Latest on MJJC

surveillance tapes (all threads merged)

kasume said:
I asked one of the bodyguards what type of cameras they were. I asked him if they were motion censored. He said "What for?" I told him because there was confusion of what type of cameras they were. He didn't respond.

I remember at this investigation forum last year, somebody told us the type of cameras they were (forgot what type though but not motion censored) But I looked them up and found they were the type connected to phone lines.

But there was a big discussion about it.

Where was the root source of these cameras being motion censored? They weren't from court.

I was warned that misinformation is being purposely circulated in order to support murray's behavior under different scenarios.
Click to expand...

Kasume, you spoke with one of the bodyguards? Which one?
 
ivy said:
I found that image from google.

It was at a status hearing when Murray's lawyers were talking about the footage that they had and Walgren said that there were cameras only outside I believe.
Click to expand...

Do you know if there is a report of what went on at this hearing, what was said etc.....is there anything documented on this?
 
QuirkyDiana00;3361835 said:
Yes, i'd be interested also to have a quote from the court transcripts/status hearings, i missed that also and i'd like to know what was said.
Click to expand...

Transcripts can be purchased but cannot appear in full in links. For a time though they were in a blog, and some were lucky enough to read them to check all the misinformation being published at the time (mid- March).

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

kasume;3390250 said:
Where was the root source of these cameras being motion censored? They weren't from court.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken, Kasume. That the cameras were motion censored appeared in the transcriptions of the status hearings on 11th and 16th March. (Unfortunately soon afterwards, there was no more access to the link providing them…).

But those hearings were commented on different boards at the time.

This is actual transcription, though prior to the mention of the cameras being “motion censored”:

Soundmind;3293588 said:
Of that within a day or two
The issue is that apparently the security surveillance footage or the surveillance system was not the property of owned by Michael Jackson or any of his associates. It was a rental home, and the equipment and installation and everything was done by the homeowner that rented this home. So LABD has been working on that . As I indicated, I expect to have information for the defence probably by tomorrow.
The court: Again, I would have thought this information have been disclosed a long, long time ago.
Mr.Walgren: It was, your honor. It was disclosed a year ago.
The court: we are talking about what was downloaded, but what about the raw materials that were in possession of the third party? Are they still in the possession of the third party?
Mr.Walgren: I don’t believe so. I don’t believe they exist anywhere, but I had LAPD look into further so I could give a more concrete answer.
The court: so you will have that information when?
Mr.Walgern: I expect to have it tomorrow.
The court : By 4:00p.m tomorrow provide the information to Mr.Flangan. If there is some issue, then we will have to regroup sooner because Mr.Flangan has made it very clear this is very important information as far as he is concerned. If it exists, it exists.
Mr.Flangan : It could be important. We don’t know. We have not seen it.
The court: well, you want it and it is not in your possession. Mr.Walgern?
Mr.Walgern: And it is not in our possession. I have told them that for the last year that they have everything that exists. I’m looking into it further, not because I think it is going to necessarily result in anything but just so I could give more concrete answers. My understanding is LAPD downloaded what they downloaded. That has been provided to the defense. That’s everything that exists and is all that will ever exist, but I’m having them look into it further.
The court: the security system apparently was monitoring the residence on a 24-hour basis.
Mr.Walgern: the exterior.
The court: the exterior. How many minutes or hours worth of video has been downloaded? D we know?
Mr.Walgern: Again , I don’t know exactly but it is minutes. It is minutes . I don’t want to say anything that is inaccurate. I expect to have information tomorrow......[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...

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


I’ll quote some references to the “motion censored cameras” from fans at the hearings:

ivy;3300755 said:
This is what Samantha reports from inside the courtroom

Ok, let's make it clear regarding the surveillances cameras at Carolwood and what TMZ reported. I was in the court room and what TMZ reported is not very accurate! There are 13 minutes of recording. Recordings were logged by 24 hour cycles and supposedly motion-sensored. Defense said they got it in two parts (from the prosecution) and that it was not motioned-sensored because some recordings they witrnessed were motionless. Prosecution said they still were trying to contact LAPD and the security company to find out if ANY MORE recordings were available. All surveillance tapes are from outside and in front of the entrance gates.
Click to expand...

