Judge delays ruling on access to Jackson footage

  • 10 Replies
  • 762 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PureLove

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5891
  • To die would be an awfully big adventure.
    • Show only replies by PureLove

Judge delays ruling on access to Jackson footage

  • on: June 16, 2011, 10:05:50 PM
Judge delays ruling on access to Jackson footage

Lawyers for Michael Jackson's doctor and Sony Pictures aired some of their dispute Thursday over release of unused footage from the star's posthumous concert film, "This Is It."

But the judge presiding over the involuntary manslaughter case of Dr. Conrad Murray delayed ruling on the issue, citing confusion about exactly what the defense wants to see.

Lawyers for Sony said the defense request had "changed radically" in recent days, and the entertainment company wanted more time to research the matter and file additional legal briefs.

Sony attorney Gary Bostwick said the subpoena for raw footage has now changed to a request for film from two of Jackson's personal video cameras.

Defense lawyers said earlier they wanted all raw footage of Jackson's rehearsals for what was to have been a live concert in London.

Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said he was sensitive to whether the request is merely a fishing expedition. He said release of any footage would come with restrictions to prevent it from being disseminated on the Internet and elsewhere.

"If Michael Jackson materials are just out there, there could be amazing consequences for Sony and the Jackson estate," the judge said. "I'm not inclined to order that they just turn them over."

Bostwick added, "We will continue to be very concerned that anything shown in court leaks out and goes viral."

But he acknowledged that once the video becomes a trial exhibit, it will be difficult to keep it secret

Prosecutors plan to use clips from the theatrically released, "This Is It" to show jurors in Murray's trial that Jackson was in good health just before he died.

The defense wants to show otherwise. Those lawyers contend scenes showing Jackson in frail health during rehearsals may have been edited out of the movie.

Lawyers have said there are more than 100 hours of footage from which the movie was culled.

Murray lawyer Ed Chernoff said he learned recently that footage was recorded by Jackson's personal camera crew operating two cameras.

"If it's more than those two cameras, yes, we are asking for all the footage," he said.

Another hearing was set for June 24, just before the second anniversary of Jackson's death.

Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's death from an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives. Trial is set for September.


http://www.cfnews13.com/article/enterta ... on-footage
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline suspicious mind

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5984
  • reading between the li_es
    • Show only replies by suspicious mind
makes me think of the bashir rebuttle thing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves."  




Why not just tell people I'm an alien from Mars? Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight. They'll believe anything you say, because you're a reporter. But if I, Michael Jackson, were to say, "I'm an alien from Mars and I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight," people would say, "Oh, man, that Michael Jackson is nuts. He's cracked up. You can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth."

Offline gwynned

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1361
    • Show only replies by gwynned
I may be missing something, but what is the issue here.  They wanted raw footage and now they want footage from two cameras.  How is that a big change in strategy that has Sony scrambling.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline pepper

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 558
    • Show only replies by pepper
Quote from: "PureLove"

Another hearing was set for June 24, just before the second anniversary of Jackson's death.

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/enterta ... on-footage
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline all4loveandbelieve

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 4455
  • LIVE AND LET LIVE.
    • Show only replies by all4loveandbelieve
Anything to make this trial into a zoo. what will they see with the footage. Michael was frail, and dying? I don't think so, they will see Michael in great shape, then they will eat their words. this is getting old and I am getting fed up of the same issue from this judge.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


I'm happy to be alive, I'm happy to be who I am.
Michael Jackson

Offline Grace

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2864
    • Show only replies by Grace
This is an  - interesting  - article.
There's a lot in it.

It all shouts "STAGE": theatre, exhibition, footage, set,
changed request, requiring more time, asking for all, getting someone hooked ("fishing expedition"), amazing consequences, unexpected outcome, double theme (two cameras), MJ in command and personally involved.

Go, Michael, you rock!


This is what stood out to me:


Quote from: "PureLove"
Judge delays ruling on access to Jackson footage

Lawyers for [...] doctor and Sony Pictures aired [...] dispute [...] over release of unused footage from the star's posthumous concert film, "This Is It."

[...] judge [...] delayed ruling on the issue, citing confusion [...] what the defense wants to see.

[...] defense request had "changed radically" [...] more time to research the matter [...] .

[...] subpoena for raw footage has now changed to a request for film from two of Jackson's personal [...] cameras.

Defense lawyers [...] wanted all raw footage of Jackson's rehearsals[...]

[...] whether the request is merely a fishing expedition. [...] prevent it from being disseminated on the Internet [...]

[...] Michael Jackson materials [...] could be amazing consequences for Sony and the Jackson estate," the judge said. "I'm not inclined to order that they just turn them over."

[...] anything shown in court leaks out and goes viral."

[...] once the video becomes a trial exhibit, it will be difficult to keep it secret

[...] the theatrically released, "This Is It" [...]

[...] defense [...] contend scenes showing Jackson in frail health during rehearsals may have been edited out of the movie.

[...] more than 100 hours of footage [...]

[...] footage was recorded by Jackson's personal camera crew operating two cameras.

[...]  we are asking for all the footage,[...]

