resuscitation efforts on August 16, 1977, with the physician who led those efforts. I hope to be able to share his account in the future. The doctor was very generous with his description of the events, and the details he provided helped to clear up at least one long-standing question. Such a first-person account goes a long way in helping to understand what happened at Baptist Memorial Hospital that day.

Aaron...Spelling

2010-01-26T11:47:00.022-05:00

Conventional wisdom in the world of Elvis-is-Alive theorizing tells us that Elvis spelled his middle name "Aron" throughout his life, and that Vernon Presley just pulled the double-A spelling ("Aaron") out of thin air when Elvis died and he used that spelling on the grave marker. So, all these years, the suspicion by those who are suspicious of such things is that the double-A spelling is a sign that Elvis is not buried there, or that Elvis didn't die...since Elvis supposedly never used the double-A spelling.

Right?

Recently, I came across two legal documents, one from July 19, 1973, and the other from August 12, 1977...and both feature the double-A spelling of Elvis's middle name. Elvis did not sign either document, and Vernon signed only the 1977 document. However, Vernon signed a document that included the double-A spelling, and this is important. As Elvis's attorney-in-fact, Vernon signed for Elvis on many legal documents, and in signing this document Vernon validated the spelling of the name as "Aaron." That is, by signing the document with the double-A spelling, he had to have known that the spelling was valid, and the only way he could have known the spelling was valid is if Elvis had told him that "Aaron" could be used in place of "Aron." This lends support to Marty Lacker's claim that Elvis instructed his father to use the "Aaron" spelling starting sometime around 1966. Obviously, by signing his name to this document, Vernon was not concerned by the double-A spelling.

NOTE: Elvis granted his father Power of Attorney ("attorney-in-fact") on February 6, 1968, and then confirmed the continuation of this designation on February 23, 1977.

And, assuming these documents, and other legal documents from that time period, were later reviewed by Elvis's attorneys, we can safely assume that no one else objected to the use of the name "Aaron," either.

So, Vernon did NOT misspell the name as the "alivers" have alleged for so many years, and because the double-A spelling was used in an official capacity (i.e., legal documents) prior to August 16, 1977, the name was not just pulled out of a hat when Vernon was ordering the grave marker. We have the double-A spelling used on a document signed by Vernon just 4 days prior to Elvis's death, so Vernon had recognized the name "Aaron" before Elvis died.

And, lest we forget, the name "Aaron" also appears on a legal document as early as July 19, 1973, and certainly this document was read and reviewed for accuracy by Elvis's attorneys.

Vernon Presley's use of "Aaron" on the grave marker, then, is perfectly justified and is supported by at least two previous examples of the use of the double-A spelling.

Article in "Skeptical Briefs"

2010-01-25T14:39:00.023-05:00

UPDATE (7/13/10): The CSI article is now posted here, and is online at the CSI website here.

An article I wrote called "There's No Debate: Elvis Is Not Alive" has been published in The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry's December 2009 newsletter. The article in "Skeptical Briefs" will be posted here soon.

More Commentary on the Elvis-Is-Alive Claims

2010-01-02T21:56:00.023-05:00

Recently I was contacted via AllExperts.com by two people who are adamant in their belief that Elvis is alive and that he faked his death in 1977. The first submission is from a person who claims to be friends with Elvis Presley today, in 2010, and the other is from a person supporting the idea that Elvis is alive. (Another short submission from someone else asking about the claims is also included.) I am posting these pieces because collectively they introduce several important topics/angles to the "Elvis is alive" school of thought, and they allow me to address what I believe to be serious issues that are not often discussed in the "aliver" world. The links to these AllExperts.com submissions are here: Part I, Part II, Part III.

Latest Reading Material...

2009-09-15T13:42:00.007-04:00

...the Petition for Paternity filed by "Eliza Presley." An interesting document...and interesting DNA information. A lot of questions come to mind on this case.

Elvis Decoded - Book Images

2009-07-29T09:22:00.001-04:00

Images from the book are now permanently linked from the right side of the Elvis Decoded main page.

Disinformation: The Presley Report, Part III - The Replacement Body Theory

2009-05-15T11:17:00.036-04:00

UPDATE (6/5/09): Part III of my analysis of the Presley Commission's Presley Report (linked here) looks at the Commission's "replacement body" theory.

The "Disinformation" series is linked below.

Disinformation - The Sutured Thoracotomy is linked here. This analysis is also posted below.
Disinformation - The Presley Report - Part I is linked here.
Disinformation - The Presley Report - Part II is linked here.

Disinformation: The Presley Report, Part II

2009-04-25T22:29:00.035-04:00

Part II of my analysis of the Presley Commission's Presley Report picks up where Part I left off, looking at the Commission's claims pertaining to the autopsy, the Medical Examiner's report, etc. This section is linked here.

Disinformation: The Presley Report, Part I

2009-03-29T17:54:00.011-04:00

Part I of my analysis of the Presley Commission's investigation into the death of Elvis Presley is linked here. This section addresses the organizational aspect of the Presley Commission, as well as the Commission's stated purpose.

Disinformation: The Presley Report - Continued

2009-03-26T23:42:00.004-04:00

As I mentioned about a month ago, I will be posting further analyses and commentary on the Presley Commission's investigation and claims. Part I of this continuing examination will focus on the introductory section of the Presley Report, and Part II will address the medical and drug issues and theories as presented by the Presley Commission. Part III covers the Commission's contention that a "replacement body" was used as part of the death hoax, and Part IV will close the analysis. Part I of this series will be posted this weekend.

Judy Joy Jones Show - Interview Link

2009-03-18T22:54:00.007-04:00

I did an interview on the Judy Joy Jones Show this evening. The discussion focused on the death hoax theory, but from the perspective of whether a death hoax was possible (in terms of involvement, logistics, etc.). The interview is linked here.

Disinformation: The Presley Report - The Sutured Thoracotomy

2009-03-01T21:27:00.032-05:00

The Presley Commission took great offense at the Shelby County Medical Examiner’s reference to a “sutured thoracotomy” on page one of the 2-page Report of Investigation by County Medical Examiner. Their position was two-fold: 1) Since the thoracotomy was “sutured,” it could not have been a procedure performed on Elvis Presley’s body in the Emergency Room (they believe an opening in the chest wall on a cadaver would not be sewn up after the person had been declared dead), and, 2) The reason for this incision could not have been to access the interior chest (heart, lungs, etc.) because the incision was located at the ribs and thus would not allow for that type of access.

I believe this position clearly illustrates that the Presley Report was not the objective, truth-seeking operation is claimed to be, and that its sole purpose was/is to spread any and all information, rumors, conjecture, and/or theories that support only a faked death. It also proves that the Presley Commission did not objectively research the thoracotomy issue. What other conclusion can be reached? Five minutes of objective research on the thoracotomy procedure would have resolved the Commission’s questions pertaining to the procedure as outlined in the Medical Examiner’s report; instead, the Presley Commission, in typical conspiratorial mind-set, concluded that the procedure had sinister implications, and decided then and there that the body in the ER was not that of Elvis Presley.

Five minutes of research…that’s all it took. But the Presley Commission didn’t even do that. We must assume, then, that nothing in the Presley Report has been adequately researched or analyzed, if the thoracotomy analysis in any way exemplifies their approach to these topics and questions.

Let’s take a look at the Commission’s claims regarding the “sutured thoracotomy” that is mentioned in the 2-page Medical Examiner’s report:

“The next mark indicated on the drawing, is a ‘sutured thoracotomy.’ This is a small incision made in the space normally between the second and third rib. This technique is primarily used to drain fluids from the [thoracic] (chest) cavity, caused from excess fluid around the lungs, as in a case of pneumonia, for example. This is not a procedure used to insert a gloved hand, to perform cardiac massage. The spacing between the ribs measures in the centimeter range, and is [too] small to fit a hand into as indicated in some statements.”

Now, let’s compare the Presley Commission’s claims to the following information on a procedure called anterolateral thoracotomy:

“Anterolateral thoracotomy [the incision made to the front, and side] is performed upon the anterior [front] chest wall; left anterolateral thoracotomy is the incision of choice for open chest massage, a critical maneuver in the management of traumatic cardiac arrest. Anterolateral thoracotomy, like most surgical incisions, requires the use of tissue retractors - in this case, a ‘rib spreader' such as the Tuffier retractor." [This retractor is pictured above.]

