Latest on MJJC

Tabloid: NotW Reports "Prints on syringe NOT Michael's or Murrays"

xthunderx2

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
9,883
Points
0
Prints On Syringe: Not Murray’s Or Michael’s




Fingerprints found on the syringe whose contents killed Michael Jackson do not belong to Dr Conrad Murray, it has been reported.
However, the News of the World reports that Murray’s prints were not on the fatal syringe — supporting his defence that “Mr X” injected the drug before fleeing with more than $1m in cash that went missing from Michael’s home.
“The mystery fingerprints are the biggest breakthrough for Murray so far,” a source said. “If it is handled right it would mean a jury cannot convict him. All the syringes were vacuum-packed and sterile before use. The fingerprints point to someone else being there and using the fatal syringe.”
Furthermore, police have lost CCTV footage from the house on the day of Michael’s death. “The missing CCTV tape also helps the theory. Bodyguards say they handed over 24 hours-worth of footage from the day, which showed everyone who came and went,” the source added.
Murray is said to be reluctant to take to the stand and will submit a statement claiming his innocence. He will also question why he would want to kill Michael when he was being paid £90,000 ($147,000) a month to work as his personal doctor.
The fingerprints do not belong to any of Michael’s family or staff and it remains unknown whose they are.
DISCLAIMER: News of the World PAY for information so until we hear these details in court, there is no way of verifying them.
 
Re: Prints on syringe NOT Michael's or Murrays

I'll wait for verification. But if true :facepalm
 
Re: Prints on syringe NOT Michael's or Murrays

yeah..sorry,,,I didnt realize it was tabloid...:(....I started this thread again because I ddnt see it in the case section. Can you please close the other one..Thanks..:D
 
Fingerprints found on the syringe whose contents killed Michael Jackson do not belong to Dr Conrad Murray, it has been reported.

However, the News of the World reports that Murray’s prints were not on the fatal syringe — supporting his defence that “Mr X” injected the drug before fleeing with more than $1m in cash that went missing from Michael’s home.

“The mystery fingerprints are the biggest breakthrough for Murray so far,” a source said. “If it is handled right it would mean a jury cannot convict him. All the syringes were vacuum-packed and sterile before use. The fingerprints point to someone else being there and using the fatal syringe.”
Click to expand...



BS, the fatal syringe which killed MJ was inserted into the short tubing , nothing found in that room even suggests that "broken" syringe killed MJ, sure the defence are claiming that but all the evidence point to the one I mentioned
 
Re: Prints on syringe NOT Michael's or Murrays

I wanted to post this as well (the original link and article from NOTW), but didn't know if I should or shouldn't. I just stumbled across it yesterday, but couldn't find any other sources. I'm obviously wondering if the article is a complete fabrication (by NOTW or Murray's defense?) or if it is true. And if it is, when did police get/find the syringe? On the 25th? Or days later?
 
does the orginal story state which syringe they are on about?

that “Mr X” injected the drug before fleeing with more than $1m in cash that went missing from Michael’s home.
Click to expand...
LOL told you it was the NOI.
 
yeah the story is full of wrong info. which syringe were they testing. it was the broken right correct?. so thats not even the murder weapon so to speak anyway. so the story is irrelvent.

and infact it helps mj if its true as they cant go with the drinking defence if theres none of mjs prints on it either
 
Re: Prints on syringe NOT Michael's or Murrays

elusive moonwalker said:
does the orginal story state which syringe they are on about?
Click to expand...

Ok, this is the link to the original story:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/_news/1273373/Dr-Murray-not-Jacksons-killer.html

It says this: "THE fingerprints on the syringe that killed Michael Jackson are NOT his doctor's, we can reveal." And somewhere else in the article "a source close to the case" says: "The fingerprints point to someone else being there and using the fatal syringe."
 
Re: Prints on syringe NOT Michael's or Murrays

Milka said:
Ok, this is the link to the original story:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/_news/1273373/Dr-Murray-not-Jacksons-killer.html

It says this: "THE fingerprints on the syringe that killed Michael Jackson are NOT his doctor's, we can reveal." And somewhere else in the article "a source close to the case" says: "The fingerprints point to someone else being there and using the fatal syringe."
Click to expand...

How can they know THAT syringe is the one that Killed MJ?? Which syringe are they talking about anyway? As far as I remember fingerprints were taken on both syringes as well as on the 100ml vial inside the IV bag that Murray tried to hide.

So we will have to wait for more complete info.
 
Re: Prints on syringe NOT Michael's or Murrays

I just noticed the link doesn't really work?

smoothlugar said:
How can they know THAT syringe is the one that Killed MJ?? Which syringe are they talking about anyway? As far as I remember fingerprints were taken on both syringes as well as on the 100ml vial inside the IV bag that Murray tried to hide.
Click to expand...

I just found this article:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a315015/prints-on-michael-jackson-syringe-not-murrays.html

They got their info from NOTW though. The first paragraph:

Fingerprints found on the syringe whose contents killed Michael Jackson do not belong to Dr Conrad Murray, it has been reported.
 
i posted this in the tabloid thread as i remembered which syringe they were testing.. the fingerprints they were getting tested were the ones on the syringe that was on the floor. as soundmind says thats not the syringe that took mj away. the syringe that did that was still in the injection port. the defence wanted this syringe testing for prints cause it went with their story that mj opened up the syringe and pured the contents into his jjuice and drank it. so if mjs prints arent on the needle then this is actually good news.

and considering how poor a science fingerprinting is (we saw this during 03-05) it wouldnt surprise me if the truth of the story was that no prints could be indentifyed enough to enter them as evidence. like in 03-05.rather than it being a case of a full print which was neither mjs or murrays was found on it
 
I hope Michael's fingerprints weren't faked like in the 05 molestation trial...

