Latest on MJJC

Will the police consider all the "This is it" rehearsal footage?

Remington Steele

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,861
Points
38
I hope it's not forbidden to write this outside the IU, but I don't have a PW for it and don't want any just for one question.

Anyway, reading this thread

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90657

I was wondering: Since the rehearsal footage extensively shows him in the weeks leading to his death, will the police demand from Sony to see all the material?
Might sound naive at first, but thinking about it, if they really do their job seriously they need to look at every material that is available.

I'm not talking of the material being leaked that way, I'm just wondering if the police will do this...
 
I would think they will have Phillips, Ortega, and Payne testify as to Mike's demeanor, energy levels etc..
 
No I don't think so because the TII rehearsals heave nothing to do with the case.
All that matters for the case is what happened that morning.

Not MJ's condition in the weeks prior to his death but who administered the propofol and how much that morning.
Michael's cause of death is a propofol overdose and that's what they are investigating.
 
mier said:
No I don't think so because the TII rehearsals heave nothing to do with the case.
All that matters for the case is what happened that morning.

Not MJ's condition in the weeks prior to his death but who administered the propofol and how much that morning.
Click to expand...

At first glimpse, yes. But theoretically (even if unlikely), there could well be contents in the footage that might give hints to his death (and the footage does go as far as the evening of 24th of June).

I mean, consider the possibility he WAS murdered. Or if he was not, the fact he might be so totally exhausted during rehearsals might be a hint he really did ask for the propofol himself.

In my eyes, they really would need to go through all the footage if they would be interested in doing a proper job.
 
^ agree because there must be a motivation behind what happened. Propofol was the means for killing him but they need to find the reason also !
 
I seriously doubt that they will be looking at that footage. IF they need that type of information, in my opinion, it will come directly from Ortega, Phillips, Payne and "maybe" some others who were in close contact with Michael during that time frame.

This case is about Murray giving Michael something he should not have been giving Michael - PERIOD!

All that OTHER stuff is just mudding up the waters, i.e. Michael "looked" tired. Shoot, sometimes I look tired after work also and I'm not even a performer. LOL!
 
Big Apple2 said:
I seriously doubt that they will be looking at that footage. IF they need that type of information, in my opinion, it will come directly from Ortega, Phillips, Payne and "maybe" some others who were in close contact with Michael during that time frame.

This case is about Murray giving Michael something he should not have been giving Michael - PERIOD!

All that OTHER stuff is just mudding up the waters, i.e. Michael "looked" tired. Shoot, sometimes I look tired after work also and I'm not even a performer. LOL!
Click to expand...

I agree with you
 
At first glimpse, yes. But theoretically (even if unlikely), there could well be contents in the footage that might give hints to his death (and the footage does go as far as the evening of 24th of June).

I mean, consider the possibility he WAS murdered. Or if he was not, the fact he might be so totally exhausted during rehearsals might be a hint he really did ask for the propofol himself.
Click to expand...
the charge isnt murder so its irrelevent and whether he asked for it or not is irrelvent to the case. and remember alot of evidence that the sides may want to use has to get the go ahead from the judge. you just cant use anything u want

footage maybe used to set the scene for the jury but thats prob about it and even then i doubt the judge is gonna want the waters muddied.
 
I think they should also consider the footage that didn't make it in the TII film. The footage showing Michael "Really going like full out" since the small bits shown in the film wasn't his full out still.
 
Depends on the theory that will be used by the either side.

If both sides goes with "too much propofol without necessary monitoring device" and "I didn't give too much propofol", then the answer is no. How Michael was during the rehearsals, the level of tiredness, energy levels, exhaustion, weight etc will not matter a little bit.

If any side introduces any of the above factors (tiredness, energy levels, exhaustion, weight, etc) either for an effect or cause then perhaps.
 
If it doesn't matter then why is it being brought up. On the most recent coverage of the case on cnn, do you know what was brought up? His health.

VELEZ-MITCHELL:
Chris, I have to ask you about something that perplexed me when I sat down and went into movie theater and watched this film. We know that Michael Jackson died with a drug cocktail in his body that was strong enough to knock over a horse. And yet watching this movie, I was astounded at how coordinated this 50-year-old man was, how lucid, how together. I just couldn`t match those two images of the drugs found in his system and all the stuff that we`re seeing right here. I can`t figure it out.