ivy;3303215 said:
I asked Sharon B. Sidney who attend the court hearings, this is Sharon's answer

"they spoke of the cameras and prosecution said it's somewhere from 13-15 minutes of footage claiming it was motion operated. Defense has stated they have est. 4 min. of footage. This from what they claim is from the only outside camera and that the original footage would have erased itself whereas the 15 min. they claim to have is from the police download"

so my understanding is that prosecution says the footage is only 15 minutes because it's motion operated - meaning it didn't record constantly only recorded when there was any movement. Prosecution is saying that police downloaded / copied 15 minutes and the original erased itself the next day.

and defense only got the 4 minutes (showing Michael's arrival?) and wanting the rest.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kasume said:
It was one of the bodyguards at the house that day. I can't let out which one, but it was one of them.
Click to expand...
why whats the big secret?? We are all MJ fans here and we all deserve to know what each other knows...believe me Kasume.I seriously doubt that with the information that you are holding ..you will solve what happened to Michael on June 25th. You want information from other people about things..but when they ask you..your response..."I can't let it out"...that is bull.
 
There is no big secret.

I'm only respecting the guard's privacy.

When did I say I will solve the mystery of June 25th with this info I'm holding?

I DID let out everything I was told. All I got from the bodyguard was a "Why do you ask?", then silence. (wasn't a "what for". wasn't thinking right.) Again, I'm just respecting his privacy by not giving out his name.

And the answer I received wasn't even information about the case. I only shared his awkward response because, at first, I thought it was a bit strange he couldn't tell me. But as I look back, he may have thought I was an undercover reporter or something. (I doubt it) Most likely, the security just may not be able to share info. like that.
 
Last edited:
kasume said:
There is no big secret.

I'm only respecting the guard's privacy.

When did I say I will solve the mystery of June 25th with this info I'm holding?

I DID let out everything I was told. All I got from the bodyguard was a "Why do you ask?", then silence. (wasn't a "what for". wasn't thinking right.) Again, I'm just respecting his privacy by not giving out his name.

And the answer I received wasn't even information about the case. I only shared his awkward response because, at first, I thought it was a bit strange he couldn't tell me. But as I look back, he may have thought I was an undercover reporter or something. (I doubt it) Most likely, the security just may not be able to share info. like that.
Click to expand...

:fear:



Thanks for sharing.
 
kasume said:
There is no big secret.

I'm only respecting the guard's privacy.

When did I say I will solve the mystery of June 25th with this info I'm holding?

I DID let out everything I was told. All I got from the bodyguard was a "Why do you ask?", then silence. (wasn't a "what for". wasn't thinking right.) Again, I'm just respecting his privacy by not giving out his name.

And the answer I received wasn't even information about the case. I only shared his awkward response because, at first, I thought it was a bit strange he couldn't tell me. But as I look back, he may have thought I was an undercover reporter or something. (I doubt it) Most likely, the security just may not be able to share info. like that.
Click to expand...
your respecting HIS privacy.??..Michael was murdered and you are worried about the privacy of a guard?....whatever. Thank you anyway..
 
xthunderx2 said:
your respecting HIS privacy.??..Michael was murdered and you are worried about the privacy of a guard?....whatever. Thank you anyway..
Click to expand...

I thought the case section here generally believed Murray was involved and ONLY him.

Why are you so upset? Do you believe any guards were involved in this murder as well, had something to do with it???
 
Last edited:
kasume said:
I thought the case section here generally believed Murray was involved and ONLY him.

Why are you so upset? Do you believe any guards were involved in this murder as well, had something to do with it???
Click to expand...

There's no current information that suggests the guards/security had anything to do with what happened but since we are not in possession of all the facts and there are many unanswered q's, neither can you completely rule this out. Put it this way, the guards/security knew a lot about the daily routines at Carolwood. If Murray didn't do this, it wouldn't be a stretch to consider that someone/people in the security team could have facilitated such a plan. Like i said, we don't have all the facts.

But how did you get the opportunity to ask a bodyguard questions? When was this? I appreciate you don't want to release the name, but perhaps you could give a clue.......is it any of the guards who recently gave testimony at the preliminary trial?
 
smoothlugar;3392667 said:
Transcripts can be purchased but cannot appeared in full in links. For a time though they were in a blog, and some were lucky enough to read them to check all the misinformation being published at the time (mid- March).



