Status hearings discussion thread / all threads merged

  • Thread starter elusive moonwalker
  • Start date
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

i dont think even when its filmed its going on on a sender all day.. would be hard to watch i think more like flashes in the news.. and on the internet every sec..

i believe you never let a patient on his back without oxy because the tong will fall backwords.. so in that case he is also stupid and quilty (murray i mean)
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

i am not sure whether to be happy about this or sad .even they showed this on tv ,editing is in their had so unless judge is monitoring closely ,i don't know what to think about it.
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

Just heard today in USA feb. 8th that when it goes to trial it will be live on TV in USA.
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

a friend of mine told me something that i did not think about until now. Murray says he walked out of the room and came back and noticed michael was not breathing because he notice his chest frame was not moving up and down. So would that mean michael was in the same position he was in when he left the room on his back? Does anyone else find it strange that he did not say he noticed michael's eyes were open?

i find this strange as well eyes and mouth open but murray didnt mention that? Gives me horrible thoughts, like he didnt die whilst 'asleep' i guess they going to use that to back up their self administration defence but it says something different to me.



i thought about it many times, unless murray takes the stand, the prosecution won't be able to bring up that point , at least not the significance of it. The people who described mj's open mouth and wide open eyes were the bodyguards ,they were interviewed months after the death so obvioulsy the investigators did not know about that fact when they questioned murray and that was not brought up in that interview. By the time the paramedics arrived murray already managed to close mj's eyes


Sorry to go into details, but I don't remember reading the bolded parts anywhere ? Do you remember where it was from ?

Remember the perimortal wounds : Michael moved / or was moved at around the time of death.

Justthefacts : all I have read so far about Murray's statements was in the search warrants, and the prelim. I think Murray gave more details to the police, probably more lies to help the DA...

will chernoff be stupid enough to put murray on the stand? Almost everything he said was a lie and the prosecution will be able to impeach him on almost everything.



I agree, and honestly I would love to see that happen. And shown on mainstream media everywhere.
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

this according to Karen Faye....she really is getting nervy.....


Karen Faye

On Tuesday 8th February 2011, @wingheart said:
The good thing about it being televised is that EVERYONE can be witness to what is going on (good or evil) in the courtroom...not just the biased media or ego inspired fans who think they are better than the ones who did not get chosen to get gain entrance
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

will Karen be testifying for anyone?
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

I think she will.
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

In my opinion, the defense won't take the chance of putting Karen Faye on the stand. First of all she's too unstable and there is way too much information out there, where she said the opposite of what she is saying now, i.e. "her comments to People magazine would be a good example."

I mean, seriously, the PROSECUTION would make mincemeat of her testimony. They would do a through background check on her (and every other witness) and then would use it against her once she took the stand. Shanti, Shanti, I don't think she would stand up well.

Making claims on your Facebook and/or Twitter page is way different then being questioned by a SEASONED prosecutor.

(Remember what happened to Stacy Brown and Bob Jones when they took the stand. LOL! T-Mez made them both look like fools.)
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

I think Karen's thought pattern about what happened to Michael goes along with what the popular thing is at the moment....because she wavers in her statements. I don't think SHE even knows the truth.....I dont really care about her opinion anyway..because if she had something useful to add she would of by now....I dont think she can be taken seriously.
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

In my opinion, the defense won't take the chance of putting Karen Faye on the stand. First of all she's too unstable and there is way too much information out there, where she said the opposite of what she is saying now, i.e. "her comments to People magazine would be a good example."

I mean, seriously, the PROSECUTION would make mincemeat of her testimony. They would do a through background check on her (and every other witness) and then would use it against her once she took the stand. Shanti, Shanti, I don't think she would stand up well.

Making claims on your Facebook and/or Twitter page is way different then being questioned by a SEASONED prosecutor.

(Remember what happened to Stacy Brown and Bob Jones when they took the stand. LOL! T-Mez made them both look like fools.)

:clapping:
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

I've mixed feelings about this televised court hearing. ... Mostly 'cause the media are snakish experts on subliminally corrupting viewers' brains (esp the non-'initiated', so to speak), either by words aligned a certain way, by fueling double mindness (esp in the case of the undecided), and create further confusion. Deception, basically. That's what I've concluded from all these 8 years of my having a computer/Internet and witnessing helplessly the crazy world around Jackson. Lots of mental abuse and conflicting feelings and restlessness along the way, Precisely caused by how the media so cleverly and insidiously present their 'information' so as to create a pattern of confusing, nerve-wrecking elements. They subtly resort to so-called reporting of coincidental information, that when, say, a less experienced public member/examiner goes through it, they're dumbfound by how these puzzle pieces fit altogether. One of the most perverse tools/weapons they got is via their words, often associated with footage/images and creepy music background aiming to.. really distort everything and gain new victims that will trust them.

