surveillance tapes (all threads merged)

Ingelief

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,857
Points
0
Location
Netherlands
@elusive ok thx, i agree that there are so many story floating also here that its hard for me to keep up with facts and what are not facts.
so there are tapes, not erased?
And i think a person would be seen if they walk to michaels room
Also if the tapes only show outside im afraid that is not going to help in court for either sides because murray is not saying he wasnt there so what happend inside has nothing to do with the tapes from outside right??
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
I don't know what the actual amount found was but MJ had so much in his system it was detected in the fluid of his eyes! It was a massive amount even after Murray waited possibly hours before calling for help.

It was not a massive amount. I believe it was reported in court that they estimated the volume to be somewhere between 10ml and 20ml. That's probably not a conclusive estimate though. It's a bit of a mistaken belief to think that because it was detected in the eyes MJ's body was bathing in it. It's not factual to suggest that. In fact this comment about MJ being 'drugged up to the eyeballs' was started by Brian Oxman, who as we know is hardly a fountain of reliable knowledge. It's just a soundbite. You need to be careful when using the word 'massive'....with such a sensitive case it's important that we are certain of the scientific facts.
 
Last edited:

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
:yes::eek:rder


No way. You have to take into account the lidocaine detected in syringes.

Don't forget that quote was from 9th March and that Walgren said he would provide more complete answers the following day... What was reported by fans in the court about the cameras being "motion sensitive" must appear in the transcripts of the following status hearings. I suppose some fans will have bought them...

That's a good point about the lidocaine, though i'm not sure how much would be added. I actually believe that the lidocaine is a crucial point in determining whether it was likely someone else did this. There are a number of scenarios concerning that.

We're in the process of getting the status hearing transcripts.
 

Victory22

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,807
Points
0
Location
Westland, Michigan, United States
QuirkyDiana00;3403304 said:
It was not a massive amount. I believe it was reported in court that they estimated the volume to be somewhere between 10ml and 20ml. That's probably not a conclusive estimate though. It's a bit of a mistaken belief to think that because it was detected in the eyes MJ's body was bathing in it. It's not factual to suggest that. In fact this comment about MJ being 'drugged up to the eyeballs' was started by Brian Oxman, who as we know is hardly a fountain of reliable knowledge. It's just a soundbite. You need to be careful when using the word 'massive'....with such a sensitive case it's important that we are certain of the scientific facts.

I disagree with you on whether the amount of Propofol found in Michael’s system was massive. The actual fluid levels may have been 10-20ml however much of it was absorbed in his body issue, vital organs and skin. It was also detected in all of the fluids of his body such as the fluid of his eyes, his blood stream, spinal and cerebral fluids. That means he was administered a massive amount of the anesthesia which is why the coroner ruled his death Homicide due to Acute Propofol Intoxication.
 

Ingelief

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,857
Points
0
Location
Netherlands
i think with low amounts the propofol would also be detected, but i want to know facts know what we think
Is it true were getting the status hearing transcript? is that from the prelim?

I want to know what the amount was from a doctor or anestiologist how saw the lab results
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
i think with low amounts the propofol would also be detected, but i want to know facts know what we think
Is it true were getting the status hearing transcript? is that from the prelim?

I want to know what the amount was from a doctor or anestiologist how saw the lab results

There are people doing independent research and not necessarily from this forum, who are getting as much as they can in the way of transcripts. The findings will be shared everywhere but you may not be able to view the transcripts publicly because they cannot be put up legally. People can post excerpts which i'm sure they will do.

An anaesthetist would be the ideal person to comment on how much propofol was in MJ's system and whether that in fact constituted being called a 'massive' amount. Anything else is pure speculation unless someone can offer an expert's opinion or back up statements with facts from journals etc. I would always prefer the expert's opinion.
 
