Latest on MJJC

Murray's Attorneys Subpoena "Hostile" Witnesses

elusive moonwalker said:
i wonder if murray is classing these 35 as apart of his witness list number. or they are just subing them so they can try and see if they can get anything out of them that maybe of some use. after all if they have the pros witness statements from them then why sub them. are these 35 from ppl that they dont have witness statements for
Click to expand...

who knows... it still doesn't matter because Murray was pumping MJ with propofol and sedatives without any witnesses whatsoever.
 
TheChosenOne said:
This is going to get ugly.

And, as in the 2005 trial, I am unclear as to why a financial expert may be needed.
Click to expand...

elusive moonwalker said:
mj was broke needed to do the shows caused him to be ill put pressure on him did whatever it took ti get through the shows. thats about it. or they will use it to show someone else came in the room and did it. cause they want the sony/atv etc
Click to expand...

I think it might be about Murray's finances as well. Because I read in some transcripts that the DA had information about Murray' child support payments etc.
 
ivy said:
I think it might be about Murray's finances as well. Because I read in some transcripts that the DA had information about Murray' child support payments etc.
Click to expand...



exactly... I think it's Murray's finances. Murray is the one on trial so the prosecution wants to give the motive as to why a licensed cardiologist of 22 years would agree to give his patient anesthesia as a sleep aid knowing it was wrong. The answer is greed so that makes the motive greed
 
There is a coroner from Galveston who can not give opinions because they need evidence from Ms Fleak:

I wonder what they're looking for.....well I can guess, but I'm sure that Fleak has covered everything and nothing pertaining to the autopsy will be left to doubt....least I hope.
 
ivy said:
I think it might be about Murray's finances as well. Because I read in some transcripts that the DA had information about Murray' child support payments etc.
Click to expand...

thanks.rather it be about murray than mj although didnt the defence have probate docs that they handed back.presume they were looking at them to find anything to help their case
 
The "hostile witness" designation is a defense strategy to allow "leading questions" of witnesses. In asking leading questions, they have far more latitude to defame Michael's character. It's kind of like the defense will be allowed to insert their personal opinions into their questioning that would not otherwise be allowed in court, and thereby lead a jury to particular conclusions. This is NOT a good thing.

http://www.duhaime.o...ileWitness.aspx

Hostile Witness definition:

A party's witness who demonstrates such adversity to answering questions that the trial judge allows leading questions to be put to that witness.
A witness who gives evidence at trial during an examination in chief, that is contradictory to the interests of the party that calls him and by his manner he betrays a desire not to tell the truth to such an extent that the trial judge allows a party or their lawyer to proceed to cross examine their own witness.

During an examination-in-chief, a party or their attorney or lawyer is not allowed to ask leading questions of their own witness.
But if that witness openly shows hostility against the interests (or the person) that the lawyer represents, the lawyer may ask the court to declare the witness 'hostile', after which, as an exception of the examination-in-chief rules, the lawyer may ask their own witness leading questions.
 
this is were I get confused..usually in a court case the other side will object to a witness being led..and the judge will either say....continue line of questioning...or he will say...rephrase the question. So in this case it is OK to lead the witness .just to get an answer?
 
@Autumn

bur for that definition it has to be "their witness". I think in this case by "hostile" they mean people that are not cooperating with their requests for an interview etc.
 
xthunderx2 said:
this is were I get confused..usually in a court case the other side will object to a witness being led..and the judge will either say....continue line of questioning...or he will say...rephrase the question. So in this case it is OK to lead the witness .just to get an answer?
Click to expand...

Yes. In "leading the witness" the defense will be able to insert opinions as if they were INFORMATION. That type of presentation is more usual in closing arguments, but in this case, every "hostile witness" will be an opportunity for the defense to paint a negative picture of Michael, very much as it is permitted for them to do so in closing arguments. As I understand it, the prosecution will not have that same opportunity. This is a defense STRATEGY.
 
