Latest on MJJC

Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date April 2, 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope they have some sort of security thingy on place so if those photos end up on front page of the Sun, so that they can pinpoint photos came from Randy.
 
Last edited:
have the family ever had any of those pics before? cause i hate to think what could happen now
 
elusive moonwalker said:
have the family ever had any of those pics before? cause i hate to think what could happen now
Click to expand...
I don't think they have, read coroner's objections below.
Ivy posted this on page 230:
It looks like Katherine's lawyers have sent a document production request to the LA Coroner. They are asking for x-rays (listed on pg 10 of autopsy report) and pathology slides (listed at pg 9 of autopsy report).

LA Coroner has filed objections for several reasons

- Estate who happens to be the legal representative of Michael was not given notice.
- Estate had previously (at Lloyds lawsuit) had asserted right of privacy.
- Pathology slides are considered to be remains of a decedent and it will either require consent from the legal representative (Estate) or a court order.
- X-Rays are photographs / negatives of decedent's body and they are considered to be confidential and privileged by law and cannot be copied.

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

applicable law cited by coroner - California Code of Civil Procedure Section 129

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no copy, reproduction, or facsimile of any kind shall be made of any photograph, negative, or print, including instant photographs and video recordings, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person, taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in the course of a post mortem examination or autopsy made by or caused to be made by the coroner, except for use in a criminal action or proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person, or except as a court of this state permits, by order after good cause has been shown and after written notification of the request for the court order has been served, at least five days
before the order is made, upon the district attorney of the county in which the post mortem examination or autopsy has been made or caused to be made.

This section shall not apply to the making of such a copy, reproduction, or facsimile for use in the field of forensic pathology, for use in medical or scientific education or research, or for use by any law enforcement agency in this or any other state or the United States.

This section shall apply to any such copy, reproduction, or facsimile, and to any such photograph, negative, or print, heretofore or hereafter made.
 
Ok do these slides have any descriptive words or labels attached to them? I am hoping that if this is leaked the absence of any descriptions or words attached to the slides will make it more difficult for tabloids to give a story or speculation of Michael's condition--although lack of information have never stopped them in making up a story before.

Ivy did they ask for slides of particular tissue/organs, or was this a blanket statement asking for all slides?
 
I'm not too worried about the slides, as what kind of story they can make out of them?
Take a photo of tissues in class jar, and attach side note that they are from Michael Jackson?
I don't see even The Sun would be that stupid to print that kind of story.
I'm more worried about these: "X-Rays are photographs / negatives of decedent's body".

I swear, if those show up in tabloids, I will get Randy voodoo doll and start poking needles to it:angry:
 
Ivy, are these related to info you posted on news section?

02/13/2013 Order ( tent. adopted as final order )
Filed by Judge

02/11/2013 Objection Document (PLTFFS OBJECTION TO DEFDTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION *DOCUMENT NOT SCANNED**)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Request for Judicial Notice (in support of pltfs opposition to defdts motions for msj **document not scanned** )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Opposition Points & Authorities (PLTFFS MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTH IN OPPOSITION TO DEFDTS FOR MSJ **DOCUMENT NOT SCANNED** )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (PLTFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFDTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT **DOCUMENT NOT SCANNED**)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Objection Document (PLTFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFDTS AEG INC ET AL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MSJ )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Objection Document (pltffs objections to defdts aeg live, llc aeg live production,llc brandon phillips and paul gongaware's evidence submitting in support of msj **document not scanned**)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (pltffs separate statement of disputed material facts and undisputedmaterial facts in opp to defdt motion for summary judgmt or in the alt **documenet not scanned**)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Request for Judicial Notice (NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLTFFS OPPOSITION TO DEDTS AEG INC AND LEIWEKE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALT **DOCUMENT NOT SCANNED **)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Opposition Document (PLTFFS EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFDTS AEG INC AND TIMOTHY LEIWEKE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALT AND DECL **DOCUMENT NOT SCANNED**)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2013 Opposition Points & Authorities (pltffs memo of points and auth in opposition to defdt AEG INC AND LEIWEKES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION **DOCUMENT NOT SCANNED**)
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
 
Last edited:
That's Katherine's response to the summary judgment motions - what we have been waiting for - but they aren't scanned as you can see. so bummer :(
 
most probably they have confidential / sealed information referenced in them and they didn't do the redacted versions (for the public filing ). so the court clerk did not scan them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top