So, simply stated, an anterolateral thoracotomy is an incision on the front left of the chest...exactly what was done in the E.R. during the resuscitation efforts. Based on this definition, we find two key pieces of information that counter and prove false the Presley Commission's claims: 1) the procedure is used for open chest massage (of the heart), and 2) the procedure may require a rib spreader, which allows access to the heart (meaning the small space between the ribs mentioned by the Commission is not relevant).

Why didn’t the Presley Commission locate this same information, since they claim to have researched and investigated these issues? The Presley Commission specifically states:

“This is not a procedure used to insert a gloved hand, to perform cardiac massage.”

And:

“The spacing between the ribs measures in the centimeter range, and is [too] small to fit a hand into…”

In fact, contrary to what the Presley Commissions states here, it is the exact procedure used to “insert a gloved hand…to perform cardiac massage.”

Further, consider the following, from SurgeryEncyclopedia.com:

“A resuscitative or emergency thoracotomy may be performed to resuscitate a patient who is near death as a result of a chest injury. An emergency thoracotomy provides access to the chest cavity to control injury-related bleeding from the heart, cardiac compressions to restore a normal heart rhythm, or to relieve pressure on the heart caused by cardiac tamponade (accumulation of fluid in the space between the heart's muscle and outer lining).

“In the case of an emergency thoracotomy, the procedure performed depends on the type and extent of injury. The heart may be exposed so that direct cardiac compressions can be performed; the physician may use one hand or both hands to manually pump blood through the heart.”

Based on the information above, it’s pretty clear that a thoracotomy is used to access the heart in a cardiac emergency. Does the Presley Commission tell us this? No. They tell us the exact opposite, even though the information above was and is readily available to any researcher.

The Presley Commission then writes:

“Once again, this invalidates the accuracy of this document. Another very significant term used, is ‘sutured.’ A cadaver is not sutured after a thoracotomy has been done. The tubing used is normally left in the body, and in some obscure cases, may be removed. In either case, there would not be a suture.”

Now, the Presley Commission in this passage is trying to convince the reader that they did the research on this subject, and thus have some authority to comment on how a thoracotomy is performed, and what steps are taken at the conclusion of the procedure. However, if they researched how a thoracotomy is performed, in terms of the removal of tubing and such (they reference only the draining of fluid as the reason for this procedure), then how did they miss the fact that this procedure is used for open cardiac massage (which they implicitly deny it is used for)? Interesting that they supposedly researched and analyzed this information, but only those facts that they believe support their conclusions actually made it into the Presley Report. The fact that a thoracotomy is used to access the heart apparently was not part of the research materials they consulted.

Since they are mistaken on what the procedure can be used for, their contention that the thoracotomy "invalidates the accuracy" of the Medical Examiner's report is without merit.

Also, on the question of whether a cadaver is sutured, we might consider the following, from the same source cited above:

“Once the procedure that required the incision is completed, the chest wall is closed. The layers of skin, muscle, and other tissues are closed with stitches or staples. If the breastbone was cut (as in the case of a median sternotomy), it is stitched back together with wire.”

This most likely refers to the closing of the wound after the patient has been successfully resuscitated. However, it is certainly possible that out of deference to a patient, who instead of being successfully resuscitated, has just died, the doctor would close the open wound. There is also the possibility that a wound like this would be sutured due to the chance of leakage during transport (when the body is removed from the ER).

To suggest that a thoracotomy incision is not (or is rarely) closed/sutured on a dead body, as the Commission contends, and then to conclude that such a closure has sinister implications, is absurd. Is a thoracotomy incision on a cadaver typically sutured? No, it's not. But, is a thoracotomy incision ever sutured? Of course it is. So, why is this such a puzzling question for the Presley Commission, that the thoracotomy incision in this case was sutured?

We continue with the Presley Commission’s analysis of the thoracotomy:

“This [the suturing, mentioned above] would indicate that this procedure had been done days prior to death, to still have the stitches in place, and noted. The various statements indicated that Elvis was very active, playing with Lisa, playing racquetball, and also singing; having sutures in that area of the chest would cause great risk of pulling and/or tearing the stitches out during any of the activities noted. If for argument sake, this was a sutured thoracotomy that had healed, it should have shown a ‘thoracotomy scar.’”

The chest wall had been accessed during resuscitation efforts, so the sutured incision noted at the autopsy was not referring to an opening in the chest made prior to August 16, 1977.

And, obviously, if Elvis had a sutured incision on the morning of the 16th, while he was still alive, he would have been taking things easy, in bed resting, or in the hospital. No one close to Elvis, including his own physician, has ever mentioned such a wound, nor that Elvis had undergone any recent surgical procedure in the days, weeks, or months prior to August 16, 1977.

To close, the facts from August 16, 1977, pertaining to the question of the sutured thoracotomy, are as follows:

3:00pm – 3:30pm: Elvis’s chest was accessed using the resuscitative thoracotomy procedure described above.

3:30pm (+): The opening in the chest was sutured after resuscitation efforts were ceased.

7:00pm (+): The sutured opening was noted during the autopsy and included in the Medical Examiner’s report.

Conclusion: There is nothing suspicious about the sutured thoracotomy as noted in the Medical Examiner's report, and the Presley Commission once again exhibits its suspicious inability to understand the facts.

Disinformation: The Presley Report

2009-02-21T22:47:00.033-05:00

Over the past year or so I have been researching various medical and legal issues as they pertain to Elvis Presley, and to the death of Elvis Presley. As part of this research, I have decided to re-visit the work of the Presley Commission, since so much of what I have been examining lately reminds me of the many flaws found in the Presley Report. As a reminder, the Presley Commission was formed in early 1992 “to determine if the theories about Elvis Presley’s reported death would maintain substance after intensive analysis and examination.” Their research and investigation were presented in late 1994 as “The Presley Report.”

I should note that I continue to work on the "Elvis is alive" phenomenon, even though I have made it clear that I do not believe there was a hoaxed death, for the simple reason that I am continually asked about it, and the topics won't seem to go away.

So, I would like to offer some analyses of the claims outlined in the Presley Report, and shine some light on just how much research these folks actually did. I’ll start with the opening section of the Presley Report, and then continue with the medical issues covered in the report.

We should note at the outset that at least two of the Commission’s members have a financial interest in this story, and specifically in the notion that the death hoax theories support and circumstantially prove the death hoax. Gail Brewer-Giorgio has written several books promoting the idea that Elvis faked his death, and Monte Nicholson likewise has written a book based on the same idea. The Presley Commission, then, included at least two people who were already decided on the case.

Most of the other members of the Presley Commission refuse to reveal their identities.

As I mentioned, Part I of this examination focuses on the introductory section of the Presley Report, and Part II addresses the medical and drug issues and theories as presented by the Presley Commission. Part III covers the “replacement body” theory, and Part IV closes the analysis. I will present this analysis using page numbers as reference, though the Presley Report itself does not include page numbers.

A separate section, where we will begin our look at The Presley Report, will cover the Commission's "sutured thoracotomy" claims.

UP NEXT: Disinformation: The Presley Report - The Sutured Thoracotomy.

Patrick Lacy Interview - March 7, 2009

2009-02-18T22:14:00.004-05:00

I will be doing an interview with Daniel Ott on The Edge AM (http://www.theedgeam.com/) on Saturday, March 7, 2009, at 8:15pm EST.

Patrick Lacy Interview - March 18, 2009

2009-02-15T15:05:00.002-05:00

I will be doing an interview with the Judy Joy Jones Show on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at 8:00pm EST / 5:00pm PST. A link to the show will be posted soon.

Purchase Elvis Decoded

2009-01-10T12:05:00.012-05:00

Elvis Decoded can be purchased online from the publisher's website by clicking the Elvis Decoded cover (to the left). The book can also be purchased at Amazon.com (here), Barnes & Noble (here), and Borders (here).

Elvis Decoded: A Brief Introduction

2008-12-22T14:39:00.011-05:00

Author Patrick Lacy has written a book that is long overdue: a detailed, in-depth examination of the facts and figures that permeate the many Elvis books, websites, articles, and public boards. He sorts through all the information and puts things in proper perspective.