Autumn II said:
Yes. In "leading the witness" the defense will be able to insert opinions as if they were INFORMATION. That type of presentation is more usual in closing arguments, but in this case, every "hostile witness" will be an opportunity for the defense to paint a negative picture of Michael, very much as it is permitted for them to do so in closing arguments. As I understand it, the prosecution will not have that same opportunity. This is a defense STRATEGY.
Click to expand...
thats NOT fair at all...this is going to be a longgggg trial...they are going to drag poor Michael through the mud....it is gonna be ugly.
 
ivy said:
@Autumn

bur for that definition it has to be "their witness". I think in this case by "hostile" they mean people that are not cooperating with their requests for an interview etc.
Click to expand...

that's what I thought. It doesn't sound like these folks are defense witnesses at all. All the bodyguards and security dealing with Murray will only be telling the truth.
 


A hostile witness is a witness in a trial who testifies for the opposing party or a witness who offers adverse testimony to the calling party during direct examination. A witness called by the opposing party is presumed hostile. A witness called by the direct examiner can be declared hostile by a judge, at the request of the examiner, when the witness' testimony is openly antagonistic or clearly prejudiced to the opposing party.
A party examining a hostile witness may question the witness as if in cross-examination, thus permitting the use of leading questions. A hostile witness is sometimes known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness
--------------------------------------------------------------

I thought the term "hostile witness" was for the courtroom, and in that instance the judge allows a different sort of questioning? Not sure, then, what they will do with their OWN witnesses who are not cooperating? I.e., not giving depositions?
 
didnt sneddon declare debbie a hostile witness. i guess the question is will the defence actualy call these hostile witnesses to the stand as their witnesses or are they just wanting to question them now b4 the trial to get an idea of what they are going to say or if they can get anything out of them that will help their case
 
they said they will try to interview them , by law no one can force the witnesses to sit down with the defence or the prosecutors . I believe none of those witnesses wanted to meet them thus I believe they want them to testify based on things they want to highlight during the trial that were mentioned in their interviews with the prosecutors or info about them from the media. I believe it's very fair to assume that the Jacksons are hostile witnesses

The prosecutors want to know why each of those witnesses are of any importance to the defence case. I believe they want a written documentation of what part of the statements they provided to the prosecutors will be highlighted during the trial by the defence to see if they have to file a relevance motion to try and prevent the defence from using something they consider irrelevant to the case at hand, I believe the defence will not re interview them and won't tell the prosecutors why they consider calling them beside insisting they have already talked to the prosecutors .
Who else think that Murray is arrogant enough to consider Prince and Paris character witnesses ?
 
Last edited:
Soundmind said:
I believe it's very fair to assume that the Jacksons are hostile witnesses


Who else think that Murray is arrogant enough to consider Prince and Paris character witnesses ?
Click to expand...

I thought about that too. Would the judge allow that ? Especially the kids.... Of course Murray seemed a nice guy, until that day. What they would say about June 25th might not be very nice for Murray.

I think I need an explanation about subpeona : do they need to subpeona witnesses, or do they do that to make sure / force them to testify ?
 
Autumn II said:
I thought the term "hostile witness" was for the courtroom, and in that instance the judge allows a different sort of questioning? Not sure, then, what they will do with their OWN witnesses who are not cooperating? I.e., not giving depositions?
Click to expand...

you are right. for example you say you witnessed something and I call you to stand as my witness. I ask you to tell me what you seen and you say "I didn't see anything". Then I ask judge for permission to treat you hostile and then I can ask "didn't you tell me that you witnessed the event?" (ask leading questions)

in this instance I think they mean the witnesses for DA isn't cooperating with their requests to interviews.
 
The stupid team of lawyer of the killer Murray got their degrees in the same university where Murray had his degree for fake medecine.

No witness, nothing. They go straight in the wall, and the killer straight in jail!

Can't wait for that.
 
ivy said:
you are right. for example you say you witnessed something and I call you to stand as my witness. I ask you to tell me what you seen and you say "I didn't see anything". Then I ask judge for permission to treat you hostile and then I can ask "didn't you tell me that you witnessed the event?" (ask leading questions)

in this instance I think they mean the witnesses for DA isn't cooperating with their requests to interviews.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I see what you mean. Good example, too, of "leading question."

