Latest on MJJC

surveillance tapes (all threads merged)

no I'm serious am I missing something about Michael's arrival time? What is its significance?

(and I didn't say you are derailing the thread so go on)
 
yeah i dont really see the significance either. its not a major point .it doesnt matter in the scheme of things
 
no I'm serious am I missing something about Michael's arrival time? What is its significance?
Click to expand...

It could be significant...or not...I'm not really sure. Maybe it's not important at all....But you two seem to have a sound opinion on this that the time is not significant. :mello:

Why do you think it's not significant? (Not that it just doesn't matter in the scheme of things) But WHY doesn't it matter? And what are these "things"?

I'm getting more confused. :scratch:
 
Last edited:
in the scheme of things it doesnt matter to me cause the crime is not dependent on whether mj got home at for example 00.30 or 01.30. its irrelvent interms of what murray did the morning of the 25th june
 
^ That's your opinion

"Bodyguards say they handed over 24 hours-worth of footage from the day, which showed everyone who came and went."

"Chernoff's been told it is no longer available. Somehow only a few minutes of the footage is left." :doh:

I smelll a cover up! :angry: Makes me wonder even more why the initial D.A. resigned shortly after June 25.
 
Last edited:
^ That's your opinion
Click to expand...
what else would it be lol

24hr tape that was motion sensitive. how many more times does it have to be said. it didnt have 24hrs of footage on it. there was about 15 mins of actual footage on the tape according to previous court hearings

I smelll a cover up! :angry: Makes me wonder even more why the initial D.A. resigned shortly after June 25.
Click to expand...
head of the LAPD from what i remember
 
I'll wait till I hear that in court that the cameras were motion sensitive.

If the cameras are motion sensitive, how can there be 24 hours WORTH of footage? Or are the cameras not motion sensitive and they keep on recording even if there is no motion, which makes 24 hours worth of footage.....

I'll try to check and see....
 
it recorded over 24hrs and then recorded over itself.that was what was said in court at the hearing about it so if they handed over a tape with 24hrs on it wasnt actually 24hrs of footage but 24hrs interms of the time.but there was only 15 mins of actual footage on it. if that makes sense.
 
We don't need the surveillance tapes.

Murray confessed TO THE POLICE, that he injected the propofol.So first he's a dealer, because we don't give an anesthetic to a patient to help him to sleep. Any doctors, nurses, apprentice nurses say that! Secondly, he's a killer, because the propofol is the thing who killed Mike.

The trial can be fast.

Soon this bastard will be in jail, with no more licence to practice his fake medecine.
 
ivy 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.

what could these outside camera(s) record as far as we know?

Michael's arrival and leaving of security
Night security leaving - day security coming to work ( if the security trailer is in the record area)
cook coming to work into the house
security going into the house after Murray's phone call
arrival of paramedics and going into the house

and going with what TMZ said if they weren't suspicious at that time and only wanted to establish timeline they would be only interested in the time period of Michael's arrival to paramedics arrival. If there was minimal people coming and going to the house (like I mentioned above) it's likely that the whole footage could be 15 minutes (again stopping at the moment paramedics arrive).
Click to expand...

Besides this, it also appeared mentioned at the time by Walgren in the transcripts. (I mean the same idea).
 
It matters if you want to be accurate about generating a proper timeline - which is the LAPD's job. Also, it is not LAPD RHD's job to pre-determine what evidence *might* be important before the coroner has actually given his verdict on cause of death.
 
kasume said:
^ That's your opinion

"Bodyguards say they handed over 24 hours-worth of footage from the day, which showed everyone who came and went."

"Chernoff's been told it is no longer available. Somehow only a few minutes of the footage is left." :doh:

I smelll a cover up! :angry: Makes me wonder even more why the initial D.A. resigned shortly after June 25.
Click to expand...

I don't think that bodyguards handed them anything. Because it the court transcripts / status hearings we heard that it was a separate security company hired by the home owner and that detectives went to that company to watch and copy the video. so it had nothing to do with MJ's bodyguards.
 