Elvis Decoded also covers scores of other questions and topics that have been largely ignored or mishandled over the past 31 years. The author offers a unique perspective on the toughest questions and the most complicated issues in the Elvis Universe, and explains how things got so confusing.

Elvis Decoded - A Fan's Guide to Deciphering the Myths and Misinformation is presented in a Q&A format, and offers an examination and comparison of the numerous Elvis source materials.

Some of the topics covered in Elvis Decoded are:

-The cause of death
-The events at Graceland on August 16, 1977
-The “alive” conspiracy rumors, claims, and theories
-The Elvis-related scams and schemes
-The cemetery break-in
-Elvis’s drug use and health issues
-Elvis’s last will and testament

2008-12-18T11:34:00.003-05:00

Elvis Decoded Website Update

2008-10-01T00:08:00.018-04:00

The main Elvis Decoded webpage is moving to a new web hosting service, so updates, research, and commentary will be posted here on the Elvis Decoded Blog for the time being.

If you have questions about the book, or about the images that were posted on the main website, please contact me at elvisdecoded@aol.com.

Elvis Decoded can be purchased at the publisher's website (here), as well as at Amazon.com and other online retailers.

Elvis Decoded Nominated

2008-08-26T23:53:00.005-04:00

News Item from EIN:

Elvis Book Research announces latest nominees for inclusion in "Top 50 Elvis Books of All-Time": Dr John Walker from Elvis Book Research (EBR) advises EIN that the six latest books being considered for inclusion in the EBR Top 50 Elvis Books of All-Time list are:

Elvis '68 at 40 (Joseph A. Tunzi)
Elvis Cinema and Popular Culture (Douglas Brode)
Elvis Decoded (Patrick Lacy)
Elvis Presley: Rockin' Across Texas (Stanley Oberst/FTD)
Elvis Religion (Gregory Reece)
The Name Code II: The God of Elvis Vol. 1 (Christopher Byrnes Matthews)

[EBR is an independent group whose focus is on Elvis in print.]

August 21, 2008, news item from Elvis Information Network (EIN) @ http://www.elvisinfonet.com/.

More on Paul Terry King

2008-05-26T10:44:00.007-04:00

The latest inanity from Paul Terry King, a man who has no grasp of fact vs. fiction:

“Patrick I got a fact you may not understand { Copyright registration is not a nessasary condition of copyright} The songs I wrote with Elvis became reality upon fixation and creation in 1973. They have been registered uncontested for the last 16 years in the copyright office but only recently have been noticed in the Elvis World by their auction and sale to Elvis PresleyEnterprises. Better stop smoking crack with them book royaty checks and get your facts straight and tell us how many units have been sold cause I want a dollar a copy from your publisher for your constant character assasination of me here in this forum!”

1. Mr. King, the fact is, you have tried to convince people of the legitimacy of your claim by citing the copyright registration, which you contend proves that Elvis Presley co-wrote these songs with you. This is the evidence you refer to in support of your claim. The evidence you cite, however, is meaningless, so you have now tried to back-track and change your position.

2. You use the word “uncontested” here, which tells me you are still sticking to the fantasy that just because no one has questioned the registration, that means the registration is legitimate. However, here is yet another fact you refuse to accept: The information on the registration is false, and the Copyright Office does not investigate information submitted on copyright registrations. You can spin and twist this all you want, but the fact remains that your claim that Elvis Presley co-wrote these songs based on his name being listed on a copyright registration is pure nonsense…and an attempt to fool people, to boot.

3. The sale of the song to Elvis Presley Enterprises came about as part of a sale of other items, and the song was part of that deal. That EPE purchased the song means nothing as to your claim of authorship. This is a fact.

4. Fact: I have never said anything about your claims that is not true.

5. Fact: I have never posted on the Elvis Express Radio forum. Apparently you don’t even understand that my blog is not the EER forum.

Paul Terry King Still Doesn't Understand The Facts

2008-05-14T22:39:00.006-04:00

The latest from Paul Terry King, the songwriter who claims to have written two songs with Elvis Presley, referring to me and my recent (April 29) analysis of his claims:

“For those of you thats been keeping up with this here He rants on splitting hairs about the difference in a registration and a infringment which all boiled down is the same thing as It is an infringment to use elvis presleys name or likeness wrongfully! I am proud of the songs I wrote at american Recording Studios and elsewhere! Now that is a fact!”

Mr. King, here are a few facts for you:

Fact 1: Copyright registration and copyright infringement are two totally different issues, and to differentiate between them is most certainly not “splitting hairs.” On the registration issue, I have addressed whether your claim to have written two songs with Elvis Presley stands up under scrutiny based on the information you provided on the copyright registration. It does not. The false information you included in the registration is just that, false information, but the Copyright Office does not investigate this type of information. This is fully explained in my previous blog posts, but why you are unable to understand the matter is a mystery to me. Well, no, it’s not.

Fact 2: Copyright infringement is a serious matter and carries serious consequences. You are now suggesting that registration and infringement are pretty much the same issue, and that they “boil down” to the same thing. You are flat-out wrong. Do your homework.

Fact 3: Infringement is not an issue here because you are not using Elvis Presley’s name and likeness in a manner that would violate copyright or trademark laws. You seem to believe that your use of Elvis Presley’s name as part of the copyright registration would be copyright infringement if Elvis did not, in fact, write these songs with you, but as with every other facet of this ridiculous story of yours, you are flat-out wrong. Again, do your homework.

Fact 4: I changed the title of the last post to “Paul Terry King Doesn't Understand The Facts” just for you. Enjoy.

Fact 5: I stand by everything I have ever written about your claims.

Death Hoax Propaganda?

2008-05-14T10:45:00.007-04:00

Recently I have been researching various medical and legal issues as they pertain to Elvis Presley, and to the death of Elvis Presley, and I have decided to re-visit the Presley Commission report, since so much of what I have been reading lately reminds me of how flawed the Presley Report really is. As some of you may know, the Presley Commission was formed in early 1992 “to determine if the theories about Elvis Presley’s reported death would maintain substance after intensive analysis and examination.” As I write in Elvis Decoded, it is unclear who appointed such a group, and why they were appointed. Their research and investigative efforts were presented in late 1994 as “The Presley Report.”

I will be posting these analyses soon.

Paul Terry King Doesn't Understand The Facts

2008-04-29T11:05:00.005-04:00

Songwriter Paul Terry King has again challenged my position regarding his copyright for the songs he claims to have written with Elvis Presley in 1973. This time, however, King has changed his set of facts. Last year, King posted the following on a public message board:

“First and foremost he starts off that a bmi registration and a United States copyright registration mean nothing as to proof of authorship! How wrong you are Mr. Lacy! In fact its known as prima facia evidence in legal terms and that is why the penaltys for false statements on a copyright are so severe 10yr imprisonment and up to a $350,000 fine!!!”

Notice that he refers to copyright registration, and proof of authorship. In response to King, I posted an analysis of his claims on the Elvis Decoded blog, and included an explanation of why King is incorrect. The full response can be found here at http://elvisdecoded.blogspot.com/ (the March 16, 2008 post), but the main points are:

1. From the Copyright Office in Washington DC:

“The Copyright Office is an office of public record. We make a public record of a claim to copyright. We do not investigate whether or not the information on an application is valid. In the specific example you gave, the claimant stated in the application that the work was created in 1973, which is before his co-author's death. He does not give his co-author's name as the claimant, only as the author.”

2. “Futher, as I write on the Elvis Decoded webpage: ‘PTK [Paul Terry King] copyrighted this song in 1993, 20 years after the song was supposedly written. This is a clear indication that the CO does not, and cannot, investigate claims of authorship. Otherwise, they would have refused the registration because they were not able to confirm with Elvis Presley that he co-wrote the song, since Elvis Presley had been deceased for 16 years.’I stand by my research and analysis. Mr. King is wrong. His registration with the Copyright Office does NOT support his contention that Elvis Presley is the confirmed co-writer of the song. The Copyright Office does NOT confirm and does NOT investigate authorship.

