Latest on MJJC

Status hearings discussion thread / all threads merged

  • Thread starter elusive moonwalker
  • Start date
Re: August 31st hearing

There was a hearing on this on August 31st? What happened?
 
Re: August 31st hearing

^^^ I presumed there was as these papers were filed, if I'm wrong we can re-name the thread, it's relevant to here as well as the Lloyds thread.
 
Re: August 31st hearing

I dont think there was a hearing.they just filed the papers with the court
 
Re: August 31st hearing

^^^ My mistake then, I tried to change the title but it wont let me but perhaps a member of staff will later.
 
My Notes from Inside the Court Room, Aug. 29th, 2011.

por Samantha De Gosson, sábado, 3 de setembro de 2011 às 19:15


August 29th, 2011

No family, no Murray.

Motion in Limine regarding proposed Defense Witnesses

Prosecution asked for the elimination of any Santa Barbara (2005 trial) allegations of investigation references. They were concerned that it was a cheap shot at an obvious Character Assassination and an attempt to inflame the Jury. The allegations and investigations have nothing to do with the negligent medical care provided by Murray. Therefore the Defense’s witnesses related to these matters should be eliminated from the list (including any other unknown witnesses): Steve Robel, Chris Carter, Gerald Labiner, Barney Vanvalin, Michael LePerruque.

Defense claimed that past drug addictions, use, desire and possession was of the matter because they believe Michael self-ingested the Propofol and was so obsessed with it and was going off Demerol at the time of his death and therefor any past drug use and course of conduct over decades is relevant.

Prosecution answered by stating that the Toxicology findings showed that there was NO Demerol in Michael’s system and that this was an attempt to confuse the Jury. Furthermore, they weren’t given any Discovery from the Defense regarding supposed findings from 2003-2005. Prosecution argued that only what is relevant to 2009 should be addressed in court and this was another attempt to attack the victim unfairly.

Defense replied by saying that Demerol addiction and withdrawal was relent because it causes insomnia and that Murray didn’t know that Dr. Klein was giving him some in his office.

Judge’s ruling: The Prosecution’s motion to In Limine Proposed Defense Witnesses is GRANTED.

Anything that has to do with the 2003-2005 is fundamentally irrelevant! All witnesses mentioned above are excluded and will NOT be allowed to take the stand in this trial. The Judge said that discussions in the matter are misleading and unfair, prejudiced, distracting and irrelevant and call for a complete exclusion.

Next on the In Limine Proposed Defense Witnesses:

Allen Metzger

Defense claimed that his testimony as an ex health care provider would be of importance and show that Michael supposedly asked to be intravenously injected with sleep medicine.

Prosecution answered back by asking the Defense to give proof of this claim.

Judge then asked the Defense if Metzger ever prescribed anything to Michael.

Defense’s answer:” NO, but if Michael would have gotten Propofol on April 18th, 2009 (last time he saw Metzger) then he would not have needed Murray to give him any”.

Judge’s ruling on Metzger: Metzger is allowed to testify.

Allen Adams

Prosecution’s argument for Adams: He claimed that Michael used Propofol in July 2008 and that Adamsis a dentist that did 4 dental procedures on him which took place in a medical office with an anesthesiologist present and never out of a medical setting like a bedroom.

Defense’s argument for Adams: Adam’s medical records clearly contradict what he told the Police. His activities are relevant. April 2009 was the last time Adams saw Michael and the time where Murray supposedly let Adams put Michael to sleep.

Prosecution came back with the argument that this was only Murray’s claim, and that all other Adams ‘ medical occasions relate to 2008 dentist procedures and are irrelevant to the case.

Judge’s ruling: Allen Adams is allowed to testify.

Cherylin Lee

Judge’s ruling: CherylinLee is allowed to testify.

Arnold Klein

Prosecution objected to Klein because he gave Michael Demerol for dermatology procedures and that it was an attempt from the Defense to put the focus on Klein’s actions instead of Murray’s. However, the Prosecution does not object to having Klein’s medical records admitted in court.

