Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Latest News => TMZ.com => Michael Jackson News => TMZ Articles => Topic started by: ~Souza~ on April 07, 2011, 07:42:37 PM
-
Dr. Murray: Don't Show MJ Autopsy Pics in Court (http://www.tmz.com/2011/04/07/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-autopsy-pictures-phots-in-court-manslaughter-trial/)
4/7/2011 4:40 PM PDT by TMZ Staff
Dr. Conrad Murray is begging the judge to ban Michael Jackson's autopsy photos from being shown in court during his manslaughter trial.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2011/04/07/0407-mj-conrad-bn-getty-credit.jpg)
In a motion filed today in LA County Superior Court ... Murray's legal team argues the photos "will only unnecessarily and unfairly prejudice the jury against Dr. Murray."
They also claim the photos will not help the jury determine the cause of Michael's death.
On the juicier side ... Murray's attorneys also filed a motion to exclude testimony or evidence dealing with the doc's visits to strip clubs, the women he met there, and the amount of money he spent in those clubs.
They also want Murray's extramarital affairs left out of the proceedings.
-
Murray is scared because he knows that people will recognize that it wasn't MJ the autopsy was done. :lol: If an autopsy was done of course. And Murray's pic is :lol: Looks like he was rolling his eyes saying something like: "What autopsy pics?" :roll: :lol:
-
Don't Show MJ Autopsy Pics in Court
This could be read "don't show MJ the autopsy pics" because it doesn't say MJ's Autopsy pics which would be how to correctly phrase that. I think that MJ will be at his own trial in one disguise or another, maybe more than one.
They also claim the photos will not help the jury determine the cause of Michael's death.
There was no death so whatever photos they claim to have will not help. ;)
-
.... and where they get those photos :?: :roll: :lol:
-
Thank you for sharing this article with us. I am all out of ideas as to why this is being brought up. I must be on hoax overload. Both the posts above me make sense.
I wonder what the amount of money Dr Murray spent at strip clubs has to do with anything.
I wonder what is left uncovered about the strip clubs that Dr Murray's wife and significant others haven't already read in the tabloids.
I wonder what showing the autopsy pictures would reveal that would be different than reading a report.
-
On the juicier side ... Murray's attorneys also filed a motion to exclude testimony or evidence dealing with the doc's visits to strip clubs, the women he met there, and the amount of money he spent in those clubs.
:roll:
-
OK.. this is weird.. He knows that wasn't MJ autopsy. I still wonder why he does not want to show it. i wonder what he is scared of? Not being Michael or :?:
-
:? Don’t know what to make of this. Cannot come up with any definitive reason. On this one I must ponder a while or simply read what others come up with. I am flat out of any cognitive reasoning and my mind is kind of blank on this disclosure so to speak :?
-
.... and where they get those photos :?: :roll: :lol:
My first thoughts when I saw the article! TOOOO funny! It's like they tell their own story.
Interesting how attention is brought to the autopsy again. Why would they have to show them anyway? The cause of death was found in the lab results not the autopsy - not like there was blunt force trauma, or a bullet wound, or any other injury. Cause of "death" was propofol intoxication- so why even talk about autposy pictures? Plus, it might be a public cover for there not BEING any autopsy pics.
-
I am figuring that you would probably have to look deeply into the 2005 trial to see some of the comparisons and statements that Michael wants to make with this upcoming trial. For example, Murray not wanting the autopsy photos shown can be likened to Michael not wanting his 1993 strip search photos shown during the 2005 trial. As far as the strip clubs and the women Murray supposedly dealt with are concerned, these things could be considered a rather personal decision that has nothing to do with him giving Michael Propofol, in comparison to the 2005 trial when the prosecution seized Michael's porno magazines just to embarrass him in court, even though it had nothing to do with the case.
updated 5/26/2005 3:14:39 PM ET 2005-05-26T19:14:39 Share Print Font: + - SANTA MARIA, Calif. — The judge in the Michael Jackson molestation trial Thursday spared jurors from seeing a graphic piece of evidence when he barred prosecutors from showing photographs of the pop star’s genitalia.
In another ruling, the judge said prosecutors can play a videotape of the accuser’s original police interview in 2003 in a bid to show that the boy’s story has been consistent. Defense lawyers said that if the prosecution shows the tape, the defense would want to call the boy back for questioning. They also may call the boy’s mother.
The attempt to admit the genitalia photographs stems from a 1993 molestation investigation of Jackson. When prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against the singer back then, they served a subpoena at his home that allowed them to photograph his genitalia.
They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jackson’s anatomy.
Arguing for use of the pictures, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the prosecution wanted to show jurors a child’s description “of a unique feature of his (Jackson’s) anatomy.” He said it would show that Jackson’s relationships with boys were “not casual.”
But defense attorney Robert Sanger called the photographs an “unfair surprise” and said prosecutors had “not even hinted that they were going to try this tactic in advance.” He cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision which says a judge is supposed to avoid dramatic evidence at the end of a trial that could be prejudicial.