You are mistaken, Kasume. That the cameras were motion censored appeared in the transcriptions of the status hearings on 11th and 16th March. (Unfortunately soon afterwards, there was no more access to the link providing them…).

But those hearings were commented on different boards at the time.

This is actual transcription, though prior to the mention of the cameras being “motion censored”:
Click to expand...

Of that within a day or two
The issue is that apparently the security surveillance footage or the surveillance system was not the property of owned by Michael Jackson or any of his associates. It was a rental home, and the equipment and installation and everything was done by the homeowner that rented this home. So LABD has been working on that . As I indicated, I expect to have information for the defence probably by tomorrow.
The court: Again, I would have thought this information have been disclosed a long, long time ago.
Mr.Walgren: It was, your honor. It was disclosed a year ago.
The court: we are talking about what was downloaded, but what about the raw materials that were in possession of the third party? Are they still in the possession of the third party?
Mr.Walgren: I don’t believe so. I don’t believe they exist anywhere, but I had LAPD look into further so I could give a more concrete answer.
The court: so you will have that information when?
Mr.Walgern: I expect to have it tomorrow.
The court : By 4:00p.m tomorrow provide the information to Mr.Flangan. If there is some issue, then we will have to regroup sooner because Mr.Flangan has made it very clear this is very important information as far as he is concerned. If it exists, it exists.
Mr.Flangan : It could be important. We don’t know. We have not seen it.
The court: well, you want it and it is not in your possession. Mr.Walgern?
Mr.Walgern: And it is not in our possession. I have told them that for the last year that they have everything that exists. I’m looking into it further, not because I think it is going to necessarily result in anything but just so I could give more concrete answers. My understanding is LAPD downloaded what they downloaded. That has been provided to the defense. That’s everything that exists and is all that will ever exist, but I’m having them look into it further.
The court: the security system apparently was monitoring the residence on a 24-hour basis.
Mr.Walgern: the exterior.
The court: the exterior. How many minutes or hours worth of video has been downloaded? D we know?
Mr.Walgern: Again , I don’t know exactly but it is minutes. It is minutes . I don’t want to say anything that is inaccurate. I expect to have information tomorrow......
Click to expand...

Smoothlugar - So the status hearings where the surveillance footage was discussed was the 11th and 16th March? You mentioned that they were commented on different boards at the time (presumably by fans). Do you have any specific links to these boards so i can see the discussion? Where did you get the transcript from quoted above? Thanks for posting this info btw. I wasn't aware that transcripts for the status hearing mentioning the footage was ever posted. Did someone post the entire transcript for these hearings re: surveillance footage?
 
^^ Wellcome, QuirkyDiana.

The issue was discussed in this very thread around mid-March and in other threads as well... There were also accounts and summaries from fans who attended those hearings...

As I said before there were some links to transcripts in some blogs, but they are disabled now.
 
I want to remind you that this CASE forum is not the section to discuss conspiracy theories
so if you want to discuss that and implicate others please go to the appropriate forum and start a thread.
You are more then welcome to discuss these theories on the board ... just not in this forum please

Thanks for your cooperation
 
qbee said:
I want to remind you that this CASE forum is not the section to discuss conspiracy theories
so if you want to discuss that and implicate others please go to the appropriate forum and start a thread.
You are more then welcome to discuss these theories on the board ... just not in this forum please

Thanks for your cooperation
Click to expand...

Pardon me? I don't think anyone is pointing the finger at any specific person OR making any defamatory statement about specific people. We're talking about court transcripts here and surveillance footage - which happens to be a contentious subject. Intelligent questions are just that, and most questions involve a degree of speculation....which is how you get to discover the truth and facts. Everyone is getting along just fine in this thread and we are all tolerating each other's opinions - like the adults that we are. I am very surprised by your comment qbee. Did someone complain? I don't comprehend what brought you to make such a comment?

I appreciate that it's not helpful to have people making accusations without evidence, but i honestly don't see that in this thread. If it went off-topic, i think it was unintentional.
 
Last edited:
QuirkyDiana, the case forum is not for those who only think Murray is guilty. However, the case forum is specifically about the case against Murray. So that is what everything will focus on. It does not mean you think he is solely guilty.