KRIYSS GRANT, HOST, "GET UP AND DANCE": He was very hands-on. I mean, there was really no signs of anything wrong. He was very into his work. He showed us that, you know, to save our energy and not to give a lot of basically but yet he would perform full out and we all would laugh about it because we never understood. And we kind of found ourselves trying to keep up with the king of pop. And it was just an amazing thing. So, I mean, he was very hands on in anything, the singing, the dancing, everything.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I still don`t understand. They found Propofol, a surgical knockout drug, Lorazepam, Lidocaine, metazolam (ph), valium; that was in his system. This is right when he was rehearsing. He had come home from rehearsal.

How is it that a man, a 50-year-old man is able to act like that when he goes home and he puts these drugs in his system. I don`t get it. Do you have any explanation?

GRANT: No, I have none at all. When he was with us, it seemed like everything was ok, everything was fine, you know.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. It`s a mystery. If anybody on our panel has a thought about that, please jump in.
Click to expand...

they have a point there. compare michael's health in TII to the do's and don't of anesthesia. all the things that you shouhldn't do requires coordination and awareness, which we see a lot from Michael in TII.

Do's and Don'ts After Anesthesia:
A Quick Guide

Don't drive a car for at least 24 hours.
Don't operate complex equipment for at least 24 hours.
Don't make any important decisions or sign any legal documents for the day.
Don't take any medications unless prescribed by or discussed with your physician.
Don't drink alcohol for at least 24 hours.
Do leave the health care facility accompanied by a responsible adult.
Do remain quietly at home for the day and rest.
Do arrange for someone to care of your small children for the day.
Do take liquids first and slowly progress to a light meal.
Do call your nurse anesthetist, your physician, or the facility where you were treated if you have any questions.
http://www.aana.com/ForPatients.aspx?id=290
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kasume said:
If it doesn't matter then why is it being brought up. On the most recent coverage of the case on cnn, do you know what was brought up? His health.
Click to expand...

well what's being talked on CNN will not equal to what will be argued at a trial.

Like I said it depends, if any side uses the rehearsals and Michael's tiredness, energy levels, exhaustion, weight etc as cause or effect for propofol , then the rehearsal footage might be used in the trial (of course if the judge allows it).

However it's important to remember that the charge is IVM - which means that prosecution doesn't really plan to question why the propofol was given, they'll focus on how the propofol was given.
 
if that TII footage is examined carefully...it can definitively be seen that Michael had health issues during those rehearsals...I think we just need a good lawyer on our side that is willing to present THAT SIDE of the case during this trial..the evidence is right there in-front of the worlds face....it is all in how it is looked at..or swept under the rug. By taking the word of Kenny, Randy or anyone else to do with that production....the truth of what happened to Michael will not come out. THEY have already lined their pockets with Michael's death money and they will continue to do so as long as they have footage of those rehearsals...we know that there is still alot of footage left to be used in what ever way they see fit....just sit back and wait awhile...they will use it..
 
I've been 50/50 on his health since yesterday after hearing Kenny's response to a question about him able to do all those shows..maybe I am not examining that TII footage carefully enough. I see him running, skipping, and saving his energy since it's just rehearsals. I see him out of breath sometimes, which is normal. He was as thin as he was in his Thriller music video rehearsal years ago.

But then yesterday I looked up on Kenny and the reporter asked him, "Do you think Michael was able to do all 50 shows?" And Kenny responds something along the lines of, "If you see how great the shows were, you'd understand why Michael had to do this." I never heard anyone from TII derail that question before, especially someone working with him through every aspect.

As for the effect on his mental health from any drugs, Michael is very aware and catches up on mistakes in an instant.

What do you notice when you examine carefully so I can go and take a look at it? And what kind of health issues? Natural health issues about a 50 year old man moving on stage? Or health issues that could hint drug usage? Although, sometimes it is quite difficult to tell either apart.

If he had any problems, I believe it may just be natural and not any drug related. It can't be both, because if he had both drug and natural health issues, then I don't think he would've been able to look at least that good that he did in TII.
 
Last edited:
I think we need to determine what we mean by "health issues"..

autopsy report is clear he was healthy for a 50 year old. Sure he was on the thin side but that's not the reason he died. He had enlarged prostate, vitiligo, inflamed lungs etc none of which was a contributing factor to his death. His performance could have been not as good as the past but that was just normal he was no longer 30 years old. His body did not show any long term drug use effects, he didn't look impaired and under the influence in TII as well.