The investigator's preliminary report said that 'at approx. 0100 hours the decedent placed a call to his primary physician...complained of being dehydrated and not being able to sleep...'
I think this was changed during the evidence hearings but it seems so specific. The only person who could have given this info was murray. If he was in fact already there when Michael arrived, this statement would be incredibly erroneous and I do not understand how that could be. Plus, if there was a phone call from Michael to him, phone records would confirm or deny, no?
And it brings up the question of where was murray before he arrived and what was he doing. (I know, Joe's lawsuit ) But if he was at a bar or 'club' for hours prior, then he wasn't in the most rested condition to spend the next 12 hours taking care of a patient, potentially making him tired and affecting his judgment. If he was already at Michael's, when did he arrive? And did this happen every night? Surely security should be able to say when he arrived and left? with or without surveillance tapes.
 
ivy said:
I don't think that bodyguards handed them anything. Because it the court transcripts / status hearings we heard that it was a separate security company hired by the home owner and that detectives went to that company to watch and copy the video. so it had nothing to do with MJ's bodyguards.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that Ivy? I must have missed it. Thanks so much, in advance
 
jrsfan said:
Do you have a link for that Ivy? I must have missed it. Thanks so much, in advance
Click to expand...

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.
 
I wanted to say something about the missing recordings of security footage... I tend to investigate what I say and have been very dilligent. There seems to be a major flaw in what is said to have happened to the recording. You see, the prosecution has said it was indeed digital, which falls inline with them having obtained a dowload of the material, however they said the recording re recorded over itself after a 24 hour period. From everything I know and have learned concerning this data it does not "record over itself." They are speaking of taped surveilance which is not what was at Michael's residence. It is taped surveilance that records over prvious resordings. I feel safe in saying someone is lying. Hope that helps your discussion.God bless!!!
 
Sharon B. Sidney said:
I wanted to say something about the missing recordings of security footage... I tend to investigate what I say and have been very dilligent. There seems to be a major flaw in what is said to have happened to the recording. You see, the prosecution has said it was indeed digital, which falls inline with them having obtained a dowload of the material, however they said the recording re recorded over itself after a 24 hour period. From everything I know and have learned concerning this data it does not "record over itself." They are speaking of taped surveilance which is not what was at Michael's residence. It is taped surveilance that records over prvious resordings. I feel safe in saying someone is lying. Hope that helps your discussion.God bless!!!
Click to expand...

I agree that something is not terribly clear here, and if there is a simple answer to it everyone should be able to understand. Either the situation has been misreported or it just hasn't been investigated properly. I do hope the defence question LAPD publicly over what happened to this piece of evidence. The excuse they allegedly gave for not retaining all of it was also very questionable. The robbery/homicide division were onto the case straight away, there was no transfer from LAPD to LAPD RHD, Chief Bratton assigned robbery/homicide division to the case almost instantly (i think they said 4pm the same day). The excuse they allegedly gave which was that they did not think the case would turn into a homicide was not believable, simply because Lt. Greg Strenk stated on 25th June that it was now a coroner's investigation and they would be waiting for their verdict. The simplest of minds would understand this - it's common sense. You'd think robbery/homicide would know the ropes.
 
What does the security company that installed the system have to say about this. They would know what kind of equipment was used.
I can't understand how the LAPD would not look at the entire tape just to be sure there was nothing important on it. After all , they knew who the victim was and the publicity that would be generated.
 
Sharon B. Sidney said:
I wanted to say something about the missing recordings of security footage... I tend to investigate what I say and have been very dilligent. There seems to be a major flaw in what is said to have happened to the recording. You see, the prosecution has said it was indeed digital, which falls inline with them having obtained a dowload of the material, however they said the recording re recorded over itself after a 24 hour period. From everything I know and have learned concerning this data it does not "record over itself." They are speaking of taped surveilance which is not what was at Michael's residence. It is taped surveilance that records over prvious resordings. I feel safe in saying someone is lying. Hope that helps your discussion.God bless!!!
Click to expand...

Someone lying seems to be the norm, unfortunately.
 
Ivy, this picture you posted 2 pages back, where did you get it from? It allegedly shows the trailer that MJ's security was using, but if i'm correct the date on the bottom of the image says 2007. MJ wasn't using this house then, so i don't know what to make of that white rectangle although it does appear to be in the correct position with reference to where the trailer was stationed.