Because of this slight difference, it has been fairly easy for alternate ideas about what took place to creep up in conversations and for the thread to veer off track fast. Because of this qbee was just being proactive. Asking questions is fine, but she was just reminding that this was not an invitation to change the course of what the thread was about. She is not saying this was occuring, but was just warning for it to not happen as it has happened many times before. (Sorry for speaking for you qbee :))

Thanks!
 
ginvid said:
QuirkyDiana, the case forum is not for those who only think Murray is guilty. However, the case forum is specifically about the case against Murray. So that is what everything will focus on. It does not mean you think he is solely guilty.

Because of this slight difference, it has been fairly easy for alternate ideas about what took place to creep up in conversations and for the thread to veer off track fast. Because of this qbee was just being proactive. Asking questions is fine, but she was just reminding that this was not an invitation to change the course of what the thread was about. She is not saying this was occuring, but was just warning for it to not happen as it has happened many times before. (Sorry for speaking for you qbee :))

Thanks!
Click to expand...

That's fine. On the subject of Murray - i have no idea whether he is guilty or not. I much prefer to hear all the evidence before making a firm judgment on that. I would be slightly worried if the case forum was for only people who think Murray is guilty! :)

After all, MJ would only want the truth (whatever it is) wouldn't he, not what people want you to believe. Moving on.....
 
QuirkyDiana00 said:
That's fine. On the subject of Murray - i have no idea whether he is guilty or not. I much prefer to hear all the evidence before making a firm judgment on that. I would be slightly worrtied if the case forum was for only people who think Murray is guilty! :)

After all, MJ would only want the truth (whatever it is) wouldn't he, not what people want you to believe. Moving on.....
Click to expand...

Are u aware of the charges murray is facing? U dont know if hes guilty or not? U think or arent sure if its negligent or not to bring diprivan into a house to give to someone with insomnia. give it to someone outside of a hospital without monitering and resus equipment and to not bother to watch your paitent.talk on the phone and or leave the room. And try to cover up what u have done.u dont know if murray is guilty of the charge of negligence or not?.u think those actions are normal.if that was done to your family member you wouldnt be sure if the dr was neglient in his actions Deary me. Uve blown your cover on that .guess murray is hoping for jurrors like u who dont think or arent sure if such actions are negligent or not
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
Are u aware of the charges murray is facing? U dont know if hes guilty or not? U think or arent sure if its negligent or not to bring diprivan into a house to give to someone with insomnia. give it to someone outside of a hospital without monitering and resus equipment and to not bother to watch your paitent.talk on the phone and or leave the room. And try to cover up what u have done.u dont know if murray is guilty of the charge of negligence or not?.u think those actions are normal.if that was done to your family member you wouldnt be sure if the dr was neglient in his actions Deary me. Uve blown your cover on that .guess murray is hoping for jurrors like u who dont think or arent sure if such actions are negligent or not
Click to expand...

Perhaps i should have been a little clearer in what i meant by 'i don't know if Murray is guilty or not'. Yes he brought Propofol into a home setting with the intention of using it for insomnia. Yes he did not have adequate monitoring equipment for such a medical procedure. Yes, it appears that he was not watching his patient - where he was i do not know. Murray is guilty of a lot of things. What i am not sure is whether he actually administered the propofol that morning. Until i hear more evidence, i will leave that door open (my prerogative).

I don't ask that you agree with me, just don't condemn me for my opinions. I have pretty balanced views really. Anyway, it would be a shame to clog up this thread with arguments over which opinions are correct. That's not what this thread is for. I hope that clarifies things. I'm sure the jurors will do their job well and fairly, and i can personally assure you that my intellect is intact.
 
Last edited:
QuirkyDiana00 said:
Yes he brought Propofol into a home setting with the intention of using it for insomnia. Yes he did not have adequate monitoring equipment for such a medical procedure. Yes, it appears that he was not watching his patient - where he was i do not know. Murray is guilty of a lot of things. What i am not sure is whether he actually administered the propofol that morning. Until i hear more evidence, i will leave that door open (my prerogative).
Click to expand...