“This is really a stretch to come up with any kind of reason to bring this in as evidence,” Sanger said, arguing that it would be “very shocking” for the jury to see.
The boy in the 1993 investigation and his family eventually received a multimillion-dollar settlement from Jackson and no charges were filed. That boy is now a young man and has been unavailable to serve as a witness in Jackson’s trial.
Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving him wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut a documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson as the entertainer said he let children into his bed but it was non-sexual.
The defense wrapped up its case Wednesday, and the trial is now in the rebuttal phase. The jury could get the case next week.
-
"On the juicier side ... Murray's attorneys also filed a motion to exclude testimony or evidence deali with the doc's visits to strip clubs, the women he met there, and the amount of money he spent in those clubs."
I guess they are concered because it would turn out that Murray was not home all night at all.
I want to see those pics. if they exists at all. We would have HOT discussion here.
-
wasn't there something early on about katherine maybe getting them sealed or something so that paps wouldn't get hold of them?
-
Murrey's expression is priceless. Like he's imagining what his wife and baby mamma will do to him when they find out how much money he spent at strip clubs and couldn't pay his child support. Poor Murrey. At this rate maybe there will be real autopsy pictures... his.... after his women find out where all his money went. ;)
-
@Galaxy- thank you- I think you may be right on with that parallel!
-
So when will the courts decide the outcome of the autopsy reports?
-
This could be read "don't show MJ the autopsy pics" because it doesn't say MJ's Autopsy pics which would be how to correctly phrase that.
I agree. Or they could have said the autopsy pics of MJ, but now it looks like Michael doesn't want to see the pics.
But even if the autopsy pics do exist, which they don't because Michael is alive ;) , what possibly could they show what would cause prejudice against Murray?
-
This could be read "don't show MJ the autopsy pics" because it doesn't say MJ's Autopsy pics which would be how to correctly phrase that.
I agree. Or they could have said the autopsy pics of MJ, but now it looks like Michael doesn't want to see the pics.
But even if the autopsy pics do exist, which they don't because Michael is alive ;) , what possibly could they show what would cause prejudice against Murray?
the photos "will only unnecessarily and unfairly prejudice the jury against Dr. Murray."
Murrays lawyers are worried that the pictures will affect the jury's verdict...that is what I am reading into this.
This makes alot of sense if there isn't any autopsy pictures, because MJ is not dead, and there was no autopsy performed at all....
-
Oh God! Things promise to get hot around here. This trial will cause many emotions! I hope that good emotions, of course! :P
-
Of course, Murray doesn't want the autopsy photos to be shown, cause they do not exist or he's afraid that people will figure out that it ain't MJ on the photos
-
you know guys we were ourselves wondering about whether autopsy pics would be there just a week or so ago. ;)
-
.... and where they get those photos :?: :roll: :lol:
My first thoughts when I saw the article! TOOOO funny! It's like they tell their own story.
Interesting how attention is brought to the autopsy again. Why would they have to show them anyway? The cause of death was found in the lab results not the autopsy - not like there was blunt force trauma, or a bullet wound, or any other injury. Cause of "death" was propofol intoxication- so why even talk about autposy pictures? Plus, it might be a public cover for there not BEING any autopsy pics.
This kind of sums up exactly how I feel. What does the autopsy pictures have to do with whether Murray is guilty or not? The debate over using them is apparently a smokescreen meant to throw us off. Discussing showing non-existent autopsy photos to the jury will get so many emotions stirred up that the judge will have no choice but to publicly rule against them being shown. Of course he'll dismiss them as evidence :roll: because there aren't any.
-
wasn't there something early on about katherine maybe getting them sealed or something so that paps wouldn't get hold of them?
Yea you are right. This is what I could find about it. I am not sure if there is any articles here on the forum. I looked yesterday and didn't find anything maybe I used the wrong key words in search. :?
http://www.ok.co.uk/celebnews/view/2178 ... pt-private (http://www.ok.co.uk/celebnews/view/21782/Katherine-Jackson-wants-autopsy-images-kept-private)
MICHAEL JACKSON's mother KATHERINE has been left devastated by the prospect of the media publishing a series of graphic photos taken during the King of Pop's autopsy.
Officials at the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles District Attorney's office are in possession of the images, which were detailed in the coroner's report of the singer's death.
But the Jackson family matriarch fears the photos will fall into the wrong hands and end up on the internet and splashed across publications around the world.
A source tells the National Enquirer, "There are genuine fears the pictures could be leaked or that computer hackers could get to them - and the LAPD and District Attorney's office are taking extreme preventive measures to keep them secure."
Katherine Jackson wants the pictures kept under wraps - because the publication of the gruesome shots will be disrespectful to the Thriller superstar's memory and have a negative impact on his three young kids.
The insider says, "Katherine says releasing the photos is morbid and disrespectful to Michael's memory. She's still dealing with Michael's death and she's extremely worried about his kids seeing pictures of their dead father.
"Katherine said she hopes and prays that decency will prevail and no one will ever see these photographs."