Finally, I would like to address King’s claim that making a false statement on a copyright registration is subject to a penalty of up to a $350,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment.The Copyright Office seems to have a different set of facts. Here is what the CO says (from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506):

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.’

Paul Terry King, in the interest of full disclosure, should reveal where and how he determined that a false claim on a copyright registration is subject to such severe penalties, when the actual punishment is quite unremarkable. And nowhere do I see any mention of prison.” [end]

So, it seems pretty clear that we are addressing the question of copyright registration.

Now, however, in his April 29, 2008, post on http://www.elvis-express.com/, King has changed his facts and states the following:

(29.04.08) Paul Terry King USA "As for an EER interview one on one with Patrick Lacy on the Joe Krein Special next week all I would say to that head in the sand scholar Lacy is for him to pop in any DVD and the first words seen are" Warning Infingements are investigated by the FBI and punishable by 5 yr imprisonment and a 250,000 fine not a paltry 2500 dollar fine for claiming Elvis as a co-author as he describes in his latest blog 'The Copyright Office vs Paul Terry King' on the net."

Here, King suggests I should view the opening sequences of any DVD and find the correct information on copyright infringement, and the penalties for said infringement. However, nowhere in my analyses of King’s claims have I ever mentioned copyright infringement, and nowhere in his various online posts about me and my work has he mentioned copyright infringement. The issue is copyright registration, which is addressed by me in my blog and on my webpage, and is also addressed by Mr. King himself in his previous posting about my position on his story (cited above).

Let’s read again what King posted last year:

“First and foremost he starts off that a bmi registration and a United States copyright registration mean nothing as to proof of authorship! How wrong you are Mr. Lacy! In fact its known as prima facia evidence in legal terms and that is why the penaltys for false statements on a copyright are so severe 10yr imprisonment and up to a $350,000 fine!!!”

He is referring to copyright registration.

Now, let’s read again what he wrote today:

“As for an EER interview one on one with Patrick Lacy on the Joe Krein Special next week all I would say to that head in the sand scholar Lacy is for him to pop in any DVD and the first words seen are" Warning Infingements are investigated by the FBI and punishable by 5 yr imprisonment and a 250,000 fine not a paltry 2500 dollar fine for claiming Elvis as a co-author as he describes in his latest blog ‘The Copyright Office vs Paul Terry King’ on the net.”

He is now referring to copyright infringement. Submitting false information to the copyright office, which I believe King has done, is NOT copyright infringement.

Mr. King, where have I ever accused you of copyright infringement, or even mentioned copyright infringement? In your post last year you stated that, “penalties [sic] for false statements on a copyright are so severe…10yr imprisonment and up to a $350,000 fine!!!” You referred to, “penaltys [sic] for false statements on a copyright.” These are your words. You did NOT refer to copyright infringement.

Today, suddenly, you’ve changed your facts, and have again attacked my work based on your inability to understand this information, and your inability to understand the law.

I stand by my previous analyses.

The Copyright Office vs. Paul Terry King

2008-03-16T00:35:00.005-04:00

Songwriter Paul Terry King has challenged my position regarding his copyright for the songs he claims to have written with Elvis Presley in 1973. King writes, referring to me and my analysis:

“First and foremost he starts off that a bmi registration and a United States copyright registration mean nothing as to proof of authorship! How wrong you are Mr. Lacy! In fact its known as prima facia evidence in legal terms and that is why the penaltys for false statements on a copyright are so severe 10yr imprisonment and up to a $350,000 fine!!!”

On the Elvis Decoded webpage, linked below, I write:

Elvis died in 1977, and we know that King did not register this song with either BMI or the Library of Congress (Copyright Office) until many years later. So, this shows us quite clearly that BMI and the CO do not take any proactive measures to authenticate authorship of any given work. Instead, they allow any name on any submission, and only if a question arises does authorship become an issue. Simply, I could register a song and claim “Elvis Presley” as co-writer, but BMI and the CO have no way of proving that either of us really wrote the piece in question. Going back to Waters’s claim that “the evidence…is pretty clear,” we see that Waters is incorrect, since the BMI registration and the CO registration provide no evidence whatsoever as to authorship.

I stand by my analysis on this issue, and I will state that Mr. King is incorrect, and here is why:

The Copyright Office (and we can likely include BMI in this analysis since they probably have similar guidelines and rules for registering works) provides the following, in response to an e-mail I sent them:

“The Copyright Office is an office of public record. We make a public record of a claim to copyright. We do not investigate whether or not the information on an application is valid. In the specific example you gave, the claimant stated in the application that the work was created in 1973, which is before his co-author's death. He does not give his co-author's name as the claimant, only as the author.”

Mr. King needs to read one particular sentence again: “We do not investigate whether or not the information on an application is valid.”

Hmmm, “prima facie evidence,” according to Mr. King, and yet the Copyright Office doesn’t even investigate whether the information on an application is valid.

What the CO is saying here is quite clear, and there are two main points to consider:

The CO merely records the data that is submitted; they do not investigate or otherwise research whether the submitted information is accurate and valid. In my analysis of King’s claim, I write, “…the CO [does] not take any proactive measures to authenticate authorship of any given work,” which according to the CO’s response is correct. On this point, then, Paul Terry King is proven incorrect, since he claims (above) that a registration with the CO is proof of authorship. Simply, the only thing that is proven by the Copyright Office registration is that Paul Terry King submitted the work for copyright.

Futher, as I write on the Elvis Decoded webpage: “PTK [Paul Terry King] copyrighted this song in 1993, 20 years after the song was supposedly written. This is a clear indication that the CO does not, and cannot, investigate claims of authorship. Otherwise, they would have refused the registration because they were not able to confirm with Elvis Presley that he co-wrote the song, since Elvis Presley had been deceased for 16 years.”

I stand by my research and analysis. Mr. King is wrong. His registration with the Copyright Office does NOT support his contention that Elvis Presley is the confirmed co-writer of the song. The Copyright Office does NOT confirm and does NOT investigate authorship.

Finally, I would like to address King’s claim that making a false statement on a copyright registration is subject to a penalty of up to a $350,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment.

The Copyright Office seems to have a different set of facts. Here is what the CO says (from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506):

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Paul Terry King, in the interest of full disclosure, should reveal where and how he determined that a false claim on a copyright registration is subject to such severe penalties, when the actual punishment is quite unremarkable. And nowhere do I see any mention of prison.

Finally, King’s evidence may be considered prima facie (which means the facts are accepted as stated, lacking a rebuttal or challenge) in the world of Paul Terry King, but in reality, the evidence King presents is nothing of the sort. I would, however, remind Mr. King what I wrote on the Elvis Decoded webpage, a variation of which he now appears to support: “…they allow any name on any submission, and only if a question arises does authorship become an issue.” In King’s misunderstanding of the law, he is trying to say that his evidence is true and factual ONLY because no one has challenged it from a legal standpoint, which is a rather weak position.

The Grob Investigation?

2008-02-19T10:32:00.004-05:00

In March 1979, Dick Grob filed a book synopsis with the Library of Congress Copyright Office. In November 1979, he was deposed for the ABC News lawsuit seeking a ruling on whether Elvis’s autopsy report is a private or public document, and in 1995, he published a book, presumably based on the 1979 synopsis, called, “The Elvis Conspiracy?” Over the past 12 years or so, many Elvis fans have touted Grob’s book as the ultimate insider investigation into Elvis’s death, and Grob presents himself as a top-notch trained investigator. In Elvis Decoded, I address some of the issues with Grob’s story, and I am following up now with a quick look at the information contained in these three sources: the synopsis, the deposition, and the book. Further detailed information and commentary may be added later, but for now, let’s consider the times outlined below.

According to Grob...

The time the phone calls started?
1979 Synopsis: 11:30am
1979 Deposition: 10:00am
1995 Book: 1:30pm

The time Ginger Alden called James Kirk?
1979 Synopsis: 11:30am
1979 Deposition: [Not discussed]
1995 Book: 1:30pm

The time Ginger Alden found Elvis’s body?
1979 Synopsis: 11:30am
1979 Deposition: [Not discussed]
1995 Book: 1:30pm

The time the maids heard the shower?
1979 Synopsis: 11:30am
1979 Deposition: “Shortly sometime afternoon, maybe around 1:00 o’clock or something like that.”
1995 Book: 1:30pm

Which members of the household staff were interviewed as part of the investigation?
1979 Synopsis: “Two maids” (Grob does not identify them)
1979 Deposition: Mary and Nancy (Grob does not know their last names)
1995 Book: Mary Jenkins and Pauline Nicholson (Neither was actually there)

From the 1979 deposition:

Q: Okay. Mr. Grob, during the course of your investigation, I believe you stated that you spoke to the maids that were in attendance that night, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you interview them?