Defense responded by arguing that the use of powerful drugs is relevant and that they may not callKlein to the stand but his testimony might be wanted independently from the medical records.

Judge’s ruling: Kleinis not allowed to testify. Irrelevant since there is no objection to the use of the medical records.

Ellen Brunn and Jason Pfeiffer

Prosecution argues that these two witnesses (who worked in Klein’s office) should be excluded for the same reason as Klein.

Judge’s ruling: Brunn and Pfeiffer are not allowed to testify.

John Branca

Judge’s ruling:Exclusion remains. (From prior motions).

Susan Etok

Prosecution objected to Etok testifying because of the Defense’s claim that she refused to give Michael Propofol. This witness cannot be taken seriously because she is not a medical doctor! She has a PHD in engineering and not in medicine!

Defense answered that this should show Michael’s desperation in asking Etok for Propofol and that Michael asked her because her ant is an anesthesiologist.

Judge’s ruling: SusanEtok is not allowed to testify.

Karen Faye

Prosecution claimed that the Defense want to put Karen Faye on to say that he was weak and thin a week prior to his death. Prosecution claimed that this was only her opinion.

Judge’s ruling: Karen Faye is allowed to testify.

Travis Payne

Prosecution stated that they had no discovery what so ever regarding Payne.

Defense argued back that the footage they all watched from This Is It clearly shows Paynepresent and that therefor is circumstantial evidence that he had knowledge on Michael’s health and state of mind and that Paynewould most likely testify that Michael was unwell.

Judge’s ruling: Deferred Decision.

Grace Rwaramba

Prosecution stated that despite the Defense’s claims that Rwaramba might have witnessed drug use since 1992 she was actually fired in April 2009 and wasn’t even at the house when he died.

Defense argued that her testimony would be relevant because of her history and what she would have witnessed.

Judge’s ruling: Grace Rwaramba is not allowed to testify.

Thome Thome

Prosecution claimed that the Defense only believes that Thome might have certain claims to make and that Thome should not testify as all he did was negotiate the This Is It contract with AEG and nothing else.

Defense argued that Thome is extremely important because of his negotiations with AEG and would reveal Michael’s mental state because of the concerts.

Judge’s ruling: Thomeis not allowed to testify. His testimony would be potential for distraction. The Judge further quashed any subpoenas that were being held so far.

Stephen Pustilnik (Medical Examiner)

Prosecution said that Pustilnik’s testimony only comments on his opinion of the Coroner’s office facility which he visited 2 years after the autopsy, and not on any toxicology findings. His testimony is therefore totally irrelevant.

Defense responded by saying that Pustilnik was present during the autopsy and a witness to the coroner’s findings and that he has a different opinion to the coroner’s investigation findings.

Judge’s ruling: Deferred decision until after the Jury is sworn in.

Michael Lee Bush

Judge’s ruling: Subject to revisiting.

Other witnesses excluded and not allow to testify: Frank Cascio, Alex Farschchian, Steven Hoeffler, Neal Ratner, Cary Logan, Dieter Wiesner and Leonard Rowe.


283044_10150263443003961_579028960_7558798_801323_n.jpg



Some pictures mean more than words can say...
Click to expand...
http://www.facebook.com/notes/samantha-de-gosson/my-notes-from-inside-the-court-room-aug-29th-2011/10150302453513798




:fear:
 
Last edited:
Re: August 29th hearing

What about kenny ortega? will be testifying?
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Thanks.just read it.intresting info.like the comments re metzger and the defence impeaching their own client!
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Thanks. What's peculiar is that by the time Dr. Metzger had contact with MJ on 18th April, Murray had already purchased propofol and lorazepam from the pharmacy if I remember well.
 
