Could this really be true???
Prince 'was diagnosed with AIDS 6 months before he died
Prince was suffering from AIDS before being found dead last week and had refused treatment because he believed he could be cured by prayer, it has been claimed. The Purple Rain singer, who was a Jehovah's Witness, was diagnosed with the crippling condition just six months before he passed away, sources told the National Enquirer.
The 57-year-old weighed just 80lbs by the time of his death and had been 'preparing to die for a little while', the supermarket tabloid says sources told it.
A source, who was not identified by the Enquirer, said: 'Doctors told Prince his blood count was unusually low and that his body temperature had dropped dangerously below the normal 98.6 degrees to 94 degrees.
'He was totally iron-deficient, very weak and often disoriented. He rarely ate and when he did, it all came right back up.
'His face was yellowish, the skin on his neck was hanging off and the tips of fingers were a brownish-yellow.'
This comes as sources close to the investigation into the singer's death claimed that he had prescription painkillers in his possession when he died.
CNN reported that the pain-killing substance was found on Prince while the Star Tribune in Minneapolis reported that prescription pills were found where the musician died at the age of 57 last week at his home in suburban Minneapolis.
Both reports were based on unidentified law enforcement sources.
Prince contracted HIV in mid-90s but condition developed into AIDS six months ago, anonymous sources have claimed !!!
Artist 'did not get treatment because he thought God would heal him'
Pop super-star had been preparing to die for some time, it is said By the time he died Prince weighed just 80lbs, sources have claimed.
Purple Rain singer also rumored to be addicted to painkiller Percocet.
Police sources claim Prince had prescription painkillers on him when he died.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Enquirer alleges that Prince had AIDS. Say that the Enquirer is wrong; could Prince’s estate sue?
No: In America, defamation of the dead generally can’t give rise to a civil libel lawsuit. See, e.g., Gugliuzza v. K.C.M.C., Inc. (La. 1992) (“In the United States, the common law rule denying a cause of action for defamation of a dead person has been uniformly followed in every jurisdiction which has addressed this issue.”); Saari v. Gillett Communications (Ga. Ct. App. 1990); Lambert v. Garlo (Ohio Ct. App. 1985); Flynn v. Higham (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
This may indeed be a First Amendment requirement, but the court hasn’t had occasion to reach that question, because it just hasn’t arisen often enough. Historically, defamation of the dead could give rise to a criminal prosecution — the prohibition was generally justified either on moral grounds, or on the grounds that libels of the dead can lead to fights or even duels — and some state statutes still authorize that. But I don’t know of a single such prosecution in the past 30 years; I doubt that such laws would be viewed as constitutional today; and these laws have not eroded the common-law rule that there is no civil liability for defaming the dead.
If such a statement was made when Prince was alive, he could win a libel lawsuit if the Enquirer knew the statement was false, or knew it was quite likely false but printed it in reckless disregard of its likely falsehood. That’s the legal standard required for a living public figure — such as someone of Prince’s fame — to recover in a libel case. But now that he is dead, civil libel law no longer applies, however much the statement might upset Prince’s relatives (or even if the statement economically damages the estate and thus the relatives).
Note, though, that a statement about the dead might also defame the living, and the living can sue for injury to their own reputations. Thus, for instance, saying that Don, who is dead, was a criminal is not civilly actionable, even if it’s an outright lie, and even if it understandably upsets his son Stan. But if the statement is that Don is a criminal and Stan was his co-conspirator, that defames Stan, and Stan can sue for the injury to his own reputation.