Wow. Looks like NOBODY is cooperating very much, except the paid "expert witnesses?"
 
Autumn II said:
Thanks. I see what you mean. Good example, too, of "leading question."

Wow. Looks like NOBODY is cooperating very much, except the paid "expert witnesses?"
Click to expand...

Because it's obvious that Murray is guilty.. He was the doctor in charge of MJ's health. He was hired to take care of MJ for this tour. MJ died while under the care of Murray pumping him full of sleep aids and anesthesia. Murray is guilty no matter how you look at it. I honestly don't see why Murray pleaded not guilty. He knows he's guilty. That is why he was hiding propofol bottles, lying to the emts and the er doctor and lying to the police. He's guilty as hell.
 
I think I need an explanation about subpeona : do they need to subpeona witnesses, or do they do that to make sure / force them to testify ?
Click to expand...

I believe no one can force a witness to talk to the defence or even the prosecutors.

In 2005, the prosecutors could not interview Jordan Chandler and many peoples' witnesses refused to meet the defence investigators.

Every witness is subpoenaed , I believe that's a regular procedure but for an out-of-state witness they need a judge permission (not sure) ivy sure is able to explain much better.
 
Soundmind said:
I believe no one can force a witness to talk to the defence or even the prosecutors.
Click to expand...
I thought that was the oposite : you can't refuse to testify during the trial if you are subpeonaed. I understand a witness won't talk to the opposite party before the trial, but during the trial I thought they didn't really have a choice.

Soundmind said:
In 2005, the prosecutors could not interview Jordan Chandler
Click to expand...
that's off topic, but I always wondered why, and I still do. I know they could not force him in 93 , I think it was because he was under 14 years old when the supposed "events" suposedly took place. I don't know if they could do it in 2005, but if the prosecution could and didn't "force" him to testify....
If you read the FBI files that were released after Michael's death, you will see that the prosecution went to New York to meet "a very important witness, a prior victim" and that person refused to testify, and threatened the prosecution if they made him. I wonder about the "if they made him". Could they ?
The name was edited out, but I think it was Jordan Chandler. It confirmed the "photo session' in Lake Tahoe : for some reason, he really really didn't want to testify.
 
Autumn II said:
Thanks. I see what you mean. Good example, too, of "leading question."

Wow. Looks like NOBODY is cooperating very much, except the paid "expert witnesses?"
Click to expand...
exactly...he will "say whatever they want hm to"....its just horrible.
 
I thought that was the oposite : you can't refuse to testify during the trial if you are subpeonaed. I understand a witness won't talk to the opposite party before the trial, but during the trial I thought they didn't really have a choice
Click to expand...
no, I meant before the trial . sorry for not being clearer.

If you read the FBI files that were released after Michael's death, you will see that the prosecution went to New York to meet "a very important witness, a prior victim" and that person refused to testify, and threatened the prosecution if they made him. I wonder about the "if they made him". Could they ?
The name was edited out, but I think it was Jordan Chandler. It confirmed the "photo session' in Lake Tahoe : for some reason, he really really didn't want to testify
Click to expand...

they could have forced him to testify , but they did not because they nolonger were sure he would repeat what he claimed in 1993. speaks volume if you want my opinion.
 
Soundmind said:
they could have forced him to testify , but they did not because they nolonger were sure he would repeat what he claimed in 1993. speaks volume if you want my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes, definitely.
 
StacyJ said:
I honestly don't see why Murray pleaded not guilty. He knows he's guilty. That is why he was hiding propofol bottles, lying to the emts and the er doctor and lying to the police. He's guilty as hell.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think he didn't plead guilty because he wants to be seen as some kind of saint who is being unfairly persecuted. It's another way of him trying to get sympathy from any potential jurors, in my opinion.
 
Kingofpop4ever3000 said:
Personally, I think he didn't plead guilty because he wants to be seen as some kind of saint who is being unfairly persecuted. It's another way of him trying to get sympathy from any potential jurors, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He probably doesn't even feel fully responsible in some sick way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top