Last edited:

Victory22

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,807
Points
0
Location
Westland, Michigan, United States
I can’t wait until we get expert testimony on the amounts of Propofol Michael was given as well. The implication so far however from what I heard at the preliminary trial is that much more than a small amount of the anesthesia was administered to MJ. Hence the diagnosis of acute propofol intoxication as cause of death. I want this trial to get underway so we can find out definitively one way or the other.
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
Victory22;3403594 said:
I can’t wait until we get expert testimony on the amounts of Propofol Michael was given as well. The implication so far however from what I heard at the preliminary trial is that much more than a small amount of the anesthesia was administered to MJ. Hence the diagnosis of acute propofol intoxication as cause of death. I want this trial to get underway so we can find out definitively one way or the other.

Yes, more than 25mg was given - that was never in dispute. But a therapeutic dose (dependent on body weight/age) versus an overdose - that's what we're trying to find out. The wording alone isn't quite so clear cut.
 

smoothlugar

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
484
Points
0
In the preliminary the talk from experts was about concentrations of propofol, not amounts.

The anesthesiologist said blood hospital concentrations were the nearer to those ante-mortem, but that at the time of death the concentration would have been much higher... (He also said lorazepam levels were much higher than what Murray declared to police).

The only mention of amounts was from Murray's lawyers when asking for hypotheses of how much miligrams an induction dose would be (in general, as an average dose).

All this was discussed on this board and remember that for a time we could read the real transcripts and commented on them.
 

kasume

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,740
Points
0
It was not a massive amount. I believe it was reported in court that they estimated the volume to be somewhere between 10ml and 20ml. That's probably not a conclusive estimate though. It's a bit of a mistaken belief to think that because it was detected in the eyes MJ's body was bathing in it. It's not factual to suggest that. In fact this comment about MJ being 'drugged up to the eyeballs' was started by Brian Oxman, who as we know is hardly a fountain of reliable knowledge. It's just a soundbite. You need to be careful when using the word 'massive'....with such a sensitive case it's important that we are certain of the scientific facts.

it doesn't matter how much exactly Michael was given. What matters is that the final dose (added to the other drugs already in his system) was one that is able to kill him.

Is wasn't just the prop. A cocktail of drugs killed him.
 
Last edited:

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
it doesn't matter how much exactly Michael was given. What matters is that the final dose (added to the other drugs already in his system) was one that is able to kill him.

Is wasn't just the prop. A cocktail of drugs killed him.

I know that. But the amount is actually important to the case, and the overall picture. It's important because the amount should play a factor in how feasible Murray's defence is. Also, the bottle left on the floor - if it's determined that much more than 20ml was given then you'd have to question the point of trying to set up the scene with the 20ml bottle. If it was an obviously lethal quantity of propofol that was administered then that should raise questions about intent. Different doses of propofol give different effects on the body, but the therapeutic window is narrow meaning that it does not take much more than what is recommended for something to go wrong. That also should be considered. As you mention, there were also benzos in his system which is important when looking at how much propofol was given. That too can raise questions about intent. Some risks are obvious and Murray would have known those. If you can find no reasonable clinical rationale for Murray administering propofol on top of benzos at that time in the morning, then you should consider intent and study the evidence to be absolutely sure that Murray did this. What is known, is that MJ died straight after the administration of the final dose. Murray would not have been on the phone and administering propofol at the same time. That should give you some indication of the time it could have been administered (presuming Murray gave it).
 
Last edited:

smoothlugar

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
484
Points
0
It's important because the amount should play a factor in how feasible Murray's defence is. Also, the bottle left on the floor - if it's determined that much more than 20ml was given then you'd have to question the point of trying to set up the scene with the 20ml bottle. If it was an obviously lethal quantity of propofol that was administered then that should raise questions about intent. Different doses of propofol give different effects on the body, but the therapeutic window is narrow meaning that it does not take much more than what is recommended for something to go wrong. That also should be considered. As you mention, there were also benzos in his system which is important when looking at how much propofol was given. That too can raise questions about intent. Some risks are obvious and Murray would have known those.

