Latest on MJJC

Status hearings discussion thread / all threads merged

  • Thread starter elusive moonwalker
  • Start date
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

ivy said:
Quoting Sharon



Judge want to see if there's any relevance between Murray's request and this case. That's why.




Even if they are given some financial information, he might not let them use / mention it at the trial if he believes there's no relevance or it is aimed to dissect Michael's life.



They can run with any theory they want. It's not up to a Judge's approval. Judge is only looking to what they can or cannot use in their case. And he has to evaluate all the requests. and that's simply what he's doing here.




-------------



Just as I thought. Estate isn't offering any help or any additional info. It's already all public.
Click to expand...

Judge want to see if there's any relevance between Murray's request and this case. That's why.
Click to expand...
thats what i dont get though. he already ruled against financial records being handed over. in giving that ruling hes said it was overbroad, irrelevant and invaded Jackson's privacy. yet in the next breath hes gonna decide if theres any relevence. so what is it.either u are gonna let them use documents even if its just the public records or your not.or is he saying u may be able to use this defence in court but u will have to do it based of the info that is public record and nothing more.

They can run with any theory they want. It's not up to a Judge's approval. Judge is only looking to what they can or cannot use in their case. And he has to evaluate all the requests. and that's simply what he's doing here.
Click to expand...
thats what i mean. its like the judge is contridicting himself in one breath refusing the defence financial records cause its an invasion of privacy etc and in the next breath is still to decide whether the defence can go down this route during the trial. to me its like you cant say in one breath its a breech of privacy and fishing expedition and the next say ill look at it and decide. so i presume there will be another hearing to determine whether the defence can go down the financial B.S defence route? so in the end while its good the defence cant have all mjs records its irrelvent if in the end the judge still lets them use the public record material and create an argument around that and allow them to bring it up infront the jury. and yet again we are gonna have to wait for yet another hearing on that issue

Even if they are given some financial information, he might not let them use / mention it at the trial if he believes there's no relevance or it is aimed to dissect Michael's life.
Click to expand...
but by denieing the defence the financial records surely hes made his opinion known so why shuld he denie that yet then let them go ahead and use this info in court against mj. to me its like the judge keeps contridicting himself.

im just as frustrated as hell that just when it seems one of the defence theories has been shot down and they cant bring it up in court it appears that that isnt the fact and yetagain we are gonna have to have another hearing where the judge will decide or say again he needs to look at things in chambers. for once it would be nice to have a proper ruling. same with klien no decision yet again
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

ivy said:
Detective Martinez said it on stand but he was basically testifying about what Murray told them when they interviewed him.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2011/01/dr-conrad-murray-prelim-day-5-part-ii.html
Click to expand...

thanks. but yeah it was a quote from murray. so irrelvent interms of credibility. the way its written it made it seem to me like for example alberto testifyed to mj saying it to him. ie credible witness. which then gives the defence theory credibility when infact it came from murray so 0 credibility
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

elusive moonwalker said:
or is he saying u may be able to use this defence in court but u will have to do it based of the info that is public record and nothing more.
Click to expand...

that's exactly what he's saying.


thats what i mean. its like the judge is contridicting himself in one breath refusing the defence financial records cause its an invasion of privacy etc and in the next breath is still to decide whether the defence can go down this route during the trial. to me its like you cant say in one breath its a breech of privacy and fishing expedition and the next say ill look at it and decide. so i presume there will be another hearing to determine whether the defence can go down the financial B.S defence route? so in the end while its good the defence cant have all mjs records its irrelvent if in the end the judge still lets them use the public record material and create an argument around that and allow them to bring it up infront the jury. and yet again we are gonna have to wait for yet another hearing on that issue
Click to expand...

judge can't really reject public documents. I mean even you and I can go the probate court and get documents and no one could stop us. (and as they are public records they wouldn't be invasion)

I think the document issue is settled. He will decide on Branca's testimony - if to allow it and if he allows it whether to limit it.

and he's not really contracting himself IMO. It's more like he's limiting stuff. (like you said in the first part)

but by denieing the defence the financial records surely hes made his opinion known so why should he denied that yet then let them go ahead and use this info in court against mj. to me its like the judge keeps contradicting himself.