A: Not in any official capacity. I mean, where you sit down at a table like we are here.

"The Elvis Conspiracy?" 1979 Synopsis

2007-12-11T14:47:00.001-05:00

I will be taking a look very soon at the 1979 synopsis that became Dick Grob's 1995 book, "The Elvis Conspiracy?"

Nichopoulos Trial Tapes, Part II: Al Strada weighs in...

2007-11-14T10:06:00.001-05:00

Al Strada Testimony

Tapes 50 and 51, Trial Div-1, 9-30-81 78174 Nichopoulos

Witness information: 33 years old, graduate of University of LA, pre-med; worked P/T for Pacific Palisades Security firm; worked security at EP Trousdale estate, the Monovale estate; 1972 -1974, part-time; hired by EP directly in January 1974, full-time through 8/16/77. Strada (a defense witness) was subpoenaed, and thus was not testifying voluntarily.

--Strada said that on the evening he was hired, they took a trip to Las Vegas. In Las Vegas, EP met with a physician at the airport, then they returned to the Monovale property.

PL: Fly to another city, and meet with a doctor at an airport. No doctor’s office. No examination. No prescription. After meeting with the doctor, return home. This doesn’t sound normal.

Q: “Did you become aware that Mr. Presley had been using sleeping medication?”

Strada: Yes, but Strada said he didn’t witness it. EP would be groggy and fall asleep during breakfast. [This question is referring to events in 1974.]

--Strada stated that EP saw several doctors in Palm Springs and Beverly Hills. On one trip to Beverly Hills, EP talked with the doctor while another member of the entourage went through the doctor’s office looking for drugs. Strada was outside the room during this incident.

PL: A person who is not addicted to drugs does not have an associate rummage through a doctor’s office while he distracts the doctor.

--Strada stated that in Asheville, NC, he witnessed a scene where EP pointed a small caliber gun at Nichopoulos after an argument about drugs, then veered the weapon away and fired; the bullet ricocheted off the TV and landed in Nichopoulos’s lap.

PL: Someone who is not addicted to drugs does not point a weapon at his doctor, nor does he fire the weapon for any reason, in any direction.

--Strada testified that EP got very upset if Nichopoulos refused to give him drugs; EP got visibly upset; staff witnessed these episodes.

PL: A person who is not addicted to drugs does not become visibly upset if he is refused drugs.

--Strada stated that if EP didn’t get what he wanted from Nichopoulos, they went to Las Vegas, Palm Springs, or Los Angeles.

PL: Again, this is a key point: Elvis got the drugs he wanted…no matter what.

--Strada stated that after an argument Elvis had with Nichopoulos, they flew to Palm Springs. The doctor visited with EP the next morning (they had departed from Memphis in the middle of the night). They stayed in Palm Springs for several days. EP stayed in his room the whole time, incoherent.

--On one occasion, Strada said that EP took two [sleeping] tablets at bedtime. Strada gave Elvis a third tablet when he woke up. Strada returned to the bedroom when EP got upset. EP blew up at Strada. Strada stated that EP was very groggy, demanded the medication, but couldn’t even open the bottle.

--Strada said that EP demanded medications, and would not take “no” for an answer.

PL: A person who is not addicted to drugs does not “demand” medication.

--Strada stated that EP would take 5 sleeping pills, and if he woke up, he thought he needed more, so he’d take more.

PL: This is a very illuminating statement by Strada. It suggests a profound misunderstanding on Elvis’s part as to the manner in which prescription medication should be used. For example, if Elvis stubbed his toe, his doctor might prescribe 1 tablet of pain medication. If the pain did not subside, the doctor might prescribe another pill. At some point, though, the doctor would stop prescribing pain medication. Since Elvis was essentially self-medicating, it appears that he took medication to achieve a certain result, and if a certain result were not achieved by taking a specific number of pills, as prescribed, he simply increased the number of pills. This is not how prescription medication should be taken, and it shows us that Elvis did not follow a drug protocol (this matter is briefly outlined below). Instead, he medicated as he saw fit. In such a case, taking pills like this will lead to tolerance, and to addiction.

--Strada said that most trips (to California or Las Vegas) started “abruptly” because Nichopoulos wouldn’t give EP drugs he wanted.

--Strada stated that on one occasion in Palm Springs, a Las Vegas doctor flew in and visited with EP, then they went to Las Vegas and stayed with the physician at his home.

--EP was put on liquid diet and kept asleep; after 3-4 weeks, EP “looked like he was going to die,” and was “incoherent.” Strada and other aides carried EP to the plane, then flew to Memphis. Upon arrival in Memphis, EP was taken to Baptist Memorial Hospital on a stretcher.

--Strada stated that packages were coming to Graceland through the mail or were picked up at the airport. Pills and liquid injectables (in vials) were delivered. Strada would remove pills from these deliveries. Strada estimated the number of pills he removed form these shipments to be “thousands.”

--Strada stated that some of these bottles had no labels.

--Strada stated that these large shipments of pills were to treat everyone on tour.

--Tish Henley worked at Graceland from June, 1975, to August, 1977. Her job was to give EP medications, prescribed by Nichopoulos, in small packets.

--Steve Smith worked there for 1 year, worked with Strada, Dean Nichopoulos and Tish Henley to intercept drugs.

PL: There’s an interesting point here regarding the interception of drugs. According to this testimony, from 1976 to 1977, Dr. Nichopoulos, Billy Smith, Al Strada, David Stanley, Rick Stanley, Dean Nichopoulos, and (for a time) Steve Smith all worked together to intercept pills that were given or provided to Elvis. However, if Elvis was determined to get drugs no matter what his primary care physician said, and was prepared to fly from Memphis to the west coast to get these drugs, what does it matter that these attempts to intercept drugs were put into motion? Strada says he intercepted “thousands” of pills, but doesn’t that tell us that “thousands” obviously was only a small percentage of what was being delivered? Otherwise, Elvis would have noticed that large portions of his deliveries were disappearing. If these pills were taken over a longer period of time, and only a few were taken at any one time, it tells us that the volume of drugs being delivered to Elvis was quite substantial, and spanned a long period of time.

Also, if Strada says that these huge numbers of pills were used to treat everyone on the tours, then why did he feel compelled to take some of the pills?

--March 31, 1977 – Strada said the tour stopped in Baton Rouge, LA – EP’s condition caused end-of-tour run-down, EP was using too many drugs. EP was groggy, unable to do the show. EP was “very much” under the influence of drugs, incoherent. Strada could not understand what EP was saying.

--Strada stated that drugs caused the cancellation of the tour.

--Upon arrival in Memphis, EP was immediately taken to BMH.

--Nichopoulos was on the entire tour to that date, and had been with EP before each show with his black bag.

--Strada described EP’s personality: EP went from extreme highs to lows. In 1976 and 1977, EP was prone to becoming very upset, very hyper, very depressed; he was quite different than he was in 1974.

PL: People who are not addicted to drugs do not receive shipments of drugs at the airport.

--Strada heard by word of mouth that Marian Cocke was bringing pills into Graceland. Strada gave packets of medications from Nurse Cocke to EP.

PL: Let’s step back for a moment and look at the situation presented here. Dr. Nichopoulos, Elvis’s primary care physician and personal doctor, is prescribing medications to Elvis. He is providing them directly to Elvis, but when he is not available, Tish Henley dispenses the medications. Marian Cocke, a nurse, is delivering medication to Elvis, as well, though we do not know where she obtained the medications. Also around Graceland are David Stanley, Rick Stanley, Al Strada, and Dean Nichopoulos, who are enlisted to deliver medications to Elvis from Henley. Even Aunt Delta is supposedly signed on as a courier.