I agree amounts or better, concentration levels, should play a factor... But if an average induction dosage would have been 150mg as the defence said, you would need to fill in the syringe twice (allowing also for the lidocaine, it was mentioned the average ratio, but I don't remember, 1 lidoc 4 propo?), which would make almost impossible to self-inject with a syringe of 10cc (that's why IMO they thought better to resort to their other "novel" theory of the drink.)
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
I agree amounts or better, concentration levels, should play a factor... But if an average induction dosage would have been 150mg as the defence said, you would need to fill in the syringe twice (allowing also for the lidocaine, it was mentioned the average ratio, but I don't remember, 1 lidoc 4 propo?), which would make almost impossible to self-inject with a syringe of 10cc (that's why IMO they thought better to resort to their other "novel" theory of the drink.)

Yes, presuming Murray stuck to protocol with the lidocaine (maybe that can be verified other ways), the syringe would be filled twice. This also presumes that more than 10ml propofol was given, since there is 2 ml extra in the syringe that can be filled with lidocaine. Certainly if 150mg was given you'd have to fill twice. I cannot think why a third party would ever consider adding lidocaine to the propofol if their job was to murder MJ - they would just inject the propofol. Unless of course, someone had managed to survey the drugs Murray was using in the room prior to 25th June, and used that knowledge to properly set Murray up. Just another piece to weigh up. If lidocaine had not been present in the syringes, it could have benefited Murray in court in that Murray, as a doctor, would have always added lidocaine before administering.
 

Ingelief

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,857
Points
0
Location
Netherlands
i think its importent to know what experts say about the amount which was given. Because if you notice that murray says 25 mg? and its alot more then that you have him for lying. then you can see if the bottles found also were given, which can make it a better case.
And now im hoping, but if the experts say its given per needle, and not as a drink, and the amount is always letal, maybe the will charge him for murder? Or am i dreaming now?

I think anyway that its importent to hear the facts from experts and not our thoughts presenting as facts.
 

smoothlugar

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
484
Points
0
I think anyway that its importent to hear the facts from experts and not our thoughts presenting as facts.

That's what we are doing, taking into account what was said in the preliminary and what it is written in official reports.
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
FEBRUARY 24TH 2011


MR. CHERNOFF: WITH REGARD TO THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, JUDGE, ON THE 25TH, THE POLICE DOWNLOADED THE ENTIRE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AT THE CAROLWOOD ADDRESS. WHAT WE HAVE RECEIVED ARE SNIPPETS OF THINGS THAT OCCURRED AT ESSENTIALLY 12:30am TO 12:45am. WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A COPY OF THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IT SO WE CAN DO OUR OWN ANALYSIS. THEY HAVE A COPY OF THE VIDEO FOR THE ENTIRE TIME FROM THE TIME THAT MR. JACKSON CAME HOME UNTIL HE WAS CARRIED AWAY IN AN AMBULANCE. WE WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO. YOU CAN SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT IF IT CONTRADICTS THE THINGS WITNESSES SAY, IF IT SHOWS PEOPLE GOING INTO THE HOUSE. WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THAT FOR A YEAR. IN THIS DISCOVERY MOTION, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT. I KNOW THEY HAVE GOT IT BECAUSE ONE OF THEIR WITNESSES SAID THEY DOWNLOADED THE WHOLE THING.

THE COURT: LET'S HEAR FROM MS. BRAZIL.

MS. BRAZIL: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT ON DISK NO. 476210, BUT I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM THAT RATHER THAN DISAGREE WITH WHAT MR. FLANAGAN HAS SAID.

THE COURT: YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENSE HAS THE FULL SURVEILLANCE TAPE DURING THAT TIME FRAME?

MS. BRAZIL: I'M NOT CERTAIN, YOUR HONOR, SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT EITHER WAY. I WILL LET THE COURT KNOW THAT. I WILL CHECK INTO IT. AND IF WE HAVE IT, OR IF IT IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE WILL MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT: YOU THINK IT IS REASONABLE DISCOVERY?

MS. BRAZIL: ABSOLUTELY.

THE COURT: IT IS ORDERED. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, YOU LET ME KNOW.

MS. BRAZIL: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.