im just as frustrated as hell that just when it seems one of the defence theories has been shot down and they cant bring it up in court it appears that that isnt the fact and yetagain we are gonna have to have another hearing where the judge will decide or say again he needs to look at things in chambers. for once it would be nice to have a proper ruling. same with klien no decision yet again
Click to expand...

this is the discovery stage. It's going to continue like this till trial.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

I'm not sure if I can even begin to buy into any parts of Michael being stressed about finances at that point. Even if he was stressed about concert preparations and whatever else was going on, he knew that he was about to bring in millions on top of millions not only through the concerts but through any merchandising or side endeavors that the concerts resulted in. If anything, he would be in the position of saying, things are about to be settled. Michael could have walked on easy street in terms of concert preparations and still have been making millions upon millions of dollars.

What they really want is what the prosecutors stated--to create a sideshow and to make this trial about Michael Jackson as the perpetrator (whether to himself or Murray) and Murray as the victim. Again, as long as the prosecution sees what they are up to, I hope that they hammer hard to show the opposite, such as Michael was physical capable of doing the shows, Michael was not some strung out addict, and that Michael had taken on concerts before and nailed it so what would be the differing factor. For every attempt to distract, the prosecutors need to quickly squash with the facts and then remind everyone who is the victim and who is the one on trial.
 
Michael Jackson case: Conrad Murray's lawyers seek to argue singer's money woes led to overdose

Lawyers for Michael Jackson’s personal physician want to argue at his manslaughter trial that financial worries led the music superstar to take a massive and ultimately fatal dose of the surgical anesthetic propofol, according to statements in court Wednesday.

Dr. Conrad Murray’s defense has said previously that Jackson drank or injected a large amount of the drug in an attempt to sleep, but at a hearing in advance of next month’s trial, his lead attorney supplemented their theory with a potential motive -- financial pressure on the pop icon to succeed at his latest comeback attempt.

“The crux of the defense is going to be that Jackson did a desperate act and took desperate measures that caused his own death,” lawyer Ed Chernoff said in requesting access to records of three of Jackson’s loans, the lion’s share of close to $500 million he owed creditors at his death.

Jackson was preparing for a series of London concerts that were to revive his flagging career and pay off some of his debts when he hired Murray, a Las Vegas cardiologist.

Murray told police Jackson begged him for propofol to help him sleep after draining rehearsals and claimed that on the night the singer died, he administered only a small amount of the drug before leaving his patient asleep in the room.

Copious amounts of propofol were found in Jackson’s system.

Prosecutors, who have previously said Murray’s medical care was so poor he is culpable in Jackson’s death whether or not he provided the final dose of propofol, called the financial information an attempt to “smear” Jackson’s reputation.

“This is an irrelevant sideshow designed to take issues away from the jury,” Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren said.

Judge Michael Pastor asked a lawyer for Jackson’s estate, Howard Weitzman, to meet with Murray’s lawyers but refused to grant a defense subpoena for the documents, calling it “major deep sea fishing.”

“I am not going to turn a trial involving a charge of involuntary manslaughter into an escapade and into a detailed analysis of the finances of Michael Jackson’s life,” he said.

The admissibility of the financial information is expected to be among a host of evidentiary disputes the judge will decide later this month.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...argue-singers-money-woes-led-to-overdose.html
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

hat's exactly what he's saying.
Click to expand...
ok thanks so we are gonna have to wait until another hearing to see if he lets the defence use this argument in court. so in the scheme of things this ruling doesnt matter that much if in the end the judge still allows the defence to stand infront of the jury and say mj did it to himself cause.... the defence are gonna go for that regardless of how little info they have.the question is whether the judge will allow them to go down that route at all. its annoying as hell that he doesnt make a proper ruling. hes already said he wont allow this M.S trial to be turned to where basically mj is on trial.so why wait till another hearing to decide.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Absolute desperation on behalf of Murray's defense. It is screaming of throwing stones in order to hide their hairy hands. He self-administered..no, drank.. no, there was somebody else in the room...but he did drank the propofol because of money woes. ... 0..0 What a terrible smear campaign is unfolding against Michael, and he has no say in it.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