:agree:


I also think much about it. I believe it's not just Murray there are many other things/people behind it that. It's like a smoke screen that prevents us from seeing what is behind. For me, there are things that are not entirely clear. :fear: I hope the whole truth is revealed. *big sigh*

Let's see... :timer:



:(
 
Yes many things are not clear to us yet becuase we dont have all the facts or evidence.
Just bits and pieces untill the trial begins.

Back to the topic _ Survelience tapes
I hope we get more clarification about those tapes when the trial begins
the information so far is not clear. Im there will be many questions brought
up in court about those tapes and we will get more answers then.
 
NOI, the guards some random unknown person? mj ? anyone but murray. regardless of the evidence and the declaration by the coroner and the fact murrays negligence caused mjs death and put him in that situation in the first place. if its this easy to jupe fans cause of the obsession with conspiracy i bet a few hrs b4 a not guilty verdict.its a shame that some are supporting murrays defence case and seemed to jump on the unknown killer theory after murray added it to all his other defences.would fans have made that theory up themselves if murray hadnt have done it? and will they be supporting him during testimony if this is brought up by the defence regardless of the rest of his actions. poor murray just a victim in all of this

anyway back on topic cause as normal its getting sidetracked by the same posters
 
Last edited:
The evidence and the declaration from the coroner only says that Mj died at the hands of another. It does not say by what individual. While we know Murray played a part, I don't think we can come down so hard on those who think he may have been helped or backed by others. I think some are hoping the surveillence tapes will show conclusively whether there were other individuals present in the home or not.

Gosh, is all speech outside of the popular opinion now considered wrong and unworthy? Must we always talk to others who think differently so negatively? People haven't even made up their minds on some things and are just asking questions and are just hoping for evidence that helps them make up their mind and they are derided. It's not necessary.

Ask your question about the topic, but please don't keep harping on things that derail the thread. As I said before, this forum part is about the case against Murray. All evidence is examined as to Murray's culpability.You can, however, talk about alternate musings and possibilities in the controversy section.

Please let's keep on topic about the tapes here.
 
The evidence and the declaration from the coroner only says that Mj died at the hands of another. It does not say by what individual.
Click to expand...
he said it wouldnt matter if murray didnt give the final dosage his actions would still constitute manslaughter for putting mj in such a position. call me stupid but as fan of mj's i take issue to anyone supporting one of murrays defences and claims of innocence that he created along with all the others in order to do anything to get himself off.

hes creating story after story lie after lie yet some fans are actually going with the someone else did it story.why? did they believe that b4 or just suddenly thought it was true after murray made the claim.do they believe all the other things hes said aswell.cause he made this defence story up out of thin air just like all the others. he claims the bodyguards.other members of the noi did it. he claims some random person may have done it he claimed mj did it. im surprised he hasnt accused the mj3 yet. anyone but him. no evidence to support the claim and as laughable as you can get yet some fans are supporting this mans claims.why? i guess some will be happy if he walks? cause it will suit the theory that they have. no one convicted murray lauded as a victim history re written. but then certain theories will be able to run on and on..to many diversion tactics at the mo distracting from the facts of the case. look forward (not the right word) to when hearings/the case gets underway and ppl can step away from innuendo and distractions and stick to the facts and the charges that the accused is facing.not distracting theories that only help murray
 
Last edited:
Id prefer if mods deleted all off topic comments instead of a select few as it appears some comments are allowed and responces to such comments arent.it should be all or nothing.
 
Last edited:
LIsten I didnt see the other posts after both ginvid and myself asked members to stay
on topic and stop discuss others being involved outside of Murray in this forum.

I was just trying to get the topic back on track .. but after reviewing your post
i will reinstate it ..
...............................................

AGAIN we are dicussing the fatcs and evidence we have against Murray
and his actions not conspiracy speculations in this thread.

This is the case and evidence we have againts Murry .. no one else
becuase we have no eveidence or facts presented againt any one else.

All Ginvid stated is she doesnt rule out the possibillty of others invoved
but here in this thread is not the place to dicuss it _ I also disagree with her
possibilty.. but we not going to discuss it in here so lets all get along and not
continue discussig it in THIS thread .. lets all please stay on topic.

If anyone doesnt think Murray was alone in his actions
We have a place to discuss that if you want to discuss it.
Go start a thread where it is allowed :) NOT here
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top