SUMMARY

Chernoff states that LAPD downloaded the entire surveillance video at the Carolwood address. He contends that LAPD have a copy of the video from the time MJ arrived to the time he went away in the ambulance. He states that one of their witnesses confirmed that LAPD downloaded the whole thing. Chernoff complains that what they have received are recorded events between the time frame of 12.30am – 12.45am. He says they have been asking for the whole footage for a year and they want to use it to be sure that witness testimony is correct. Miss Brazil (prosecution) states that the defence has been provided footage on disk, but she is unsure whether any further footage exists and wants to check with her colleagues and LAPD.
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
FEBRUARY 28TH 2011


MS. BRAZIL: WITH RESPECT TO THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO FROM THE CAROLWOOD RESIDENCE, THE CD THAT THE DEFENSE HAS IS ALL OF THE SURVEILLANCE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION. THERE IS NOT ADDITIONAL SURVEILLANCE VIDEO IN THE PEOPLE'S POSSESSION OR IN LAPD POSSESSION CONCERNING THE CAROLWOOD RESIDENCE.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS IN ANYBODY ELSE'S POSSESSION?

MR. WALGREN: NO, YOUR HONOR. THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO.

MR. FLANAGAN: WE HAVE NOT.

MR. WALGREN: IT IS CD NO. 476210. I HAVE A SIGNED RECEIPT THAT THEY RECEIVED IT MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO.

MR. FLANAGAN: WE WERE PROVIDED A SNIPPET OF THE ARRIVAL OF MICHAEL JACKSON AND DR. MURRAY. WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ANYTHING SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE EARLY MORNING HOURS, INCLUDING THE PARAMEDICS' ARRIVAL. WE HAVEN'T BEEN PROVIDED THAT. LAPD HAS IT.

THE COURT: DO WE KNOW THE TIME FRAME OF THE DISCOVERY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE? FROM WHEN TO WHEN?

MR. WALGREN: TIME FRAME OF THE --

THE COURT: OF THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, FROM WHEN IT BEGINS UNTIL WHEN IT ENDS.

MR. WALGREN: IT IS THE ARRIVAL THAT EVENING. THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS.

THE COURT: HOW LONG IS IT?

MR. WALGREN: WELL, I THINK IT IS THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT SHORT CLIPS. WE ARE TALKING MINUTES TOTAL, PROBABLY.

MR. FLANAGAN: THE SHORT CLIPS -- YOU KNOW, THIS WHOLE THING HAPPENED FROM ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING TILL ABOUT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON THE FOLLOWING DAY. THERE SHOULD BE 12 HOURS. LAPD SEIZED WHAT THEY SEIZED. WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T WALK IN AND SAY TO KATHERINE JACKSON, "PLEASE GIVE US WHAT LAPD TOOK." IF THEY HAVE SNIPPETS, THEY HAVE THE REST. WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A MINUTE OF IT OR TWO MINUTES. THAT IS NOT COMPLIANCE. WE WANT THE ENTIRE SURVEILLANCE TAPE.

MR. WALGREN: LET ME REPEAT MYSELF. LAPD HAS SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE. I AM TOLD THAT WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENSE REPRESENTS THE ENTIRETY OF THE SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE THAT WAS DOWNLOADED. THEY HAVE IT. THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME FOOTAGE WE HAVE. THAT IS WHAT LAPD DOWNLOADED FROM THE HARD DRIVE.

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS ALL OF IT?

MR. WALGREN: YES, AND THIS IS FOOTAGE ESSENTIALLY POINTING TO THE GATE OF THE RESIDENCE, THE GATE USED BY VEHICLES TO ENTER THE PROPERTY.

THE COURT: DOES IT INTEREST YOU THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A TIME FRAME THAT MAY BE SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF 12 HOURS AND WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN DOWNLOADED IS ONLY A MATTER OF MINUTES. HOW DOES THAT SQUARE?