elusive moonwalker said:
ok thanks so we are gonna have to wait until another hearing to see if he lets the defence use this argument in court. so in the scheme of things this ruling doesnt matter that much if in the end the judge still allows the defence to stand infront of the jury and say mj did it to himself cause.... the defence are gonna go for that regardless of how little info they have.the question is whether the judge will allow them to go down that route at all. its annoying as hell that he doesnt make a proper ruling. hes already said he wont allow this M.S trial to be turned to where basically mj is on trial.so why wait till another hearing to decide.
Click to expand...

I think it's now obvious and quite certain that Murray's defense will argue self injection / self drinking.

Now with that theory, there comes the question "why?"

for example why would Michael who had a personal doctor and gave unbelievable amounts of money self inject/ self drink?

and now simply they are going with "financial distress and having to do the TII shows" as an explanation of why.

and I hope prosecution will say forget finances , forget drug history : Murray bought those drugs, left them lying around and left the room and didn't properly monitor him and even after he found MJ he didn't call for help quickly.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Let me ask again. IF and that is a big if Michael's prints are not on anything? And it sounds like the DA is well aware of there argument
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

ivy said:
I think it's now obvious and quite certain that Murray's defense will argue self injection / self drinking.

Now with that theory, there comes the question "why?"

for example why would Michael who had a personal doctor and gave unbelievable amounts of money self inject/ self drink?

and now simply they are going with "financial distress and having to do the TII shows" as an explanation of why.

and I hope prosecution will say forget finances , forget drug history : Murray bought those drugs, left them lying around and left the room and didn't properly monitor him and even after he found MJ he didn't call for help quickly.
Click to expand...

yeh i totally understand the logic of the why the defence want to go down this route. they need a motive.the question is whether the judge allows it
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

"He was actually in more debt as a result of the concerts than he would have obtained from doing the concerts," Chernoff said.
The defense believes music catalogs owned by Jackson were "essentially worthless" because of several loans in which they were used as collateral, Chernoff said.
Click to expand...

Weitzman asked if the theory is that MJ committed suici--, then stated the estate would be willing to submit loan documents. He stated if Michael had lived and completed tour he would have continued conducting business and accomplish refinance of loans.
Click to expand...


Chernoff is repeating everything Katherine and the stupid conspiracy believers spread over the last 18 months . And Weizman's repeating everything we have been saying.

The investment and revenues were enormous thus the risk was very high, it happens everyday in Wall street , what's up with the drama chernoff?

Unfortunetly, I believe the judge will allow them to use this defence, as he said the trial won't be about MJ's detailed life but I believe he will allow them to ask a witness how much in debt was MJ and whether failing to perform was catastrophic. That's all they need really and the prosecutors will counter with statements similar to those made by Weizman.

This strategy is really low but predictable and expected from the very beginning , it won't do them any favor .
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

and I hope prosecution will say forget finances , forget drug history : Murray bought those drugs, left them lying around and left the room and didn't properly monitor him and even after he found MJ he didn't call for help quickly.
Click to expand...

if this is really the prosecution's argument then their chances of wining this case does not exceed 50% , because reasonable doubt will be all over the place and it only needs one jurors to say NO , I believe the defence expert .
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

i guess we have randy and co to thank for the defences defence claim number 2030234

Unfortunetly, I believe the judge will allow them to use this defence, as he said the trial won't be about MJ's detailed life but I believe he will allow them to ask a witness how much in debt was MJ and whether failing to perform was catastrophic. That's all they need really and the prosecutors will counter with statements similar to those made by Weizman.
Click to expand...
yeah and thats the problem. total diversion tactic away from what this trial is about.
one jurror says no we go through another trial again!
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Soundmind said:
if this is really the prosecution's argument then their chances of wining this case does not exceed 50% , because reasonable doubt will be all over the place and it only needs one jurors to say NO , I believe the defence expert .
Click to expand...