Jackson died last June (09) after suffering a cardiac arrest following a dose of powerful drug Propofol. His personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, is set to stand trial on a charge of involuntary manslaughter amid accusations he administered the dose that killed the singer. He has pleaded not guilty.
@Galaxy: I agree with the comparisons to Michael's trial in 2005. I have seen many parallels. ;)
-
I am figuring that you would probably have to look deeply into the 2005 trial to see some of the comparisons and statements that Michael wants to make with this upcoming trial. For example, Murray not wanting the autopsy photos shown can be likened to Michael not wanting his 1993 strip search photos shown during the 2005 trial. As far as the strip clubs and the women Murray supposedly dealt with are concerned, these things could be considered a rather personal decision that has nothing to do with him giving Michael Propofol, in comparison to the 2005 trial when the prosecution seized Michael's porno magazines just to embarrass him in court, even though it had nothing to do with the case.
I agree
-
This just struck me as odd. In any murder trial wouldn't autopsy photos and autopsy findings be absolutely crucial to a manslaughter court case? Why would Dr. Murray seriously be worried about MJ autopsy pics?
Would it be because they are fake pics of MJ OR he wouldn't want the photos to be leaked to the press?
I haven't gone into too much detail about this but it just seemed really weird to me how Dr. Murray wouldn't want these pictures to be in court. And I do not know too much about the legal system and how everything works but does Dr. Murray even get to decide what evidence is relevant to his case and which isn't?
AND would evidence (MJ autopsy photos) against Dr. Murray be thrown out of the case because the photos
"WILL ONLY UNNECESSARILY AND UNFAIRLY PREJUDICE THE JURY AGANST DR. MURRAY."?
This just struck me as super super ODD.
Much L.O.V.E.
Penny Lane
-
I don't know why TMZ posts half the articles they do. Oh wait, yes I do, they want the ratings that come with people clicking on their articles. Plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.
Defense teams never want autopsy photos shown in court when their client is the one on trial for causing the victim's death, and they know that their client is guilty. And as far as this trial is concerned, Murray is the one who killed Michael (whether intentional or not). Obviously no normal person is going to want to look at a cut-up dead body laying on a slab, so being forced to see autopsy photos is bound to cause dismay in a juror's eyes. And it could easily be something to cloud a juror's mind to the point where they might find Murray guilty.
No, this isn't news-worthy at all, but as Michael said, everything concerning him is "Breaking News". No one will ever convince me that TMZ is involved in this hoax.
-
Report this postReply with quoteRe: Dr. Murray: Don't Show MJ Autopsy Pics in Court
by lovepenny_lane » Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:36 pm
This just struck me as odd. In any murder trial wouldn't autopsy photos and autopsy findings be absolutely crucial to a manslaughter court case? Why would Dr. Murray seriously be worried about MJ autopsy pics?
Would it be because they are fake pics of MJ OR he wouldn't want the photos to be leaked to the press?
I haven't gone into too much detail about this but it just seemed really weird to me how Dr. Murray wouldn't want these pictures to be in court. And I do not know too much about the legal system and how everything works but does Dr. Murray even get to decide what evidence is relevant to his case and which isn't?
AND would evidence (MJ autopsy photos) against Dr. Murray be thrown out of the case because the photos
"WILL ONLY UNNECESSARILY AND UNFAIRLY PREJUDICE THE JURY AGANST DR. MURRAY."?
This just struck me as super super ODD.
Much L.O.V.E.
Penny Lanelovepenny_lane
Soldier
I agree with you 100%!
Peace
Integrity
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Hi, I'm new here though I've been a lurker for a long time. I've also frequented other hoax sites and blogs since the beginning.
I don't get all this talk that there are no autopsy photos since MJ isn't dead. The only possible way that would be true is if the LAPD were in on the hoax, the body shown being put into the helicopter was fake, the coroner made a false statement, and the leaked autopsy report was completely fake. Also, they wouldn't be able to charge Murray if there was no autopsy confirming "acute propofol intoxication."
I believe Michael is alive, but I do believe there was a dead body that day. I think it was a terminally ill man that MJ had agreed to take care of until his last breath, on the condition that the body could be passed off as Michael at that time. Perhaps the person's family were in on it as well. Maybe MJ was approached by a terminally ill man who looks a lot like him, liked the idea, and promised to give the man the best care possible until his death... and further agreed to take care of the man's family financially. I can see this whole thing as a very compassionate act on the part of Michael.
Maybe the terminally ill man had his name legally changed to Michael Joseph Jackson, as part of this arrangement, so that the name could be announced in the news, etc. and seemingly refer to THE Michael Jackson. The "Joseph" middle name could have been used to distinguish the impostor from the real MJ.
I can only imagine a few scenarios in which the LAPD would be in on the hoax... Michael entering the witness protection program, for example... Other than that and a few other remote possibilities, there would almost certainly have to have been a real body that day. I believe the idea of MJ taking care of an ill man in his final days fits this scenario perfectly.