MR. WALGREN: MANY THINGS INTEREST ME ABOUT THE CASE. I'M JUST REPRESENTING –

THE COURT: SURE, YOU CAN SHARE THEM WITH ME, BUT THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT, THOUGH. YOU KNOW, I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE BASED UPON WHAT MR. FLANAGAN IS SAYING, IS HE OFF BASE?

MR. WALGREN: OFF BASE IN REGARD TO WHAT?

THE COURT: IN TERMS OF HIS REQUEST.

MR. WALGREN: LAPD IS ONLY IN POSSESSION OF WHAT THEY DOWNLOADED. WHAT THEY DOWNLOADED WAS THESE CLIPS ASCERTAINING WHO ENTERED THE PROPERTY THAT EVENING.

THE COURT: I KNOW. WHO MAKES THE DECISION AS TO WHAT IS DOWNLOADED? I MEAN WHAT TOTAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED? I'M NOT A COMPUTER TYPE OF PERSON. YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS THE PROCESS UNDER WHICH THE DOWNLOADING WAS ACCOMPLISHED? DID SOMEONE MAKE A DECISION, WELL, HERE IS STUFF THAT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. IT IS HOURS AND HOURS OF JUST NOTHING.

MR. WALGREN: I COULDN'T TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I GUESS YOU WILL NEED TO KNOW. I NEED THAT INFORMATION.

MR. WALGREN: AS FAR AS WHAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS?

THE COURT: NO. IS THERE A GREATER NUMBER OF HOURS OF TAPE OUT THERE?

MR. WALGREN: I HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND WHAT I'M TOLD IS THE CLIPS WE HAVE IS WHAT WAS DOWNLOADED.

THE COURT: BY?

MR. WALGREN: BY THE LAPD.

THE COURT: DO WE KNOW IF SOMEONE AT THE LAPD LEVEL MADE A DECISION THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS TO BE DOWNLOADED AND CERTAIN THINGS THAT WEREN'T TO BE DOWNLOADED, OR EVERYTHING THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM WAS DOWNLOADED?

MR. WALGREN: IT WAS DOWNLOADED. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DOWNLOAD TOOK PLACE ON-SITE AT THE RESIDENCE. SO THAT THE COMPUTER TECH GUY WAS ON-SITE AT CAROLWOOD AND DOWNLOADED THE CLIPS WE HAVE THAT SHOW WHO ENTERED THE PROPERTY AT WHAT TIME. THAT IS THE DISCOVERY WE HAVE.

THE COURT: DOES THAT INCLUDE WHEN PARAMEDICS CAME TO THE PROPERTY?

MR. WALGREN: NOT THAT WE HAVE, NO.

THE COURT: IS THERE SOME INDICATION THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WASN'T FUNCTIONING AT THAT TIME?

MR. WALGREN: I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS THE DILEMMA. HOW DOES THE DEFENSE THEN FIND OUT ABOUT OTHER SURVEILLANCE VIDEO MATERIAL THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DOWNLOADED? IS IT IN THE POSSESSION OF A CIVILIAN, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR SOME OTHER PERSON? DO YOU KNOW?

MR. WALGREN: IT IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT. IF IT IS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEN THE DEFENSE HAS ITS OPTION IN TERMS OF SUBPOENAING THE MATERIAL.

MR. WALGREN: I AM REPRESENTING IT IS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THE COURT: I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED IN TERMS OF WHETHER CERTAIN DECISIONS WERE MADE TO DOWNLOAD THIS AND NOT DOWNLOAD THAT.

MR. FLANAGAN: MAYBE WE COULD FIND OUT WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DID WITH IT. IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT, THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT. THERE IS PROBABLY A HARD DRIVE. THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT. THEY CHOSE WHAT TO DO. WELL, AFTER THEY CHOSE WHAT THEY WANTED, WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE REST. SHOULDN'T WE BE ENTITLED TO THAT INFORMATION? WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO GET THIS SURVEILLANCE TAPE. WE JUST ASSUME THEY WOULD HAVE HAD AN ENTIRE COPY OF IT.

THE COURT: MR. WALGREN, I NEED INFORMATION ABOUT THIS.