90dmyv.jpg
 
I found this about the surveillance tapes, not sure if accurate though:

cnn reporting:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/15/ng.01.html

GRACE: ... the $100,000-a-month rental where he and his children were living, had an elaborate security system that even videoed up in Jackson`s private living quarters. Every room, essentially, had videocameras in it, including the outside. Now, all of that apparently, the video of his private living quarters, is gone, that would have revealed the last moments of his life. How do you do that?

BROOKS: It`s very simple, Nancy. A lot -- most of the systems now are digital. It`s all on a CD. All they have to do is go to the master control room where the CD is being played, where all the cameras come into, take that disk, get rid of the disk and you get rid of the evidence.

GRACE: And to Dr. Jeff Gardere, psychologist and author. Dr. Gardere, are people so under the influence of his entourage that while they are cleaning off a disk, they don`t realize it`s wrong?

JEFF GARDERE, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, they know that it`s wrong, but they`re trying to protect the king of pop, and so they convince themselves they`re doing the right thing, even though it is the wrong thing.
 
ivy said:
@Maria

From the previous court transcripts we have learned that the cameras were only outside. so they could at most show who comes in and out of the house.
Click to expand...

Ivy, who gave testimony stating that and on which day? Thanks.
 
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.
 
im confused about this
also the pictures says oprijlaan: which is dutch and means like a drive in lean its the pads that lead to the front of the house

are there now tapes from that day or arent there?
and inside he had cameras or didnt he?

i dont know if it make sence to film your own bedroom..
 
There are tapes from that day the tapes are of the entrance and ppl arriving etc there was never tapes of the bedrooms etc.the pic from ivy is from google maps.u can use street view etc to look at the house just put the address in
 
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.
 
Last edited:
This article has info on the surveillance tapes - not sure if already posted:

Jackson judge says he might delay trial of doctor
AP

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch, Ap Special Correspondent – 3 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – Lawyers for Michael Jackson's doctor, insisting on a speedy trial on an involuntary manslaughter charge, appeared headed for a roadblock, with a judge saying Monday he doesn't think they are ready for trial and he may have to delay the planned March 24 start.

"I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether the defense is prepared for trial and its obligations to Dr. Murray," said Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor.

Prosecutors urged the judge to delay the start of jury selection, and Pastor asked them to present case law on the matter Wednesday, when he ordered Conrad Murray to appear. The doctor, who has pleaded not guilty, has been absent from the past few hearings under a waiver that allowed him to continue working at his clinics in Texas and Nevada.

Murray's medical license to practice in California has been suspended by Pastor. Defense attorney J. Michael Flanagan told the judge the urgency of getting to trial involves Murray's fear that if it takes too long, Texas and Nevada will lift his medical license as well.

Flanagan also suggested that Murray is running out of money to fund his defense.

"We need to go to trial right away," he said. "We don't have the budget that would let us draw this out."

Flanagan acknowledged, "We are still preparing this case," but said it was normal for evidence to develop even after the trial has begun.

"We will be ready for trial March 24," Flanagan said. "We are not ready today."
More in Entertainment
The New Royals: Insight on Prince William & Kate Middleton's wedding
Full coverage of the royal wedding on Yahoo! News
Complete entertainment coverage

Prosecutors objected that they are entitled to receive discovery of defense evidence 30 days before trial starts, a deadline which has already passed. Deputy District Attorney Deborah Brazil said she has received no reports from defense experts or any statements from proposed defense witnesses.

Flanagan angrily complained that the prosecution has not met all of its discovery obligations either.

The judge ordered Brazil and Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over clean digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his Bel Air home on June 25, 2009, the day he died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives.
Pastor said that unless both sides quickly meet their discovery obligations, he will begin issuing sanctions of $1,500 per lawyer per day. The judge said he may have to start holding daily hearings in order to compel discovery.

Among the experts Flanagan said he expects to call is a leading authority on the use propofol. Flanagan said the witness believes Jackson was addicted to the pain killer Demerol and was withdrawing it at the time of his death, which may have complicated his reactions.

Outside court, Flanagan said prosecutors had 20 months to prepare their case while the defense began developing evidence in the past six weeks after a preliminary hearing.

Flanagan said outside court that he believes Pastor can't overrule the speedy trial requirement unless the defense is found unprepared on the day of trial. By then, the judge will have called hundreds of prospective jurors to the courthouse and arranged for extra security. He stressed that arranging for such a high-profile trial is time consuming and complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top