Deception. ..When you have a televized court hearing, not only do they who cover the respective trial wanna make it seem like it's all out there for the world to see, no cover-ups and things, when, in fact, it's more to it. The vicious, shameless lies the defense (in this case, Murray's) will continue to present, even though they may well, well be proven as such, those will remain imprinted in some people's heads, you know, the drug addict ish and stuff, for they'll associate their ramblings with some of those who give interviews and speak about 'interventions' and plastic surgery and other crap like that (like it's sadly the case with some of Michael's own family members). ...

This is yet another trial I'll be sick about, prob moreso than before Because of all that, but I do still hope God is merciful and that some justice will occur. I don't know, am not too hopeful, since there are Loads of corrupted parties on both sides and on behalf of the system to be that way. So am only hoping for at least some minor justice, esp since Michael is the indefinitely quietest party in all this, and can't defend himself, he wanted to live and raise his children and witness them witnessing him not just a father, but as the performer, probably the Only reason he agreed to do those London shows. So, that quietest entity, once a most wonderful being, deserves some justice here on earth.
 
Last edited:
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

this according to Karen Faye....she really is getting nervy.....


Karen Faye

On Tuesday 8th February 2011, @wingheart said:
The good thing about it being televised is that EVERYONE can be witness to what is going on (good or evil) in the courtroom...not just the biased media or ego inspired fans who think they are better than the ones who did not get chosen to get gain entrance


Can someone please tell me whats up with this chick? she's talking about 'ego inspired fans' has she looked in the mirror lately? nobody's ego is bigger than hers right now!

Well, I don't know what to think about it being televised, but I guess now this trial will have more coverage with this decision than the prelim had.
 
In an effort to clear pre-trial motions, Mr Pastor set another hearing for February 15. By then, he hopes TV outlets will have submitted a coverage plan for final approval.

At a hearing Monday, the judge agreed to a broadcasters' request for TV cameras to be allowed into the courtroom, while specifying that they should not be too intrusive.

"I need a definite proposal as to what you want to do," Pastor told lawyers for the Radio Television News Association of Southern California, calling for the "absolute least intrusive placement" of cameras in court.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...7jQ54WcGGVGW2q10g?docId=N0606791297144527558A

Judge Pastor announced he would permit the televising of “openings, the presentation of evidence, closing arguments, the verdict or mistrial declaration” and sentencing, if it gets to that point. He said jury selection, side bar conferences and legal arguments, which are usually outside the jury’s presence, will not be televised.

The judge also noted that there may be times during the trial when he will deem it appropriate to “obscure some witnesses,” so he’ll order the cameras turned off. He didn’t state which witnesses, but it’s possible he is thinking of Michael Jackson’s children who could be called to testify.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011...hael-jacksons-doctor-trial-will-be-televised/
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

This is gonna be so nerve wrecking but i am glad I'll be able to hear the testimonies for myself.
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

In my opinion, the defense won't take the chance of putting Karen Faye on the stand. First of all she's too unstable and there is way too much information out there, where she said the opposite of what she is saying now, i.e. "her comments to People magazine would be a good example."

I mean, seriously, the PROSECUTION would make mincemeat of her testimony. They would do a through background check on her (and every other witness) and then would use it against her once she took the stand. Shanti, Shanti, I don't think she would stand up well.

Making claims on your Facebook and/or Twitter page is way different then being questioned by a SEASONED prosecutor.

(Remember what happened to Stacy Brown and Bob Jones when they took the stand. LOL! T-Mez made them both look like fools.)
The defense is dumb, let them put this luny tune on stand along with each and every Jackson there is out there, and let the prosecution have a field with all of them.
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

Enter Karen Faye.. this is sickening.. she is saying same things that Murrays defense are..

Karen is a nutter and a liar. Karen has always said that Michaels was not doing okay in the beginning but that his absolute best rehearsals were the last two ones and then everyone thought he would be able to pull it off... but now she recently she said on twitter how everything was great in the beginning but not in the end. Total contradiction of what this nutcase has been saying. Cant we find proof of this and throw it in her face? Someone needs to shut her up.