IVM is negligence. Remember the coroner's testimony that said even if Michael did self inject he would call it homicide due to negligence.

Think like this. I have a gun with bullets in it, I leave it lying on my front lawn accessible to everyone. Someone comes and picks the gun, kills a guy on the street. I didn't shot the gun, I didn't kill anyone. But am I guiltless? Would you think that my action satisfied "negligence"?
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

very true. also wouldnt u think both sides would be looking for clarifaction as to whether the judge is gonna instruct the jurror inregards to that. if in his summing up he points out the ruling by the coroner then it makes the whole defence case irelevent. wouldnt u think the defence would want the judge to rule on this now. is that even possible
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Think like this. I have a gun with bullets in it, I leave it lying on my front lawn. Someone comes and picks the gun, kills a guy on the street. Would you think that my action satisfied negligence?
Click to expand...

will 12 different individuals agree that I should take responsibility for someone's else action?
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

will 12 different individuals agree that I should take responsibility for someone's else action?
Click to expand...
thats not the charge though. its not whether u are taking responsibility for what someone else did. its whether your actions led to it and helped cause it. like with the version ivy gave
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Murray is a doctor and had no business giving Michael propofol for sleeping. He didn't even know what to do after. He wasted so much time. Michael could have been saved. I just hope a jury will focus on Murray. Murray and his team are going to trash on Michael and I don't know if I want to see footage of that. He is a doctor who is suppose to follow an oath and ethics and I don't understand how people can look past his actions and blame Michael. I hope the jury will see through Murray and do what is right.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

what's up with the fingerprint analysis? I bet MJ's prints aren't on any of those vials whatsoever. The prosecution had no problem letting them test the vial and the tube
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Soundmind said:
will 12 different individuals agree that I should take responsibility for someone's else action?
Click to expand...

It's not taking responsibility for someone's action. It's about your contribution to the event.

Go back to my example. If I didn't leave that gun on an accessible place that guy wouldn't be able to get it and kill anyone.

so that's negligence. the lawyers would argue that I should have known my leaving the gun outside could lead to such event.

Similarly could they argue that leaving Michael with access to propofol - which he most probably didn't know how (and how much) to administer properly - accounts to negligence?

And actually let me give you a legal example

In US driving under influence (alcohol) and killing someone is IVM - because there's no intent to kill anyone but drunk driving is negligence.

Also in US based on dram shop liability bars and liquor stores can be sued for damages by victims of drunk drivers or other alcohol-related crimes.

So in short someone goes to a bar, drinks a lot, leaves the bar, drives his car, hits someone. He's the one that caused the accident by his actions. But also the bar that served him ( a lot of alcohol or let him drive when clearly intoxicated) are liable and can be sued.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

ivy said:
I think it's now obvious and quite certain that Murray's defense will argue self injection / self drinking.


.
Click to expand...

But, can they do that without any physical evidence to support their theories??
In the preliminary, DA objected that line of questioning arguing lack of evidence, yet the judge didn't sustain the objection. But then, there were still some tests asked by the defence pending.

Will it happen the same at the trial?

Provided the tests don't give the expected results for the defence, they won't have anything. I don't know about the fingerprints test (Murray could have arranged that, he granted himself time for that), but I don't think they will go ahead with the drinking theory, for that they would need to get from the "broken" syringe a preponderance of the lidocaine over the propofol in the same ratio as in the stomach... (harder for Murray to arrange that..).

The drinking theory has not been mentioned by the defence for a long time. (They must know the negative results, for them, already, since the testing for amounts took two months and the tests were granted by the judge at the end of December).
 
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/06/lawyer-michael-jackson-was-anguished-over-his-finances/

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A defense lawyer for Michael Jackson’s doctor says the singer was so anguished about his deteriorating finances in his final days that he took desperate actions that caused his own death.

The statements by attorney Edward Chernoff came during a pretrial hearing Wednesday in the case of Dr. Conrad Murray, who has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in Jackson’s death.