So what "health issues" are we talking about?

Plus don't forget the "reasonable doubt". The minute you are bringing in health issues and say that they somehow contributed to his death you are introducing reasonable doubt about Murray's guilt. Remember this trial is only about Murray. It's not about convicting everybody - even though they might had an effect on Michael's life and death.
 
Remember this trial is only about Murray. It's not about convicting everybody - even though they might had an effect on Michael's life and death.
Click to expand...

Personally, for me and I'm sure for others, this is about finding out the truth. This case is already tainted but it's still not right to give up.

Other people besides Murray are hidden behind the truth, or more like guarding it so we can't get to it. You understand.
 
Oh believe me when I say I understand and I also personally want to know to truth.

However do not have unrealistic expectations about the trial. Prosecution is clear - they think Murray is the only responsible one -hence no one else is charged and with an IVM charge they are only focusing on how the propofol was given. It doesn't look like they are looking into more people or a conspiracy.

Unless Murray points finger to other people and parties - which I don't think will happen, with all the stories reported it seems like they'll go with "blame the victim MJ " defense in one way or another - it doesn't seem like all the truth about everything will be revealed. Probably we'll learn about security, tapes, strip club, call girl, what happened that day etc and that will be it.
 
agree with what ivy says in her posts. the trial is about one thing and one thing only. murray being charged with IV for adminstarting that drug not monitoring not having the equipment and being out side of a hospital setting giving a drug that should not have been given for that sleep problem. thats what its about no matter what other issues fans want it to be about its not. and for those who were here in 03-05 or follow cases the law in general its not about bringing in side issues that divert away from the charge.whether ortega etc knew mj was to thin is irrelevent to the charge. u may get to those things in a civil case but in the crim case its about murray and his actions and nothing else at this stage
 
kasume said:
Personally, for me and I'm sure for others, this is about finding out the truth. This case is already tainted but it's still not right to give up.

Other people besides Murray are hidden behind the truth, or more like guarding it so we can't get to it. You understand.
Click to expand...

then thats for the conspriacy section this is about the trial and the charge murrays is facing. not other issues about weight etc and everything else that goes with those theories. thats not what a crim case is about. prob be used more in a civil case although all it does it muddy the waters and help murray.the only use those theories are for is if u sue ortega philips etc saying u didnt care that he under weight the health test for the insurance was fake etc.
 
I contacted two lawyers in criminal law for better understanding.

To understand the focal point of the prosecution in such cases, or in any other criminal case for that matter, requires an understanding of how culpability is attached to defendant.

For every crime, there is what is called the black letter law definition containing (or made up of) one or more Essential Elements which the defendant has to meet and satisfy in their entirety in order for culpability to attach. For example, burglary is defined as breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with intent to commit a felony therein (essential elements underlined). So if a defendant found an open door or a window through which he gained access to and entered the dwelling, then he cannot be found guilty of burglary since there was no breaking of things.

By the same token, Involuntary Manslaughter’s black letter law definition is: the unlawful killing of another human being without intent and is divided into two types. The fist is Criminal Negligence Manslaughter which requires the showing of a high degree of negligence and recklessness, and the second type is Unlawful Act Manslaughter which occurs during the commission of an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor.

So the question to be decided in this case is not how or why medication was dispensed by the doctor, but whether the act of dispensation of the medicine standing alone shows a high degree of recklessness or was it just an unlawful excess of the privilege to dispense medicinal narcotics and or controlled substances.
Click to expand...

Involuntary manslaughter involves one or two things: either it was an unlawful act (i.e., giving drugs you weren't authorized to give) that doesn't have enough gravity for one of the more serious homicide charges, or that the act was done with such lack of caution or circumspection to be criminally dangerous.

Unless the drug involved is so egregiously inappropriate for any use (like some untested thing from Mexico) you can be assured that they will delve into both the nature of the drugs and the circumstances surrounding it's prescription and administration.
Click to expand...

Look at my sig, "This is way off the chart...You look at what is this stuff? So in other words, it would be like using a hammer to kill an ant." Those are words from a lawyer.

Some of these things just can't be ignored. I remember that investigators believe Murray may have found Michael not breathing as early as 9:00AM. But Murray said he was giving Michael propofol at 10:40AM. If investigators believe Michael was not breathing as early as 9:00AM, then that would mean a second lie in the timeline and shorter intervals between which the drugs were given, which would make the case against Murray even stronger. Or what about the fact that police believe Murray may have left Michael dead for five hours before the 911 call? I don't see how the court can just push those things aside. That's all very important.
 