Re: August 29th hearing

yeah theres something we dont know re metzger and the times.throw in lee aswell.murray may have bought the stuff for the tour in april.as i dont think anyone believes he was giving it to mj for two months or whatever time he claimed as theres no way mj would have survived 2 months of murrays treatment.when was the meeting with adams.do we have an exact date as murray just said sometime in march or april.I have to say i dont like the info re adams.whether adams lied is to be seen but its not helpful.and i dont get why the pros
have no issues with the defence using kliens
records.its like bringing demoral in by the
back door.is klien a pros witness?thought it was mentioned he was or will the pros not bother as it opens the defence to be able to question him
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Thats just the testimony i believe. Like on 03-05.u have to pay
 
Re: August 29th hearing

smoothlugar said:
Thanks. What's peculiar is that by the time Dr. Metzger had contact with MJ on 18th April, Murray had already purchased propofol and lorazepam from the pharmacy if I remember well.
Click to expand...

and that's the defense argument. by using metzger and lee and adams they will try to show that Murray didn't give MJ propofol for a long time. On the other hand during the interview Murray said he gave it for 6 weeks and that's what judge means by "impeaching their own client".

I think they can impeach Murray and tell that he wasn't actually giving Michael propofol (or not enough) so he was going around asking other people for propofol and on that day he didn't give him propofol as well and when he was out Michael drank the propofol.

(from the previous notes they are also still pursuing the drinking theory)

elusive moonwalker said:
Thats just the testimony i believe. Like on 03-05.u have to pay
Click to expand...

it's transcripts and yes it's illegal to post them. they should be summarized but that's not a summary but a copy paste.
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Thanks ivy. So it does include all transcripts.funny how freedom to access things goes out of the window when moneys involved!.how bizarre the defence impeaching their own client to prove a theory.that must be a first!

Re metzger etc i though one defence argument would be mj was addicted to
diprivan and aas shopping for it so that helps
them with the desperation theory.

Also wont they beable to tell if the dip was been given for weeks at a time.? Hair samples? Or does it go straight out of the system within a few days or so?
 
Re: August 29th hearing

elusive moonwalker said:
Thanks ivy. So it does include all transcripts.funny how freedom to access things goes out of the window when moneys involved!.
Click to expand...


fyi

- court documents (documents filed with the court) is considered as public domain. there's only the copying/scanning cost paid to get them. afterward they can be freely shared - although personal information has to be redacted when openly posting them.

- court transcripts are done by a court reporter typing them, therefore there's a substantial amount of work that goes into them and copyright of the work comes into play. they are free access - meaning that anyone can buy them however as the copyright the work of the court reporter is involved in typing them they cannot be posted online or shared. If you do that you are violating the copyright of the court reporter. fair use principle allows people to post summaries and excerpts from transcripts. such as getting the transcripts and saying "x,y,z can't testify because of this reason" would be completely fine. however that link isn't a summary. It's a plain copy - paste.
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Yeah we had this issue in 03-05 still to me its a slap in the face of the obsession the system has about everything been open to the public.the court recorder should work for the state (if they dont) and the public should be able to access the facts ie the transcripts
as a right.

Wonder if the judges pull the tv cameras the estate may buy up the transcripts like mjjsource.yeah its a total long shot but if they pull the cameras we are gonna be up a creek without a paddke interms of hearing whats goin on
 
elusive moonwalker;3474774 said:
I have to say i dont like the info re adams.whether adams lied is to be seen but its not helpful.
Click to expand...
Chernoff said that according to their offer of proof Adams lied in the Affidavit, but he forgot to mention Murray lied in the Affidavit when his client told police that "Murray was present at a third party cosmetologist's office where Dorctor adams sedated MJ with propofol". Now, Chernoff told the judge that his client wasn't present, so...???
elusive moonwalker;3474774 said:
and i dont get why the pros
have no issues with the defence using kliens
records.its like bringing demoral in by the
back door.
Click to expand...
The judge said: "I do not think it is relevant in the overall scheme of things in view of the people’s acknowledgement that they will not be objecting to the medical records themselves." My (humble) understanding is that by accepting Klein's records, his testimony would become redundant, in a way and it would be easier for them that the judge rejected his testimony?
ivy;3474860 said:
I think they can impeach Murray and tell that he wasn't actually giving Michael propofol (...) so he was going around asking other people for propofol
Click to expand...
Yes, Ivy, but if Murray had already the propofol what was the point of asking for it to get if from other doctors... I still find it that hard to believe. Lee also said in the affidavit that his doctor told him it was safe... which doctor, anyway??
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Seems from that that they dont need klien to tesyify as they have the medical records and can use them instead.but u cant x a piece of paper as said in 03-05
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Thanks. What's peculiar is that by the time Dr. Metzger had contact with MJ on 18th April, Murray had already purchased propofol and lorazepam from the pharmacy if I remember well.
Click to expand...


