Latest on MJJC

Possible witnesses - Information and Discussion

Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

Cherilyn Lee needs some serious cross-examination.
Selling stories to the media in the days shortly after his passing now all this quietness....
 
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

I dont think she was selling any story, but it was her talk that got us to know about the drug I don't see she did anything wrong,
 
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

If they're gonna blabber on national TV, be prepared to be grilled and roasted by the
the attorneys of both sides.
No media's camera ever gonna be interested to stick it your face if it ain't a
juicy story of Michael Jackson.

Last time I checked, all of Michael's employees, security staff, nanny, chef, cook, tutor, chauffeur, contractor, temporrary staff, staff of contract agent, supplier, shrink, nurse, nutritionist, hell even personal trainer, stylist ...need not and did not appear on national TV if they don't want to.
Either they sign a confidentiality agreement or they are NOT hard up of a 15 mins.
Be very afraid if they their stories do not check out.
Perjury hangs over them so fast their heads will spin.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

True, this nurse is very quiet now, so I am waiting for her evidence in court.
 
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

My big problem with Lee is the fact that she couldn't keep her mouth shut. She was a medical provider to Michael, she was the recipient of confidential information of varying sorts: verbal confidences perhaps, definitely laboratory results, physical exams, mental assessments etc. She had an obligation to maintain that confidentiality even when the relationship terminated. Death does not abrogate provider-patient confidentiality. As a nurse practitioner, I would have expected her to adhere to the highest standards of ethics. Talking with the media about something so controversial as Michael's alleged pleas for propofol leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I submit this:
HIPAA Governs Patient Privacy As To Medical Providers-

HIPAA is the main federal law protecting patient privacy and confidentiality, which stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and it protects confidential patient information. Yes, it has been an administrative headache for medical providers, but has an important overall purpose of protecting this information from the encroaching "Big Brother" syndrome of your patient information getting into the hands of employer's or prying eyes of those with no rights to this information. The Act might just protect you from your doctor or nurse volunteering to speak out on a national news program like CNN and announcing to the world that you abused drugs, or may stop your provider from saying something to harm your reputation in print! Whether nutritionist Cherilyn Lee did or did not breach confidentiality would be up to the board governing her profession, presumably in California and believe me, lots of folks have emailed the California Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) asking this question.
As to the privacy rights of patients surviving death under HIPAA the World Privacy Forum is a nonprofit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3), public interest research group and its website includes the following on this point:

Do Privacy Rights Survive Death?
Yes. Under HIPAA, a patient's privacy rights survive death and last forever. We are not sure how much sense that makes, but that is what the rule provides. A deceased patient's legally authorized executor or administrator, or a person who is otherwise legally authorized to act on the behalf of the deceased patient or patient's estate, can exercise the privacy rights of a patient.
http://virginiabeach.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/attorney-client-patient-privacy-rights-surviving-deathdid-michael-jacksons-former-nurse-ignore-confidentiality-and-privacy-rights-under-hipaa.aspx?googleid=266366
Click to expand...

I think she should have had her license suspended at the very least. What she did was VERY WRONG. As for the propofol, I'm fairly sure we would have found out about it without any help from her. She deserves no credit for anything. So as for 'Nurse' Lee, frankly I trust her not one little tiny bit.
 
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

Reminds you of Klien, another medical professional who talked about the patient's medial care. No wonder he lost his patients and ultimately his practice. In fact all the medical professionals in Michael's case have been lacking, especially Murray.
 
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

Petrarose said:
Reminds you of Klien, another medical professional who talked about the patient's medial care. No wonder he lost his patients and ultimately his practice. In fact all the medical professionals in Michael's case have been lacking, especially Murray.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! And why they seem to get away with it is more than I can understand. There seem to be no consequences for unethical behavior if your patient is a celebrity...Of course, the media also bear a wee bit of responsibility here, too. They provide the podium for all of these 'professionals' which just encourages them more. I cannot fathom why any medical provider would think it was okay to divulge info to anyone not legally entitled to it and I sure don't understand why the medical boards of the providers don't get publicly involved. By their silences they give consent. Guess this is all one of the symptoms of our present society...
 