MR. WALGREN: OKAY.



SUMMARY

The prosecution states that the footage on disk given to the defence is all the prosecution has been provided with from LAPD. Miss Brazil states that no further footage is in LAPD’s possession. She states that nobody else is in possession of the entire surveillance video. The defence complains that all they have been given is a snippet of MJ and Murray arriving, noting the complete absence of any footage after this time. The defence contends that LAPD has the entire footage. Flanagan states that the relevant time frame should be 1am – 1pm (12hrs). The prosecution repeats that what the defence has been given is all that LAPD downloaded from the hard drive.

Walgren states that the footage is pointing towards the entrance gates. Judge Pastor expresses concern that in this case they are dealing with a time frame that is approx. 12hrs and yet all LAPD has downloaded is a few minutes. Judge Pastor wants to know who made the decision as to what is downloaded and what is not. He wants to know why ‘hours and hours’ of footage have been excluded from being downloaded. Walgren mentions that the download took place on-site at the Carolwood residence. He states that the ‘computer tech guy’ was on-site at Carolwood and downloaded the clips that the defence and prosecution have been given. Judge Pastor asks if that footage includes when paramedics came to the property. Walgren says no. Judge Pastor asks if the surveillance was not working at that time. Walgren says he cannot answer that.

Judge Pastor wants to know if the original surveillance video is in the possession of anyone. Walgren states that LAPD do not have it. The defence would like to find out what LAPD did with the original surveillance video once they had downloaded the clips they wanted. Flanagan suggests there is probably a hard drive.
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
MARCH 9TH 2011


MR. FLANAGAN: WE HAD ONE OTHER ISSUE. THAT IS THE SURVEILLANCE TAPES. WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THE SURVEILLANCE TAPES ON THE HARD DRIVES, WHEREVER THEY ARE, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE TO GET THEM.

MR. WALGREN: ACTUALLY, I HAVE SPOKEN PERSONALLY TO MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. FLANAGAN TODAY, AND I TOLD THEM THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE VIDEO FROM THE SURVEILLANCE TAPE THAT WAS DOWNLOADED. I DID HAVE LAPD DETECTIVES LOOK INTO THIS AND GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE SECURITY COMPANY THAT INSTALLED THE SYSTEM TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY AVENUES TO EXPLORE THERE. I EXPECT TO HAVE THE RESULTS OF THAT WITHIN A DAY OR TWO. THE ISSUE IS THAT APPARENTLY THE SECURITY SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE OR THE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM WAS NOT THE PROPERTY OR 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 LAPD HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT. AS I INDICATED, I EXPECT TO HAVE INFORMATION FOR DEFENSE PROBABLY BY TOMORROW.

THE COURT: AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THIS INFORMATION WOULD 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 THE 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 IT FURTHER SO I COULD GIVE A MORE CONCRETE ANSWER.

THE COURT: SO YOU WILL HAVE THAT INFORMATION WHEN?

MR. WALGREN: I EXPECT TO HAVE IT TOMORROW.

THE COURT: BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW, PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO MR. FLANAGAN. IF THERE IS SOME ISSUE, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO REGROUP SOONER BECAUSE MR. FLANAGAN HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED. IF IT EXISTS, IT EXISTS.

MR. FLANAGAN: IT COULD BE IMPORTANT. WE DON'T KNOW. WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU WANT IT, AND IT IS NOT IN YOUR POSSESSION. MR. WALGREN?

MR. WALGREN: 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 IS EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS AND IS ALL THAT WILL EVER EXIST, BUT I AM HAVING THEM LOOK INTO IT FURTHER.

THE COURT: THE SECURITY SYSTEM APPARENTLY WAS MONITORING THE RESIDENCE ON A 24-HOUR BASIS.

MR. WALGREN: THE EXTERIOR.

THE COURT: THE EXTERIOR. HOW MANY MINUTES OR HOURS WORTH OF VIDEO HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED? DO WE KNOW?

MR. WALGREN: 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.