Last edited:
Those lawyers are actually saying two different things. If you look the fist one says exactly what I have been saying.


So the question to be decided in this case is not how or why medication was dispensed by the doctor, but whether the act of dispensation of the medicine standing alone shows a high degree of recklessness or was it just an unlawful excess of the privilege to dispense medicinal narcotics and or controlled substances.
Click to expand...


the second one adds that "why" the drug will be given will also be examined

Unless the drug involved is so egregiously inappropriate for any use (like some untested thing from Mexico) you can be assured that they will delve into both the nature of the drugs and the circumstances surrounding it's prescription and administration.
Click to expand...


both could be examined in the trial as what both lawyers are saying is about Murray and propofol.

furthermore what you said below is also relevant and of course could be examined in the trial if there's a cover up

kasume said:
Some of these things just can't be ignored. I remember that investigators believe Murray may have found Michael not breathing as early as 9:00AM. But Murray said he was giving Michael propofol at 10:40AM. If investigators believe Michael was not breathing as early as 9:00AM, then that would mean a second lie in the timeline and shorter intervals between which the drugs were given, which would make the case against Murray even stronger. Or what about the fact that police believe Murray may have left Michael dead for five hours before the 911 call? I don't see how the court can just push those things aside. That's all very important.
Click to expand...


However the tittle of this thread is "will police consider all the This is it rehersal" and the discussion went into "health issues" that we can see at "This is it".

And I'm saying that whether Michael was too thin for 50 concerts, whether he was cold, whether he was tired, whether he could dance /sing, whether he wanted to do 10 or 50 concerts, whether he was forced for rehersals etc doesn't matter (of course unless it's somehow introduced by either side as a cause or effect). In short do not expect to find the whole complete truth about everything.
 
However the tittle of this thread is "will police consider all the This is it rehersal" and the discussion went into "health issues" that we can see at "This is it".

And I'm saying that whether Michael was too thin for 50 concerts, whether he was cold, whether he was tired, whether he could dance /sing, whether he wanted to do 10 or 50 concerts, whether he was forced for rehersals etc doesn't matter (of course unless it's somehow introduced by either side as a cause or effect). In short do not expect to find the whole complete truth about everything.
Click to expand...
exactly. no matter how some want certain things to be discussed during the trial its highly unlikley it will be or if it is it will only be touched over. the case is about the charges murray is facing and nothing else. not conspiracy theories which is whats been implyed here. if that gets discussed anywhere it will be in a civil case
 
Some of these things just can't be ignored. I remember that investigators believe Murray may have found Michael not breathing as early as 9:00AM. But Murray said he was giving Michael propofol at 10:40AM. If investigators believe Michael was not breathing as early as 9:00AM, then that would mean a second lie in the timeline and shorter intervals between which the drugs were given, which would make the case against Murray even stronger. Or what about the fact that police believe Murray may have left Michael dead for five hours before the 911 call? I don't see how the court can just push those things aside. That's all very important.
Click to expand...
i dont think the investigators have ever really talked or made claims about that. thats more coming from us and the media. the 9am time i guess comes from the 2 women in the lockup. this part of the case seems to be very quiet. did the police even bother to follow up that lead? time frames such as 5 hours can be provern to a certain extent by the autopsy. unless we get some bombshells in the prelim at this stage we only have the different timelines given by murray to work with. ie as you say the 10.40 original timeline then the later one given.
 
I don't think they are going to look at the This Is It footage for anything. As others have stated, if they want to look to that for evidence, they'll probably talk to Kenny Ortega, Randy Phillips and/or Travis Payne. The charge is manslaughter and the case is CA vs. Murray. I don't really think they're looking at other suspects besides Murray at this time.

Plus, whether Michael had poor health or not in his last weeks/months/etc, that's still not what killed him. His health is not the reason he's not here today. Conrad Murray is.
 
i think the trial will revolve around one thing :

how and why "the cute intexocation" (i.e. the actual and only reason for death)happened !
 
Ohood said:
i think the trial will revolve around one thing :

how and why "the cute intexocation" (i.e. the actual and only reason for death)happened !
Click to expand...

"acute propofol intoxication" along with benzodiazepines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top