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

cinzia said:
Exactly!! And why they seem to get away with it is more than I can understand. There seem to be no consequences for unethical behavior if your patient is a celebrity...Of course, the media also bear a wee bit of responsibility here, too. They provide the podium for all of these 'professionals' which just encourages them more. I cannot fathom why any medical provider would think it was okay to divulge info to anyone not legally entitled to it and I sure don't understand why the medical boards of the providers don't get publicly involved. By their silences they give consent. Guess this is all one of the symptoms of our present society...
Click to expand...


I agree. If any regular doctor with regular patients did things like that, they'd be in trouble with the law in no time, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nine of michael jackson's former doctors could be called as witnesses

if you give a patient propofol and after live the room you are guilty.period.
 
Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests / Judge's ruling

Although media reported that the prosecution wanted to limit/ exclude testimony from Steve Robel - 2005 Investigator- he wasn't the only one. The following information is from the court documents

Steve Robel - on the basis of irrelevant and highly inflammatory
any other witness - related to alleged Santa Barbara events

Several doctors/medical personnel - on the basis of that they weren't caring for Michael on June 24 and weren't there when Michael died. None of these doctors/medical personnel was interviewed by the defense. Prosecution is asking for information about these witnesses and after that they will make requests about them. These are

Allan Metzger - saw and examined Michael in 2002 and 2003. Talked to him in 2008 and 2009. Saw Michael in April 2009. Michael asked about sleep medication.

David Adams - gave Michael propofol 4 times in 2008 for dental procedures.

Arnold Klein - saw Michael 5 times in june. Last time he saw Michael was in June 22. All for cosmetic procedures.

Ellen Brunn - works at Klein's office,

Jason Pheiffer - has been interviewed by the defense

Following are the people that the prosecutions is asking for an offer of proof regarding relevance and admissibility

John Branca - not interviewed by defense
Susan Etok - told defense that Michael asked for propofol in March 2009 and believed MJ had drug problem
Karen Faye - told detectives MJ was in poor health one week before his death but looked great on june 23 and june24th.
Travis Payne - not interviewed by the defense
Tohme Tohme - not interviewed by the defense
Grace Rwaramba - - not interviewed by the defense , interviewed by the detectives. not employed at that time and was out of country.

Defense Medical Expert Steve Pustilnik - irrelevant and does not offer any opinions

Unknown people - in the sense that defense hasn't provided any information / note / report about them and the prosecution has no idea how these people are relevant to the case. They are
- Michael Bush
- Chris Carter
- Francisco Cascio
- Alex Farschchian
- Steven Hoefflin
- Gerald Labiner
- Michael LaPerruque
- Cary Rogan
- Neil Ratner
- Leonard Rowe
- Barney Vanvalin
- Dieter Weisner
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

Chris Carter the convicted criminal !!!!!!!! the prosecutions' star witness in 2005 who was caught red handed and sneddon tried and failed to help him , the Vegas DA told him to beat it :hysterical:
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

CHRIS CARTER ! Is he still in prison?

Ok so whats an offer of proof.basically to say this is what they are been called for.and its not like the defence can say they will testify to xyz cause they havnt even talked to these ppl and are just gonna call them on the bounce?

Also what happened to the hearing where they said all witness statements etc had been handed over when they clearly havnt.the
judge needs to get a grip as this case is having mj on trial not his killer and refuse the defence to call these ppl who have had no contact with the the defence and have given no statements.the fact that a huge amount of their witness list is of ppl they have never even talked to is crazy
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

apparently they gave prosecution an update saying that "no interview done, no statement taken". So the prosecutions for the most is saying tell me the relevancy of these people or we'll ask to limit or exclude these people.

for some it's based on what they said / will say

steve robel - they argue that santa barbara events is irrelevant and inflammatory
doctors / medical personnel - they argue that they weren't treating Michael when he died
defense medical witness - they say that he doesn't offer any opinion
for the rests it's basically "what will these people say? what's their relevance to the trial?"
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

How desperate the defence must be to play duch a dangerous game of listing ppl they havnt even talked to.so the list of no interview done or statement taken means which ppl? All the ones in the list that include la perruque and cascio. And the only ppl they have talked to are the ones listed ie jason and etok etc? This must be pretty unheard of and would a judge allow it. I thought he said before no witness statements no testimony. I presume the witness lists have been pretty much confirmed by each side and thats why they are only filing motions now?why leave it so late.we knew about robel ages ago
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

They are either pushing for another postponement even though the judge said no more delays or they really are that thick! They've not got long...tick...tick...tick...
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

can we get hold of this motion to read?
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

Thank you Ben, Wow the defence is leaving it very late to be needing to interview these witnesses. Just to clarify, this is a request that the prosecution made yesterday and the Judge has yet to hear the defence's arguement if the want them kept as witnesses or not. Is that right?