April 6[SUP]th[/SUP], 2009. Murray ordered 10 single dose vials of propofol from Applied pharmacy in Vegas

April 12[SUP]nd[/SUP] , 2009 During EASTER week, MJ for the first time asked nurse Lee about someone who could give him propofol

April 18 Metzger at MJ's house,


Chernof claims that Adams gave MJ propofol in march or April and that Metzeger is another witness who would prove the defence claims that Murray did not give MJ propofol that early if he was still searching for a doctor .


I believe Murray was afraid of the hair toxicology and when he bought those single dose vials he did use them that early to convince MJ he was capabale of doing the job alone. MJ was still searching for someone else because he was aware Murray could not do it all by himself. Murray is a pathetic criminal since day one all he cared about was the money. He was the doctor MJ mentioned to Lee . Adams , Lee and Metzegr are a real nightmare to the defence .


 
Re: August 29th hearing

^` Lee said in the Affidavit that on Easter Sunday (I think it was 9th April), she was asked to get propofol (or if she knew someone that could).
And the first shipment ordered by Murray contained 10 vials of 100ml and 25 vials of 20ml, so what was the point of asking her to get the propofol? That part of the Affidavit is what I don't get, I mean if it said "to give" or administrate, but "get"... Murray already had it in LA... ??
 
Re: August 29th hearing

smoothlugar said:
Yes, Ivy, but if Murray had already the propofol what was the point of asking for it to get if from other doctors... I still find it that hard to believe. Lee also said in the affidavit that his doctor told him it was safe... which doctor, anyway??
Click to expand...

see that's the "reasonable doubt" the defense is going after. that murray wasn't giving mj propofol (actually weening him off propofol) but mj was wanting it, becoming frustrated hence asking around and finally drank it and overdosed himself.

i think the reality is more like Murray was giving him propofol but was doing a crappy job with it (at least not maintaining a constant sleep) and Murray's employment was dependent on him getting a licence to practice in UK (as the AEG agreement showed us) therefore Michael was trying to replace him.
 
Re: August 29th hearing

If mj needed weaning off it it means he was already getting it from someone.but the testimony of lee etc doesnt support that. Like ivy says seems to me mj was looking for someone to give it to him.hence the meeting with adams and i can only presume mj asked lee about getting someone to give it and not to buy it as that makes no sense. Do u think murray would go out of his way and buy the stuff without telling mj just to make sure he got the job?
 
Re: August 29th hearing

Lets not forget Murray told the cops he did not know Propofol l was part of the job until he was hired. And from the time he was hired in May up until June 23 he had been given Michael Propofol. When you take Murray's interview with the cops with his lawyers sitting right there and read what is going on in court they don't match. The only person saying Adams gave Michael Propofol in Murray's office is Murray
 
Last edited:
Re: August 29th hearing

elusive moonwalker said:
presume mj asked lee about getting someone to give it and not to buy it as that makes no sense.
Click to expand...
That was precisely my point: no sense what Lee said in the affidavit (or the way it was transcribed into the affidavit).



PS: Thanks, Ivy, for replying, but probably i didn't explain myself well enough, I knew what the defense were getting at, my distrust was more of another nature... (just something personal)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top