There's a lot of wierd things going on.

Two of the detectives in this case had asked for murder charges, but the D.A. applied IM....
 
Last edited:
i hope not.

off topic: I just wanted to say that those fingerprints founded in 2005 weren't relevant for the case, at the end.

They could be relevant now if they can get some people from the prosecution to prison.
That's all I wanted to say.

please continue with the topic :D
 
I hope Michael's fingerprints weren't faked like in the 05 molestation trial...
Click to expand...
well the article is saying the opposite inregards to that
 
Thanks Milka for the link.

I had the idea that both syringes were tested for fingerprints... but cannot remember now where I read it. (Probably in the transcripts from the last hearings... when both parts were exchanging evidence??)
 
elusive moonwalker said:
well the article is saying the opposite inregards to that
Click to expand...

The article is also saying the fingerprints do not belong to any of the family or staff.....

If it doesn't belong to Michael, or the family, or any staff,

This means that someone else DID sneak into that house and left!! It also says the bodyguards handed over 24 hours worth of footage. Which means what happened to the rest of the footage??!!

Misinformation DOES circulate, so I won't take anything in this article as complete facts. We'll just have to wait and hear till trial to see WHO's fingerprints are on that syringe...
 
Last edited:
smoothlugar said:
Thanks Milka for the link.

I had the idea that both syringes were tested for fingerprints...
Click to expand...


now im confused. do we defo know what syringe they are talking about then? then again i doubt the NOTW know either
 
This means that someone else DID sneak into that house and left!
Click to expand...
which is what the defence want you to think and the creators of the article aswell. so they admit their client left the room for long enough for such to happen. i guess we are going full cirlce and its back to someone else came in the room and did it. after the self injection and drinking didnt work.

.tbh the syringes are so small and the number of ppl that could have touched them from when they were made packed etc there could be loads of prints/bit of prints on them.wouldnt surprise me if it was more of a case of they couldnt distinguish any print on it. instead of actually ruling out someones prints as the article suggests. remember back in 03-05 fingerprinting is a pretty un technological science now a days as it was shown with the prints on the porn mags and not being able to totally tell whos they were (couldnt tell enough to use them as evidence)
 
elusive moonwalker said:
which is what the defence want you to think and the creators of the article aswell. so they admit their client left the room for long enough for such to happen. i guess we are going full cirlce and its back to someone else came in the room and did it. after the self injection and drinking didnt work.

.tbh the syringes are so small and the number of ppl that could have touched them from when they were made packed etc there could be loads of prints/bit of prints on them.wouldnt surprise me if it was more of a case of they couldnt distinguish any print on it. instead of actually ruling out someones prints as the article suggests. remember back in 03-05 fingerprinting is a pretty un technological science now a days as it was shown with the prints on the porn mags and not being able to totally tell whos they were (couldnt tell enough to use them as evidence)
Click to expand...

Exactly.. this makes Murray even guiltier if you ask me.. That means he left a man in a comatized state with anesthesia alone and the drugs out and available for someone to allegedly sneak in? where was he? why didn't he hear someone? I don't believe that story one bit.
 
the someone else did is the least believable and most laughable out of all the defences and thats saying something
 
mjistheonlyone said:
Aren't they suppose to be wearing gloves? as a medical professional?
Click to expand...

That's right. Dr. Cooper said Murray was wearing gloves while in hospital and that she wondered how he could have felt any pulse as he had stated.

So, Murray's fingerprints are not probable to appear since the most commnon practice is to wear those medical disposable gloves.
 
elusive moonwalker;3346140 said:
.tbh the syringes are so small and the number of ppl that could have touched them from when they were made packed etc there could be loads of prints/bit of prints on them.wouldnt surprise me if it was more of a case of they couldnt distinguish any print on it. instead of actually ruling out someones prints as the article suggests.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. If you imagine how you hold something as small as a syringe, it would not be surprising if they couldn't identify the fingerprints on it. (That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't Murray's even if the tabloid is trying to twist it that way.)

And excuse me, but what's this BS on a "Mr X"? If someone else had been in the room besides Michael and Murray wouldn't Murray or Alvarez or people in the house know about it and wouldn't have they already told something about it in their testimonies? Or was this "Mr X" a ghost or what?

"The fingerprints do not belong to any of Michael’s family or staff and it remains unknown whose they are."
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if they had tested the syringes for anybody else than Murray's and Michael's fingerprints - let alone for all of Michael's family and staff.

The story smells like a typical tabloid BS.
 
Last edited:
HUH....? o_O How can someone else been in the house and have time to Murder MJ and then steal from him while never being seen by anyone in the house, not even once!? And just right at the moment that Murray had to take a piss, just for 2mins!?
 
Last edited:
So which is it, Murray and defense: did MJ frustatedly self-administered the fatal dose, or did he drink it? Did he self-administer because of being 'low' on money or did Malcolm X did it from his grave..? Did all these things happen separately or simultaneously?.. Before or behind your back? ..


..getting beyond disgusted, don't even know why I bother reading such trash - hurtful trash, I wish it were comical.
 
Has Thome's fingerprints been tested? He was overheard threatening "death and destruction" upon Michael and his family.

And this wasn't simple negligence and involuntary manslaughter...it was extreme carelessness and murder. If it was IM, two detectives in this case wouldn't have asked for murder charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top