THE COURT: I'VE BEEN CURIOUS, AND I STILL REMAIN CURIOUS ABOUT WHERE IN THE UNIVERSE THE OTHER VIDEO HAPPENS TO BE LOCATED, IF IT IS. MAYBE IT IS NOT. MAYBE IT WAS NEVER RECREATED SOMEWHERE.



SUMMARY

The defence states again that they want the surveillance tapes on the hard drives, wherever they are. The prosecution says that they asked LAPD detectives to look into this, to get additional information from the security firm that installed the system, to see if there are ‘avenues to explore there’. He expects to hear back from them within a couple of days. Walgren states that the security surveillance footage/system was not owned by MJ. It was the property of the homeowner and the equipment/installation was done by the homeowner, who rented the property to MJ. Judge Pastor then asks if the original video (that LAPD made downloads from) is in possession of this homeowner. Walgren says he doesn’t think so. He doesn’t think the original video exists anywhere. He states that he has asked LAPD to look into that futher.
Walgren’s understanding is that what LAPD downloaded has been given to the defence and no further footage from that day currently exists. Judge Pastor reminds the prosecution that the security system was monitoring 24hrs and asks Walgren to confirm again how many minutes/hrs were downloaded. Walgren states that the downloaded footage amounted to minutes.
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
MARCH 16TH 2011


THE COURT: OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF A VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AND THE SLIDE ISSUE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE? IS THERE SOME UPDATE ON THAT?

MR. WALGREN: VIDEO SURVEILLANCE, AS I INDICATED LAST WEEK AND HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, YOUR HONOR, THE L.A.P.D. DOWNLOADED ABOUT 13, 14, 15 MINUTES OF IT. THAT'S WHAT EXISTS. DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS HAD THAT FOR QUITE SOMETIME. ANY OTHER VIDEO WOULD HAVE BEEN, WOULD HAVE ERASED ITSELF AND BEEN RECORDED OVER. SO ALL THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE THAT EXISTS IS IN POSSESSION OF THE DEFENDANTS. I WILL POINT OUT, TOO, THAT THE -- AND THIS WILL BE PART OF THE NEW DISCOVERY BECAUSE L.A.P.D. DID FOLLOW UP ON THAT ISSUE. THE VIDEO CAMERAS APPARENTLY WERE SET UP ON THE EXTERIOR ONLY. THEY WERE MEANT TO MONITOR BASICALLY THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT THE DOORS OF THE PROPERTY, BUT RATHER THE GATES AND THE WALL PERIMETERS AND WERE EXTERIOR ONLY AND THE COVERAGE DEPENDED ON MOTION ACTIVATION AS TO HOW MUCH COVERAGE WAS TAKING PLACE. BUT AGAIN, THAT WILL BE COMMITTED TO A REPORT PROVIDED TO DEFENSE.
THE COURT: THOSE ARE ACTUALLY TWO SUBJECT AREAS IN WHICH I HAD SOME INTEREST, ONE, THE LOCATION OF THE CAMERAS AND, SECOND OF ALL, WHETHER THEY WERE MOTION ACTIVATED. AND YOU ARE SAYING OUTSIDE AND MOTION ACTIVATED.

MR. WALGREN: YES. I BELIEVE, AGAIN, I WANT TO GET THE REPORT TO THE DEFENSE. BUT I BELIEVE THE COVERAGE, THE AMOUNT OF FRAMES PER SECOND DEPENDED ON MOTION ACTIVATION.

THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN, YOU HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE OR MR. CHERNOFF.

MR. CHERNOFF: I PROBABLY KNOW MORE THAN MR. FLANAGAN. WE HAVE 4 MINUTES AND 7 MINUTES THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US QUITE SOMETIME AGO BY THE PROSECUTION. IF IT WAS MOTION ACTIVATED, THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT OF IT WHERE NO MOTION IS TAKING PLACE. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WERE THREE CAMERAS. THE CAMERA THAT WE HAVE SHOWS, IT SHOWS WHAT'S GOING ON LITERALLY IN FRONT OF THE GATE. I AM TAKING THE PROSECUTION AT THEIR, AT FACE VALUE. THEY TOLD ME LAST WEEK THAT FROM THEIR UNDERSTANDING, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ERASED EXCEPT FOR THOSE 4 AND 7 MINUTES. AND THEY ALSO TOLD ME AND MR. WALGREN SAID HE WAS GOING TO GET ANOTHER REPORT TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT, AND WE ARE JUST WAITING FOR THAT REPORT.