Chernoff was asking to see Jackson’s financial records to prove a theory he said was the crux of the defense.

eThe prosecution denounced it as an attempted sideshow to distract jurors and to smear Jackson’s reputation. The judge refused to grant the subpoena saying it was overbroad, irrelevant and invaded Jackson’s privacy.

Lawyers were ordered to return Thursday to continue screening prospective jurors with written questionnaires.
Click to expand...

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
 
I think they are relying on Rowe's book as a clue :eek:, and Karen Fay's tweets as reliable :lmao:
Which is ridicules, because we are talking here about Michael Jackson FFS. The man had assets in billions. As far as we know, Randy Philips planned, and worked for years, to convince Mike to do the concert, not vice versa. Mike was a businessman, not just an artist.
"Chernoff was asking to see Jackson’s financial records to prove a theory he said was the crux of the defense."
Click to expand...
"Crux of defense"- is that you have no defense, Chernoff.
Michael had plans, big plans. There was a note, what he planned to do, not just concerts, Chernoff, but your client, took his last breath of him, because of greed.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

No matter how the defense spin it Murray is guilty! Ivy examples are right on! So I hope 12 jurors can understand that and the judge makes that clear in the rules when verdict day comes!

Also the defense asking for MJ financial records is like being back in 05 when Sneedon pulled the same mess!
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Michael Jackson has always known that he has three beautiful children who love him dearly. Michael Jackson was not suicidal. His death was the result of risky medical procedures taken by Conrad Murray.
It? boils down to Who is to be held "Accountable" and it squarely falls upon DR. CONRAD MURRAY!

1.) Murray is a Cardiologist and not qualified to give HIGH DOSE PROPOFOL (only given by an anesthesiologist!)
2.)CPR on a bed with no back board
3.)NO INTUBATION to maintain the airway.
4.)NO VENTILATION to maintain respiration.
5.)NO CONTINUOUS OXYGEN
6.)NO PUMP TO TITRATE THE DOSE(He used a "roller clamp"
7.)HUGE DELAY in calling 911.
8.)IV COCKTAILS given by physician
9.)NO PULSE OXIMETER( to monitor the saturation of oxygen)
10.)NO CONTINUOUS BP MONITORING
11.)NO CONTINUOUS MEDICAL STAFF (to? monitor Michael) HE WAS LEFT ALONE DURING THE INFUSION PEOPLE!
"MURDER, She wrote."

In the words of Thomas Mesereau:
"Michael had a doctor in the house for a reason, because he
wanted proper medical care....
Hopefully, their defense will not succeed."
Watch the Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfyOhO3PCCA
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=[youtube]KfyOhO3PCCA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=[youtube]KfyOhO3PCCA[/youtube][/URL]
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing April 6th - Klein & Branca Subpoena

Well the defense is just following on with the theories we knew they had--Michael killed himself by injection or drinking due to financial problems. There is nothing new here. I am now waiting on the limitations the judge will put in place, the objections the prosecution will give that relate to "relevance," and the judge's instructions to the jury. Everyone be strong because the dirt is being thrown around.
 
Re: Lawyer: Michael Jackson Was Anguished Over His Finances

noirnoar said:
I think they are relying on Rowe's book as a clue :eek:, and Karen Fay's tweets as reliable :lmao:
Which is ridicules, because we are talking here about Michael Jackson FFS. The man had assets in billions. As far as we know, Randy Philips planned, and worked for years, to convince Mike to do the concert, not vice versa. Mike was a businessman, not just an artist.

"Crux of defense"- is that you have no defense, Chernoff.
Michael had plans, big plans. There was a note, what he planned to do, not just concerts, Chernoff, but your client, took his last breath of him, because of greed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is like someone knows they have a winning lottery ticket and still decide to kill themselves--makes no sense. I expect the Prosecution will show all his plans for the future and his demeanor at the last rehearsal. Then comes the technical and autopsy information that will show he could not kill himself. The defense, as we said, have no proof for any of their theories but simply want to muddy the waters.
 
Re: Lawyer: Michael Jackson Was Anguished Over His Finances

bwhahhahah murray's lawyers are a bunch of morons :lol:

Michael's finances have nothing to do with this case, its a death case not a bank case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top