In addition to the deliveries from these folks, Elvis may have been obtaining prescriptions from other doctors in Memphis. When he cannot get what he wants, though, he flies to Los Angeles or Las Vegas and contacts compliant doctors there. On other occasions, drug are simply shipped directly to Graceland (circumventing the normal mail delivery system), or are picked up at the airport. Is it any wonder one might question the care Elvis was receiving? Further, isn’t it safe to say that Elvis himself played a central role in these goings-on (something many fans choose to ignore)? A person who needs pain medication in Memphis should not have to fly to California to get it, unless that person is using the medication in a reckless and/or illegal manner. Flying across the country to obtain drugs is not something a passive user would do.

--Strada was asked by the prosecution about medication protocol, and whether there was one in place, or Elvis was given medication “PRN,” meaning “as requested.” In his Grand Jury testimony, Strada said that meds were given to EP “as needed,” so there was no protocol (inference introduced by Strada’s response was that there was no protocol).

NOTE: Pro re nata is a Latin phrase that literally means "for the thing born." It is commonly used in medicine to mean "as needed" or "as the situation arises." It is generally used as the acronym PRN to refer to dosage of prescribed medication that is not scheduled; instead administration is left to the caregiver or the patient's prerogative. PRN administration of medication is not meant to imply and should never allow for exceeding a prescribed daily regimen. [Wikipedia]

PL: “PRN” typically means that the patient may take up to a certain amount/dosage, but that the dosage is not to be exceeded. For example, if a patient is prescribed "Percocet, 1-2 tablets every 4 hrs as needed," this means the patient can take up to that number of pills in that amount of time, but no more; or, the patient can take less. In Elvis’s case, it seems that “PRN” meant (or was interpreted to mean) that he could take any number of pills that he wanted, even if the dosage exceeded the prescribed amount.

Also, prescribing medications as “PRN” does not mean a protocol was not in effect. Strada had previously testified at trial that there was a protocol followed by Nichopoulos; in his Grand Jury testimony, however, Strada testified that there was no protocol.

PL: Very critical point: Many fans defend Elvis’s drug use by saying that he “only” used medications that were prescribed by a doctor. Thus, while he may have had an addiction to the medications, he was nonetheless using the drugs legally. However, consider the statements by Billy Smith and Al Strada, made under oath, that Elvis was receiving shipments of drugs at Graceland via U.S. mail, and that he was receiving shipments of drugs via some delivery method at the Memphis airport. This clearly illustrates for us that these drugs were *not* prescribed, and that they were*not* used legally. Doctors who legally prescribe medications do not ship medications through the mail, and neither do they coordinate secret pick-ups at airports. These statements should adequately repudiate the claim that Elvis used only legal medications, prescribed legally. In fact, according to this testimony, he acquired/received and used legal medications illegally. When a legal medication is received and used in an illegal manner, it is illegal.

To close, much of the Nichopoulos trial testimony was included in the Cole/Thompson book, "The Death of Elvis," so there are no huge surprises here. However, to actually hear the voices of these witnesses, and to hear the tones of their voices, and the emotions that sometimes come through, definitely paints a more powerful picture of what was going on in Elvis's life during this critical time period than what we read in printed resources. The human voices in this case are far more intriguing than the printed text of the testimony.

Nichopoulos Trial Tapes, Part I: Smith and Gambill Testimony

2007-11-14T09:52:00.001-05:00

Was Elvis Presley addicted to drugs? Did he have a chemical dependence of any kind? Or, was his drug use simply misunderstood? Most Elvis fans have probably found themselves knee-deep in the debate, sometimes siding with those who support the notion that Elvis had a serious problem with prescription medication, and at other times softening their opinions and accepting the idea that Elvis’s drug use was nothing out of the ordinary.

There are also some folks from the “Elvis faked his death” side of the community who believe that Elvis not only faked his death, but also faked his drug addiction, acting the part of the strung-out junkie in his role as an undercover narcotics agent. Or something like that.

So, how do we determine if Elvis Presley met the criteria for clinical addiction to prescription medication? Could we give his close friends and family members, as well as his doctors, a dose of truth serum? Or sit them all in a room under a bright fluorescent light bulb and grill them until they spill the beans? What really went on with Elvis and his alleged drug habit? Who really knows the answers?

As I write in Elvis Decoded, I believe Elvis met the definition of a person who was physically and psychologically addicted to drugs, even though the drugs were supposedly legal and were prescribed by licensed physicians. (Whether the prescriptions were proper is another topic altogether.) It is my opinion, based on the facts and on the analyses of these facts within the broad spectrum of Elvis’s day-to-day life, that Elvis relied on prescription medication to get himself through the day, and through the night, and through the next day and the next night. And so on, and so on.

The root of this addiction is beyond the scope of my research, but I have endeavored to lay out the facts for people so they can make an informed determination of their own as to Elvis’s use of drugs. Is there any particular reason that Elvis fans should be concerned with Elvis’s drug use? Well, no, not really, but as an Elvis fan, researcher, and author, I am very interested in constructing a complete picture of Elvis Presley, which would include his strengths and his weaknesses. So, perhaps, a better understanding of the drug use might lead us to a better understanding of the man.

As I mentioned above, it would be nice to get some of Elvis’s friends and family to open up honestly about Elvis’s drug use, and to some extent, several people have done this over the years. However, we often find that critical commentary about Elvis’s drug use is been met with charges of bias, of revenge, or of spite. That is, a darker picture is painted for reasons other than to simply and honestly describe Elvis’s drug habit. Red West and Sonny West, for example, have been cited as less-than-reliable sources for information because they were, in 1977, a year after being fired from Elvis’s staff (and dismissed outright as friends), out for revenge. Or, rather, that is what many fans believe. We’ve come to a point that if a fan says, “Elvis was not a drug addict,” then this fan must have some hidden agenda for saying that. Likewise, if another fan says, “Elvis was a drug addict,” this fan must also have some motivation for making such a claim. It’s become increasingly difficult to simply have an opinion, because on this topic there are so many variables, and so many ways to interpret the information.

Many fans employ different analytical methods, using different prisms through which to compare the data. But what if we could get some truthful commentary, some statements that allude to Elvis’s drug use and behavior during the latter years of his life? What if these statements were made under oath, under the unstated threat of perjury? What if these statements don’t paint a flattering picture of Elvis during these dark days?

This kind of picture is described by the testimony of Patsy [Presley] Gambill, Billy Smith, and, primarily, Al Strada, as taken during the 1981 criminal trial of Dr. George Nichopoulos (who was charged with over-prescribing). (These tapes were made available to me this past August.) Patsy Gambill was called as a witness for the prosecution; Smith and Strada were called as defense witnesses for Nichopoulos. While the testimony is not earth-shattering, it does give us a clear indication that Elvis’s drug use and behavior during those critical years suggest his drug habit was very serious, and perhaps even more serious than we’ve been led to believe (by those who contend that Elvis was addicted to drugs). These responses to the prosecution’s questions illustrate for us that Elvis was in deep trouble.

The snippets of testimony included here (which comprise just a fraction of the entire testimony) may be as close as we’re going to get in terms of putting anyone under a hot light bulb in a dingy police interrogation room, or handing out sodium pentothal and hoping for some truthful and accurate insights into this critical part of Elvis’s life (and death).

Remember, these statements about Elvis’s drug use and behavior (either direct quotes or information taken from the testimony) were made under oath.

Note: I have added commentary and analysis after “PL.”

Billy Smith Testimony

Tapes 28 and 48, Trial Div-1, 9-30-81 78174 Nichopoulos

Witness information: Elvis Presley’s first cousin; worked for EP 1961 – 1968; again from December 1970 to January/February 1971; again from 1975 to 8/16/77; from 1961 to 1968, Smith primarily handled EP’s wardrobe; from 1975 to 1977, Smith’s job was to help EP, oversee other people on the staff, act as companion; Smith moved to Graceland in 1974, stayed until August 1977. Smith was called as a defense witness.

--Smith said that he and others intercepted as many deliveries of drugs as they could, but if Elvis wanted something, Elvis got it.