SUMMARY

The prosecution states that after liaising with LAPD they have confirmed that the LAPD downloaded a total of approximately 15 mins of footage. Walgren explains that ‘any other video would have erased itself and been recorded over’. He confirms that all the video surveillance that exists is in the possession of the defence. Walgren adds that the cameras were monitoring the exterior of the property – the gates and wall perimeter. He states that the cameras did not monitor the doors to the property. Walgren explains that the extent of the coverage depended on motion activation. He says all this will be outlined in a report to the defence. The defence states that they have 4 mins and 7 mins of video that was given to them. Chernoff questions whether it was motion activated because there is a lot of footage where no motion is taking place. He contends that there were 3 cameras, and explains that the camera they have only shows what is going on in front of the gate. Chernoff says that the prosecution has told them that everything has been erased except for those 4 and 7 mins. Chernoff is waiting for a report to explain all that.
 

QuirkyDiana00

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
98
Points
0
Location
France
Re: Surveillance Discovery - Court transcript

Thanks to @KarlaJorge for posting these transcript excerpts from the court. The summary has been provided by myself.

During each of the days that are listed, there were many issues touched on in court re: discovery. What has been posted is just the discussion relating to surveillance tapes from each day.
 

missred07

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
763
Points
0
m~~~Ok so after the testimony. Basically The camera is recording continuously. However, the LAPD just decided to copy the time MJ arrived. The rest of them was erased by overwriting? Am I understanding it correctly? It's quite careless decision from LAPD. Why not just take the whole thing? You never know what's going to happen since it's a really high profile case. and now they will claim this is conspiracy with LAPD involved that they allow the tape being erased.
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Why would the police want any footage from before mj arrived. its not relevent. they wanted a timeline and to see when murray arrived aswell.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
we have seen the tapes. they are quite irrelevant IMO and they show nothing but the gates and the cars come in. It doesn't show who goes into the house or not - We didn't see Michael at all for example.

and as for the murder conspiracy , killers probably wouldn't come through the front door posing for the cameras.
 

ruchie

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
654
Points
0
Location
East New York ,Brooklyn N.Y,USA
My things is and I wanted to know when He came home,did Michael wear the same clothes that he rehearsed in that was found on the floor in his Bedroom June 25? If those weren't the clpthes he wore when he came home then something is really wrong here. The LAPD did the wrong thing by erasing other material on that tape that could be evidence that there was more than just the people who was there that day.
 

Bonnie Blue

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
1,991
Points
0
Location
UK
^^Missredd07 and ruchie - the tapes weren't erased. In the 16 March hearing, walgren clearly says that the tapes are motion activated by movement at the front gate and perimeter wall, so the fact that there are only 15 or so mins of a 24 hr day is because that was the only activity to be taped.
 

wendy2004

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
5,456
Points
0
My things is and I wanted to know when He came home,did Michael wear the same clothes that he rehearsed in that was found on the floor in his Bedroom June 25? If those weren't the clpthes he wore when he came home then something is really wrong here. The LAPD did the wrong thing by erasing other material on that tape that could be evidence that there was more than just the people who was there that day.

I think it's highly likely that he arrived home in the clothes he rehearsed in. The last song rehearsed on the night of 6/24 was Earth Song. The clothes seen on the floor match those of Earth Song. Unless someone else is claiming they saw Michael wearing something completely different and they had a clear view of him (meaning in a well-lit setting and saw MJ from head to toe), they could be mistaken. The clothes on the floor (at least the jacket with the red lining) seem to correspond to the ES footage.
 
Top