I think this is your best argument - although the will could still be a composite of other wills, which I would think would be likely. I think Branca would have been asked to resign at the same time. The list of contingent beneficiaries of the nephews & cousins seems old & outdated as they were from the applehead club. Almost seems like it might be from an insurance policy of beneficiaries. Diana Ross in there too is outdated. Where is the 97 will?
I do remember reading in some article that Weitzman filed affidavits to the court from the witnesses saying they saw MJ sign the will but they gave no date of when they saw him sign it. I thought that was odd - I have looked for the article again, but so far I have not been able to find it.
to verify signature is the easiest of all - it's sent to the expert, authentication services etc. everyone has a certain way to write, certain pressure points etc. so experts can determine that very easily and quickly to a certainty
the other two need some sort of witnesses. saying that certain people were forcing him or he was impaired in someway. however I believe it's quite a hard thing to do in regards to Michael. First he was protesting Sony at that time and in the videos etc he's fine. Secondly 7 years passed after the will. so you not only have to prove that he was impaired and/or forced but also that went on 7 years so that he couldn't do any other will.
(remember anna nicole and her old husband. how he left her everything, that was impaired/forced thing. that lawsuit still goes on to this day).
and remember this : let's talk hypothetically let's assume that someway somehow he was forced to make the will and executors had that will in their hands. what stopped Michael from making another one? Remember you don't have to cancel the other will, a newer dated will automatically becomes the valid will. So in this theory he would need to have access to no lawyers at all - however he had 2 different lawyers after Branca, McMillan and Lopez.
first of all a fyi - they don't need to see the will. they could have simply written a new will that automatically cancels the older one.
- how would branca know that MJ didn't have a will dated later than 2002? Remember most recent will is the valid one. a faked will dated 2002 doesn't make that much sense. in that case you are betting that he didn't have a more current will and his oldest was done at 2001 or before.
and more importantly
- how could Siegel leave the executor position in 2003 if the will was faked in 2009?
Muzikfactory2 has this vid about MJ signature:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MUZIKfactory2
This article I got the link from Taaj2001 from her twitter. Great find, I think. But this article is interesting as it is questioning Barry Siegel's signature on the will & the resignation letter:
http://lawmarketingsystems.typepad.com/http://lawmarketingsystems.typepad....-the-michael-jackson-will-authentic-hmmm.html
July 02, 2009
Mina Sirkin, TV Legal Expert asks: Is the Michael Jackson will authentic? HMMM!
Mina Sirkin, an expert Trust and Estates attorney in Los Angeles says, "I have seen a lot of wills in my career, but the copy of Michael Jackson's will leaves me with way too many questions as a trust and estates lawyer!"
Los Angeles, CA--July 2, 2009 (PRNEWSWIRE)
While some believe everything they see filed in the courts as true, sometimes, you just have to ask questions about those documents. You should also ask questions about any document you see on the internet!
In Michael Jackson's case, the copy of Michael's signature on the will (copy) doesn't look like the copy of Michael's signature on the birth certificate of his son Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., also known as Prince Michael Jackson. Some people may say, it's just the size of the signature because it is in a small box, but look closer ...
See the Will and copy of signature of Michael Jackson on the copy filed with the court here:
Michael Jackson Will Copy
See copy of Birth Certificate Picture here: Copy of Birth Certificate of Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr.
See link to the matrimonial document allegedly signed by Michael and Lisa Presley: Link to Michael's Matrimonial Certificate to Lisa Presley
Just to clarify and be fair, I can't authenticate any of these. In fact, they are linked to copies of documents on the internet. Without a document examiner examining originals, the public can't make any conclusions as to the veracity of any of these documents.
I'm not a document examiner, but I'm sure if the original actually turns up, that there will be dozens of forensic document examiners looking at the original signatures on all documents Michael may have signed around 2002.
Now, looking at all the other flaws, I noticed that the press version of the copy of the will redacted all the names and addresses of the witnesses, but my pre-press copy has the names of all the witnesses.
Two of the three witnesses are John McLain and Barry Siegel. Barry Siegel, a CPA who ran the Provident Financial Management, appears to have declined to act as a co-executor. But the letter attached to the petition which looks like a declination is not current. It is dated in 2003. This is unusual in that in most cases where a nominated executor declines to serve as executor, he or she will usually sign a declination after the death of the testator. This might infer some incident which caused Siegel to refuse the duty of executor between July, 2002 and August, 2003.
Is it possible that perhaps Mr. Siegel would not want to become a fiduciary in the estate or the trusts as becoming a fiduciary would have also made him a fiduciary to Jackson's creditors? A fiduciary with knowledge of assets and perhaps no attorney-client privilege can actually put himself and the estate or trust in a very vulnerable position. Think about it.
Need I say that even the copy of the signature of Barry Siegel on the alleged declination letter dated 2003 doesn't looks like the copy of the Barry Siegel signature on the witness area dated 2002! Why on earth would there not be a current declination, and merely a declination referred to in the August 26, 2003 letter? Who would think of that one?
The addresses of John McClain, and Barry Siegel are both redacted. The signature of the third witness is not legible. In California, at least two witnesses are needed to authenticate a typed will. My guess is that Mr. McLain and Mr. Siegel will be available for comment to the media and to the court! (or in the words of Desi Arnaz, "they may have some esplaining to do... ."
"They say, why, why, tell em' that it's human nature...." -Michael Jackson
Mina Sirkin is a Family Trust Lawyer in Los Angeles, California. She was the expert on the Anna Nicole Smith case for CBS/KCAL9, Britney Spears Conservatorship and is currently the expert to CNN, Inside Edition (CBS), and KNX. Read more about Mina Sirkin.
http://SirkinLaw.com [Site may be down for maintenance 7/3/09] 818-340-4479. Press and Media Contact only:
SirkinMediaContact@gmail.com or Karen Reyes for interview scheduling: 818-340-4479 and 818-438-7170.
Link to CNN video: Link to see Mina Sirkin on CNNhttp://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/sho ... ideosearch
Here is the copy of the will with Barry Siegel's signature:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactihttp://hosted.ap.org/specials/interacti ... n_will.pdf
Barry Siegel's resignation letter & will; Siegel's letter is on page 12:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sectio ... onWill.PDF
Very interesting, I agree, the signatures are not the same. :scratch: Although I am not a handwriting expert. But Siegel's sig on the will seems to match the date written at the top of the page - the A in Los Angeles seems to be the same.
Now if we could just compare that to the affidavits that were file in court. Hmmmmmm.
Has this been discussed before? Did anyone see her on TV?