Below is the very first thing Karen wrote on her facebook June 2009 after MJ had passed.

""I want you to know he was full of love for all of you. He was looking forward to making everyone smile, and unite in these difficult times...to make the world a better place."

"he was working so hard...and he was so happy when I left him on Wednesday night...this is so difficult"

"I know how painful it is to loose this beautiful man....I can barely speak, but I must share with you his reason for getting on stage once again. It wasn't for money or to relaunch his career...it was to send the message that we must HEAL THE WORLD, before it's too late. He wanted to let us know that we have a four year window to get it right, to start walking the highest path, or we will loose the earth."

Yeah. And then what she said on 20/20 After Life last year how she thought Michael was going to die that it was No surprize to her.. She made me sick in that interview!!! For someone who knew Michael for all these years - she had NO Faith in him it sounds like!

Starting at 3:17 (I bet this video will disappear from youtube now.)


That interview is so messed up. First they say Michael looked sad & unhealthy & Then they turn around and say he looked on top of the world and then back to michael being awful. I can't stand this interview.
Then they expect Michael's rehersal performance to look just like it did back in what 96-97? C'mon man!
 
Re: court hearing 7th february discussion thread

my question is why didn't Karen or Michael Bush do anything about it? Michael Bush saying MJ was so thin and skeletal yet he did nothing even though he was concerned? I mean why couldn't he and Karen get together and take MJ to the hospital?
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 15th

As you know there's another status hearing happening today. According to AP these are the topics of today's hearing.

The hearing today will deal with coverage plans, jury questionnaire issues and discovery of evidence, reports AP. Attorneys are also scheduled to present names of proposed witnesses.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 15th

As you know there's another status hearing happening today. According to AP these are the topics of today's hearing.

The hearing today will deal with coverage plans, jury questionnaire issues and discovery of evidence, reports AP. Attorneys are also scheduled to present names of proposed witnesses.

And here we go....
kermit.gif




:( *big sigh*
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 15th

As you know there's another status hearing happening today. According to AP these are the topics of today's hearing.

The hearing today will deal with coverage plans, jury questionnaire issues and discovery of evidence, reports AP. Attorneys are also scheduled to present names of proposed witnesses.

any news on this hearing. ive been away for a week trying to catch up
 
Judge questions Conrad Murray's hiring of lawyer who once worked for Michael Jackson defense team [Updated]

February 15, 2011 | 2:38 pm

The judge handling the trial of Michael Jackson’s physician expressed concern Tuesday that the doctor recently hired a lawyer who once worked for a firm that defended the pop star from child molestation charges.

[Updated at 3:19 p.m.: Dr. Conrad Murray added attorney Nareg Gourjian to his defense team for the involuntary manslaughter trial set to begin next month. Gourjian formerly worked for Mark Geragos, who was Jackson’s attorney about seven years ago in the runup to a molestation trial in Santa Maria.]

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said at a hearing Tuesday that he was worried about a possible conflict of interest and would seek input from Jackson’s estate before ruling.

Gourjian said he was a junior associate who had “minimal” involvement in the Jackson defense and said, “There is no conflict.” The singer changed lawyers before trial.

The defense gave the prosecution a list of more than 90 potential witnesses. The prosecution has already turned over a list of more than 100 names.

Murray could face four years in prison if convicted.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/conrad-murray-michael-jackson.html
 
The Lost Child;3251288 said:
Judge questions Conrad Murray's hiring of lawyer who once worked for Michael Jackson defense team [Updated]

February 15, 2011 | 2:38 pm

The judge handling the trial of Michael Jackson’s physician expressed concern Tuesday that the doctor recently hired a lawyer who once worked for a firm that defended the pop star from child molestation charges.

[Updated at 3:19 p.m.: Dr. Conrad Murray added attorney Nareg Gourjian to his defense team for the involuntary manslaughter trial set to begin next month. Gourjian formerly worked for Mark Geragos, who was Jackson’s attorney about seven years ago in the runup to a molestation trial in Santa Maria.]

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said at a hearing Tuesday that he was worried about a possible conflict of interest and would seek input from Jackson’s estate before ruling.

Gourjian said he was a junior associate who had “minimal” involvement in the Jackson defense and said, “There is no conflict.” The singer changed lawyers before trial.

The defense gave the prosecution a list of more than 90 potential witnesses. The prosecution has already turned over a list of more than 100 names.