PL: This is a key point: “…if Elvis wanted something [drugs], Elvis got it.” We can look at the alleged efforts of Smith, Strada, Nichopoulos, et al, to reduce the amount of drugs that were coming into Elvis’s possession (see below, Al Strada Testimony), and perhaps commend them for at least trying to do something. But, if Elvis was able to get any drugs he wanted, at any time, and he did, in fact, take steps to get drugs that Nichopoulos refused to provide/prescribe (by flying out to California, for example), what do these efforts to limit or control Elvis’s drug use really amount to? These people knew Elvis was getting drugs from other sources. So, Smith intercepts a few bottles of drugs…Elvis just gets the same drugs elsewhere. Did the interception of drugs actually do anything, then, or was it just an empty effort to perhaps clear their collective conscience?

To their credit, these folks also gave Elvis placebos and gave him saline injections in place of other medications. They also reduced the amount of a drugs being injected by squirting some onto the floor without Elvis’s knowledge. I wonder, though, if this may have caused Elvis to increase his dosages, since he was not getting the full effect that was expected from the dosages he thought he was receiving.

--Drugs usually came through the mail; EP was notified if a package was to be delivered.

PL: A person who is not addicted to drugs does not receive drugs shipments through the mail.

--Drug packages did not go through the office.

--EP would hide drugs; also knew that others were trying to intercept drugs.

PL: A person who is not addicted to drugs does not hide his medications.

Patsy Gambill Testimony

Tape 28, Trial Div-1, 9-30-81 78174 Nichopoulos

Witness information: Elvis Presley’s double-first cousin; employed for 20 years as a secretary; handled bills, fan mail, other correspondence. Gambill was called as a prosecution witness.

Q: Are you aware that EP had a drug problem in the later years of his life?

Patsy Gambill: “Uh, didn’t really think so, but yes.”

Q: What made you arrive at this conclusion?

Patsy Gambill: EP was hospitalized several times. In 1975 he was hospitalized to get him off drugs. Gambill paid the pills for the treatment. The bills increased from 1976 to 1977, over the last year or year-and-a-half of Elvis’s life. From 1974 to 1975, and into 1976, the bills slowly increased. During the last year of EP’s life, the bills increased more.

--Gambill testified that over the last few years of Elvis’s life, she was around when Nichopoulos was with EP, and that she never saw Nichopoulos intercept drugs. She also stated that she was not personally aware of placebos, water, glucose, sugar pills, etc., but had heard mention of them.

Nichopoulos Trial Testimony

2007-10-25T15:10:00.000-04:00

Very soon, I will be discussing some of the 1981 testimony from the George Nichopoulos criminal trial. A handful of people in the Elvis community believe that Elvis did not have a drug problem, and that he was not a drug addict, but these statements and responses from the trial, made under oath, definitely paint a different picture.

More on Miller: Contracts 101

2007-07-11T15:38:00.000-04:00

For those Elvis fans who are thinking about parting ways with $89 (by purchasing Billy Miller’s book), I want to reiterate a key point I outline on the Elvis Decoded webpage: the contract that Miller specifically cites does not say anything about Miller not talking about Elvis for 20 years after Elvis's death. The primary piece of evidence that Miller uses to bolster his entire story, then, is NOT what he claims it to be.

Miller steadfastly maintains that he entered into an agreement in 1969 not to talk about Elvis until a period of 20 years ends, and that the specified 20-year time period begins upon Elvis’s death. As we know the facts, Elvis died on August 16, 1977, so the 20-year time period would have ended on August 16, 1997. Miller posted this description on his website, referring to the December 30, 1969, contract:

“This is a copy of a handwritten contract between Elvis Presley and Billy Miller that states the agreement between them and creates a gag order that does not allow Billy Miller to say anything about Elvis or Billy himself until 20 years after Elvis’s death. The original of this document is in Billy Miller's Collection.”

Miller also posted:

“We had a contract that required me to keep anything and everything I knew a secret for at least 20 years after his death!”

However, let’s take a closer look at the two documents Elvis and Miller allegedly crafted and signed:

The first document in question is a December 30, 1969, “agreement” between Elvis A. Presley and William W. Miller, Jr., in which Elvis retains Miller “for private affairs [sic]…untill [sic] further notice.” Miller has claimed to have met with Elvis at The International Hotel in July or August of 1969, and at that time Elvis asked Miller to work for him. Why, then, did they wait until December 30 to draw up this agreement? And, more importantly, this is not a contract (there is no consideration), so what was the purpose of writing up this agreement? Why did it need to be in writing? Looking at the document, we see that Miller agrees to work for Elvis…that’s all. So what? What was it about the agreement that Miller and Elvis felt should be committed to paper? And why did this agreement, which means nothing, require a witness’s signature? Were Miller, Elvis, and Frank Sinatra such dim-wits that they thought this document meant anything?

The second document is the “contract” between Elvis and Miller outlining a promise that Miller will not speak publicly about Elvis or Elvis’s life until a 20-year period has ended. According to the contract, the 20-year period begins “today,” meaning December 30, 1969. Does Miller not realize that the story he’s been telling for years (that he promised to “keep his mouth shut” for 20 years after Elvis’s death) does not match up with the contract that he uses to support that very story? According to the contract, the 20-year promise/agreement expired on December 30, 1989, some six-and-a-half years before the August 16, 1997, expiration date that Miller cites. So, not only do Miller and Elvis write up this silly contract, and this silly agreement, but they don’t even understand the provisions in them.

Think about it: Miller says that he signed a contract stating that he would remain silent about Elvis's life for 20 years following Elvis's death. But that’s not what the contract says. The contract says that the 20-year silence ends 20 years from the date of the contract, NOT 20 years after Elvis’s death. In fact, nowhere in either document do we see the stipulation that Miller must remain silent for 20 years after Elvis’s death….and this is the crux of Miller’s entire story.

Finally, the contract stipulates that 20 years after Elvis’s death, Miller can use Elvis’s name “as he wishes.” There is no mention of a 20-year silence agreement from the time of Elvis’s death, as Miller repeatedly states.

To recap, Miller says he made a promise to Elvis, outlined in a formal agreement, that he would work for Elvis “until further notice.” Miller also entered into a contract with Elvis in which he agreed to remain silent regarding his knowledge of Elvis’s life until 20 years after the date of the contract, which was December 30, 1969. So, nowhere in these documents do we find an agreement that Miller must remain silent about Elvis’s life for 20 years after Elvis’s death, and yet this is what Miller has been saying for nearly 10 years

Are we to believe that over the past 37+ years, Miller failed to notice what the contract really states? And that no one involved with Miller's story noticed this glaring problem? (Recall that no one from Miller's camp noticed the problematic date on the Sinatra letter, either.)

The Dog Ate My Mother's Marriage Records

2007-06-19T11:46:00.000-04:00

In Elvis Decoded, I write:

“Regarding the will, this document cannot be used as evidence of anything in this case. Elvis included in his will ‘any lawful issue’ he may have at the time of his death, which would allow another child to be named in the bequests should Elvis not update his will to include any such child (or children). That is, he used that language as a catch-all to cover any children other than Lisa Marie Presley. This is not evidence that Elvis had other children, just that he wanted to cover other children in his will in case the document had not been updated at the time of his death. Further, an argument could be made as to whether a child born out of wedlock would be considered ‘lawful issue.’”

In the case of Deborah Presley described at http://www.preslaw.net/presley-v-hanks.html (which is an appeals case), we find that Ms. Presley claims to be the illegitimate daughter of Elvis Presley, and as such, “seeks her share of the estate.” The court, however, found that illegitimate children of Elvis Presley are not provided for in the probated will.

Of note in the appellate court’s opinion:

“In the case before us, it is uncontroverted that Elvis Presley had been involved in a paternity case and was cognizant of claims placed against him for children born out of wedlock. In Item IV, paragraph (b), the testator makes provision for the support and maintenance of his family, vesting the trustee with absolute discretion in the manner and amount to be used for that purpose. At the time the will was executed, the testator had one child of his only marriage. The provision for the child is coupled with the provision ‘and any other lawful issue I might have.’ (emphasis supplied) There was no doubt in Mr. Presley's mind that Lisa Marie was his issue, nor was there any doubt on his part that she was born in lawful wedlock. With this knowledge of the status of his daughter, he explicitly describes the other objects of his bounty as ‘any other lawful issue.’