Are the rest of yesterdays court doc's available yet? they would tell us when the next hearing is.
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

cheers ben your a star. *off to read it*
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

Honesty urges me to confess this link was posted to me on FB, just at the same time you asked. :)
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

read it. u know i wouldnt be surprised if theres more delays unless the judge just rules that no discovery no testimony. but it seems the pros are giving the defence a chance to hand over the info on these witnesses and then they will file yet more motions depending on whether they wont their testimony to be excluded or not.

seems to me the judge needs to get a grip as the defence are still dragging their feet.

and if the defence are calling ppl that they havnt even talked to (not including pros witnesses that have also been named as hostile defence ones) wouldnt it be in the pros best intrests to try and contact these ppl so they know what they will say on the stand
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

thank you.
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

got a question about the motion. where it says subject to a defence offer of proof. when the pros are asking for a exclusion of the witnesses VI does that mean the pros want the defence to file offers of proof and then they will decide whether to object like with the other names mentioned earlier in the motion or they want those witnesses excluded totally until the defence give offers of proof in the hope i guess that the defence wont bother to get offers of proof as these names have basically been picked randomly out of the media no doubt

*edit* after re reading i guess it means cause these ppl are totally unknown to the pros unlike the other witnesses like metzger etc they want them excluded totally until the defence provide discovery and proof of why they might call them

and seems from reading it on monday he might not actually rule regarding the admissability he will just rule as to whether the defence need to provide an offer of proof. so if the judge rules that we have to wait for the offer of proof and if the pros then file seperate motions to have them excluded
 
Last edited:
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

Yes, clumsy choice of words on my part, on Monday the Judge will examine and I assume he will hear from the defence regarding this motion. I am a little concerned that these may be delaying (or some kind of) tactics on the defences side but I would be very surprised if Judge Pastor would allow any more delays, it's also possible (I guess) that it will turn out that the defence is not planning on using some or all of these witnesses, but if they are then they should be told to pull their finger out.
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

IMO the judge is in a strange situation here. IMO the defense is dragging there feet and the judge might want to tell them that is it your lost then it becomes an appellate issue. I do think if this goes on he might start dishing out fines. There is no excuse for this the the trial starts in a few weeks
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

What i dont get is have all these ppl been subpeoned.cause the only one mentioned as being subed is thome. The others bar a few havnt even talked to the defence let alone anything else. Its all abit confusing even after u read the motion.its like the defence are throwing in every nameever mentioned in the press to try and confuse the pros when they have no intention of calling ppl
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

elusive moonwalker said:
How desperate the defence must be to play duch a dangerous game of listing ppl they havnt even talked to.so the list of no interview done or statement taken means which ppl?
Click to expand...

they don't necessarily need to interview them. they can call people on witness stand due to the interviews they gave to the police - both sides have that information, or due to their medial records - for the doctors. but some people seems to be picked on based on the media reports.

elusive moonwalker said:
can we get hold of this motion to read?
Click to expand...

for every important document in this case http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/cour...px?title=Peo+v+Conrad+Murray&casenum=SA073164


elusive moonwalker said:
and if the defence are calling ppl that they havnt even talked to (not including pros witnesses that have also been named as hostile defence ones) wouldnt it be in the pros best intrests to try and contact these ppl so they know what they will say on the stand
Click to expand...

that'll be like doing the defense job because if they interview them they would be required to turn in their reports. they are going to the other route here.

elusive moonwalker said:
What i dont get is have all these ppl been subpeoned.cause the only one mentioned as being subed is thome. The others bar a few havnt even talked to the defence let alone anything else. Its all abit confusing even after u read the motion.its like the defence are throwing in every nameever mentioned in the press to try and confuse the pros when they have no intention of calling ppl
Click to expand...

branca is also subpoenad. and it's not a necessity if people are willing to talk to you.
 
Re: Prosecution Exclude or Limit Testimony requests

I hope the judge straightens this all out. I am worried about all this. Murray's team seem like they are trying to find anything as a defence. Monday would have been Michael's 53rd birthday. Instead of him being here to celebrate we have this going on. It's not right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top