Murray could face four years in prison if convicted.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/conrad-murray-michael-jackson.html

:fear:
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 15th

Any one where is considering to go to LA for the trial. Am one of them. Traveling to states is a project in itself.
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 15th

any news on this hearing. ive been away for a week trying to catch up

each side gave their proposed witness lists
they are still discussing the questions that will be asked at jury selection
judge is trying to learn more about the new defense lawyer and if there's conflict of interest.
DA is saying that Murray's defense hasn't turned in any evidence , investigation reports to them.
 
This is really interesting
http://www.teammichaeljackson.com/tmj_003.htm

Walgren: The People [Prosecution] have not received Discovery, statements, or reports… but only a witness list. The Defense has had enough time to time to prepare these. A large number of witnesses do not appear on our Discovery.
Chernoff: We do not have witness statements or specialist reports. We are having a meeting tomorrow, and in couple days, when we have these, then we will get them to the Prosecution by the 28th
Judge: You do not have witness statements? Have you spoken to witnesses?
Chernoff: We have mental impressions and thoughts [from witnesses], but not statements.
Judge quoted a Penal Code Section regarding the Prosecution being able to have all Discovery [from the Defense] 28 days prior to trial, but it can be earlier.
Chernoff: We have put down notes/memos, but we have not converted them into written form. We have documents of our findings, but it is not Discovery. If you order us to take witness statements then we will. We don’t have them now. We have had conversations, but not in writing,
Judge: So you are producing witnesses without statements? Penal code 1054.3 A states that the Defense is required to provide to the Prosecution the names, addresses of witnesses who you are calling, written, recorded reports of experts, a physical and mental examination of the defendant, real evidence at the trial. So you have nothing called for in this Penal Code Section?
Chernoff: We are aware, but no expert reports or statements are present. Once we have them then we will turn them over to the Prosecution. Thursday we have meetings… when we have them we will turn them over.
Walgren: 1054 is designed to avoid this. This is gamesmanship. We have provided immediately what we had. This is unfair to the People [Prosecution] to be produced with the Defense Discovery so near to the trial. We need time to fairly process [Discovery] so we can have a fair trial.
Chernoff: We understand. (repeated the same from before, blah blah)
Judge: Your responsibility stands beyond meetings. You were provided reports, were notes taken?
Chernoff: Memos were prepared by myself. Flanagan spoke to ?? I don’t know if notes were taken by him. My guess is we will have it by the end of the week. We are not hiding anything. Walgren says no surprises, yet he has already spoken to one of the experts we are speaking with, yet he says he is in the dark. We have 91 witnesses from the Prosecution I have gone through and I don’t have most of their witness statements.
Judge: Law requires 28 days before proceeding are due to commence. I have 107 witness names mentioned. They may not all be called… going to wait for the Discovery. ?
Chernoff: Yes
 
Walgren: The People [Prosecution] have not received Discovery, statements, or reports… but only a witness list. The Defense has had enough time to time to prepare these. A large number of witnesses do not appear on our Discovery.
Chernoff: We do not have witness statements or specialist reports. We are having a meeting tomorrow, and in couple days, when we have these, then we will get them to the Prosecution by the 28th
Judge: You do not have witness statements? Have you spoken to witnesses?
Chernoff: We have mental impressions and thoughts [from witnesses], but not statements.
Judge quoted a Penal Code Section regarding the Prosecution being able to have all Discovery [from the Defense] 28 days prior to trial, but it can be earlier.
Chernoff: We have put down notes/memos, but we have not converted them into written form. We have documents of our findings, but it is not Discovery. If you order us to take witness statements then we will. We don’t have them now. We have had conversations, but not in writing,
Judge: So you are producing witnesses without statements? Penal code 1054.3 A states that the Defense is required to provide to the Prosecution the names, addresses of witnesses who you are calling, written, recorded reports of experts, a physical and mental examination of the defendant, real evidence at the trial. So you have nothing called for in this Penal Code Section?
Chernoff: We are aware, but no expert reports or statements are present. Once we have them then we will turn them over to the Prosecution. Thursday we have meetings… when we have them we will turn them over.

LOL fools still havnt created a defence
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 15th

Thanks, Ivy.

Uhm, the defense seems to be completely unprepared. Or, are they going to plea-bargain and didn't think they'd need those things? By now, they should have been on top of it and taken depositions from every witness! This is making no sense. . .
 
Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 15th

The trial starts next month and the defense has no witness statements? Murray wanted a speedy trial and they don't have witness statements or reports yet?

That doesn't even sound right


T
 
Back
Top