Moreover, the clause provides for issue the testator ‘might have’ indicating his intent to provide for those coming into existence after the execution of the will. The intent of the testator to provide for only legitimate children becomes even more clear when we consider his disposition of the corpus of the trust. Here again, he utilizes the descriptive word ‘lawful’ when referring to his children who should receive his bounty. A will should be construed to give effect to every word and clause contained therein. Bell v. Shannon, 212 Tenn. 28, 367 S.W.2d 761 (1963). Unless we disregard and give no meaning to the word ‘lawful,’ we are compelled to believe that the word was used to denote those born in lawful wedlock.”

So, the question posed in Elvis Decoded as to whether "lawful issue" pertains to illegitimate children is an important one, based not only on the language in the will, but also on the testator’s intent (which is a key factor). And, the analysis is in line with the notion that the language in the will is “a catch-all to cover any children other than Lisa Marie Presley.” The qualifying piece of the puzzle is thusly in place: only legitimate children need apply. However, the court's finding takes the interpretation further than I did in Elvis Decoded, since the court had reached a conclusion as to what the term "lawful issue" meant, and what the testator's intent was. So, where I write that the language in the will is “a catch-all to cover any children other than Lisa Marie Presley,” the court's decision narrows that to, “a catch-all to cover any legitimate children other than Lisa Marie Presley that Elvis might have after the will was prepared.” This is accurate because in 1977, Elvis knew that he had no other legitimate children, so the language refers to any legitimate children he “might have” with a future wife.

To all those who are heading over to Graceland, with DNA in hand, to pick up the keys and your inheritance check, please stop by the courthouse first and get your parents’ marriage records.

More Updates on the Elvis Decoded Webpage

2007-06-13T00:24:00.001-04:00

More updates have been posted to the "Latest from Billy Miller" section. Link to the webpage is below.

Elvis Decoded Webpage Updates

2007-06-09T16:23:00.000-04:00

I've posted a few updates on the Elvis Decoded webpage (link below).
www.elvisdecoded.net.

“Hold on one second, Joe…”

2007-06-07T14:07:00.000-04:00

The following is an excerpt from a 2005 interview with promoter and film producer Jerry Weintraub, and my commentary on the interview. (The full interview can be found at the link below.) Weintraub claims that Joe Esposito called to inform him of Elvis’s death before Elvis’s body had been taken to Baptist Memorial Hospital. Since first reading this interview awhile back, I have been intrigued by the timeline Weintraub suggests, since it tells us that something doesn't seem quite right.

Q : Were you with the Colonel when you found out Elvis passed away?

A : No, I was at home and he was supposed to start a tour for me the next day in Maine and my telephone rang and it was Joe Esposito on one line. I don't know if he remembers this but it was Joe and he said, "Jerry, I got to talk to you,” and my other line rang and I said, "Hold on one second, Joe". And I hit the other line it was Roone Arledge from ABC news and he said to me, "Jerry, Elvis is dead.” And I said, "What? What?" I said, "Hold on", and I got back on with Joe. I said, "Joe, what’s the matter?" Joe said, "I'm in the bathroom with Elvis. He just died. He hadn't gone. They hadn't taken him away yet.” He said, "I just want you to know because your phone is gonna start ringing.” I said, "It's already rung. Roone Arledge is on the phone.”

You know, there was nobody else that was gonna handle it besides Joe. He had to get in there and take care of things and he did. Roone Arledge knew because the minute they call 911, you know, it goes out on the air and the police know and it goes on the police radio and the television people and the associated press know and it takes about one second especially for someone like Elvis. [end]

Let’s look at the facts according to Weintraub, and the implications of his statements:

1. Joe Esposito knew Elvis was dead, and stated that Elvis was dead. What does this tell us about Esposito’s subsequent statements, where he describes the life-saving measures, and rushing with Elvis (in the ambulance) to the hospital in an effort to resuscitate him? If Esposito stated that Elvis was dead, why did the paramedics continue working on the body, and then proceed to BMH where resuscitative efforts were continued for more than 30 minutes?

2. Roone Arledge of ABC news knew that Elvis was dead before 2:47pm (when the ambulance left the property). Esposito had to have called Weintraub after 2:33pm when the paramedics arrived, and before 2:47pm when the ambulance departed for BMH. The ambulance was called at 2:30pm, so sometime over the next 17 minutes (2:30pm - 2:47pm), someone notified Arledge that Elvis was dead.

3. Weintraub says that the source of the information was the 911 call, but as I point out in Elvis Decoded, there was no 911 system in place in Memphis in 1977. So, the fire station would have been notified by Dispatch with a distress call, and an ambulance would have been sent. If someone in California knew that Elvis was dead before 2:47pm CT (12:47 PT), then we'd have to ask if the call for an ambulance was *really* for someone in distress, or whether it was for someone who was already dead. That Joe Esposito may have called Weintraub at this time tells us that he was able to conclusively determine that Elvis was, in fact, dead, or he would not have been making such a call.

Also, according to "When Elvis Died," there was no activity on the wires (AP, UPI, local news organizations) until after Elvis had arrived at BMH at 2:56pm. Thus, Arledge's source could not have heard from any news organization prior to 2:47pm that Elvis had died.

Again, a 2:30pm call was placed for an ambulance, and the call supposedly referred to an adult male in distress. The address of 3764 Elvis Presley Boulevard was given to Dispatch. The ambulance arrived Graceland at 2:33pm.

We can conclude that any emergency call would include the address where the victim is located, and this address would be broadcast over the radio. If the address was recognized as that of Graceland, and someone picked up the information on the radio and sent it out via any media outlet, or alerted private individuals (like Arledge), how then did this person conclusively determine that Elvis was dead? Why didn't he try to learn if it was Vernon or someone else who was the subject of the emergency call? (Or, was he able to confirm from someone inside Graceland that the victim was, in fact, Elvis, and that Elvis was dead?) If the person in question was Elvis, what was stated on the call to Dispatch that allowed anyone who picked up the information (on police/fire radio) to determine, with certainty, that Elvis had died (if the death was not confirmed with an inside source)? Seems to me that such a specific piece of information, which had made it to California before the ambulance had even left Graceland, suggests that someone knew Elvis was dead, and there was a specific leak of that information. Could someone have conclusively known that Elvis was dead, and relayed that information to Arledge (or a source who contacted Arledge) within 17 minutes of the emergency call?

Also, a key question arises: Esposito would not have identified the victim’s identity over the phone to the dispatcher, and even the people who are familiar with the content of the call as it came over the police/fire radio said the call was for an adult male in distress. There was no mention of Elvis, and the people who knew the address assumed the person in question was Vernon Presley. So, if there was no specific mention of Elvis on the call, how did Roone Arledge know within 17 minutes that Elvis was dead? He would have had access to no such information at that time, neither the name of the person nor the condition of the person.

Further, with no Internet and no e-mail back then, Roone Arledge would had to have received a call specifically stating that Elvis had died, and this could not have originated with an anonymous post on a message board, or a mass-e-mailing, or whatever.

Finally, if Elvis was known to be dead at Graceland before 2:47pm, what does that tell us about the entire afternoon?

Was the body really found at 2:20pm?

Why did Esposito find it so important to notify Jerry Weintraub of Elvis’s death at such a critical time?

What did Esposito mean when he said Elvis “hadn't gone”?

To close, Roone Arledge knew before 2:47pm (CT) that Elvis had died, but the 911 (emergency) call that Weintraub cites as the source of the information would not have included the identity of the victim, nor the victim’s condition. How, then, did Arledge know that Elvis was dead?

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/jerry_weintraub_interview.shtml

Elvis Decoded Links

2007-06-05T13:53:00.000-04:00

Elvis Decoded can be purchased at http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~38632.aspx.

The Elvis Decoded homepage is at www.elvisdecoded.net. Additional information about the book and my research can be found there.

Elvis Decoded Blog up and running soon...

2007-06-05T13:37:00.001-04:00

In lieu of periodic updates via e-mail, I will be keeping a running research project going here on the Elvis Decoded blog. For the most part, I will address current issues in the Elvis community, and I will also continue work on several topics mentioned in Elvis Decoded that require more research and analysis. Questions and comments can be sent to me at elvisdecoded@aol.com.

Thanks for your interest, and I’ll be getting started on the blog very soon.