Another hearing was set for June 24, [...] [/color]

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/enterta ... on-footage

Txs for posting!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Create your day. Create the most astounding year of your life. Be the change you want to see in the world! L.O.V.E.
***********************************************************************************************
"I am tired, I am really tired of manipulation." Michael Jackson, Harlem, New York, NY, July 6, 2002
***********************************************************************************************
******* Let's tear the walls in the brains of this world down.*******

Time to BE.

Offline PureLove

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5891
  • To die would be an awfully big adventure.
    • Show only replies by PureLove
Quote from: "Grace"
This is an  - interesting  - article.
There's a lot in it.

It all shouts "STAGE": theatre, exhibition, footage, set,
changed request, requiring more time, asking for all, getting someone hooked ("fishing expedition"), amazing consequences, unexpected outcome, double theme (two cameras), MJ in command and personally involved.

Go, Michael, you rock!


This is what stood out to me:


Quote from: "PureLove"
Judge delays ruling on access to Jackson footage

Lawyers for [...] doctor and Sony Pictures aired [...] dispute [...] over release of unused footage from the star's posthumous concert film, "This Is It."

[...] judge [...] delayed ruling on the issue, citing confusion [...] what the defense wants to see.

[...] defense request had "changed radically" [...] more time to research the matter [...] .

[...] subpoena for raw footage has now changed to a request for film from two of Jackson's personal [...] cameras.

Defense lawyers [...] wanted all raw footage of Jackson's rehearsals[...]

[...] whether the request is merely a fishing expedition. [...] prevent it from being disseminated on the Internet [...]

[...] Michael Jackson materials [...] could be amazing consequences for Sony and the Jackson estate," the judge said. "I'm not inclined to order that they just turn them over."

[...] anything shown in court leaks out and goes viral."

[...] once the video becomes a trial exhibit, it will be difficult to keep it secret

[...] the theatrically released, "This Is It" [...]

[...] defense [...] contend scenes showing Jackson in frail health during rehearsals may have been edited out of the movie.

[...] more than 100 hours of footage [...]

[...] footage was recorded by Jackson's personal camera crew operating two cameras.

[...]  we are asking for all the footage,[...]

Another hearing was set for June 24, [...] [/color]

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/enterta ... on-footage

Txs for posting!

And thank you for your post Grace. This article seemed very interesting to me too and you pointed it out very well. And what about this one?

Quote
Murray lawyer Ed Chernoff said he learned recently that footage was recorded by Jackson's personal camera crew operating two cameras.

"If it's more than those two cameras, yes, we are asking for all the footage," he said.

Isn't there a contradiction here? The lawyer learned that the footage was recorded by two cameras but he says that they will be asking for all the footage IF it's more than two cameras. So they won't be asking for the footage because 2 cameras recorded it? Why is it important how many cameras worked there? If he was healthy or sick he would look healthy or sick no matter how many cameras were recording him. The entire article is weird.[/b]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline paula-c

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 7597
    • Show only replies by paula-c
    • https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000669499472/986af9e4566ce7ab11ef8703e3b19b04_normal.jpeg
Quote
It's time for your Propofol

So by know everyone knows the plot of the story that’s been flying around. Dr. Troot gives the milk, aka Propofol to the king of pop & then the king is no more.
Based on the autopsy report & the anesthesiologist consult ordered by the coroner’s office, the amount of Propofol found in Michael Jackson’s body is consistent with the amount present in patients undergoing general anesthesia for a general/major surgery. Below you can find a detailed dosage calculation as instructed by FDA. This is the exact method anesthesiologists use to calculate the amount of Propofol required to put a patient under anesthesia. It is worth mentioning that besides the patient’s medical history, his/her weight & age are deciding factors on how much anesthetic a patient might require.

My aim is to clarify that the picture given to us through the alleged autopsy & the unsealed affidavits don't fit together & are full of holes & discrepancies.

a) Induction of General Anesthesia:

General anesthesia by Propofol is induced through IV injection & it usually takes a little less than a minute to achieve total unconsciousness. Patients under 55 years of age require 2 to 2.5 mg/kg of Propofol injectable emulsion whether unpremedicated or premedicated using oral benzodiazepines (i.e. Lorazepam etc). For induction, Propofol injectable emulsion should be titrated (approximately 40 mg/10 seconds) based on the patient’s response until signs of anesthesia are observed. The existence of other benzodiazepines does not affect the induction rate of Propofol, it rather affects the rate at which respiratory or cardiac depression can happen.

------> This means that the combination of drugs given to Michael was not fatal, as a matter of fact it is often customary to give a patient some oral benzodiazepines (depending on their heart condition) before administering Propofol to ease anxiety & pain!!!<-------

b) Maintenance of General Anesthesia:

Once again in patients under 55 years of age once the anesthesia is induced, it can be maintained by administering Propofol injectable emulsion by continuous infusion or intermittent IV bolus injection (this means irregular injection of Propofol in single large doses, but this is usually not recommended as the patient could wake up in between the injections. In Michael's case we were told that the goal was to achieve sleep, hence infusion is the way to go.)

Maintenance by infusion of Propofol injectable emulsion should immediately follow the induction dose in order to provide continuous anesthesia. During the initial period following the induction dose, higher rates of infusion are generally required (150-200 mcg/kg/min) for the first 10-15 minutes. Infusion rates should subsequently be decreased 30%-50% during the first half hour of maintenance. Generally a rate of 50-100 mcg/kg/min should be achieved in adults under 55 during maintenance.

Once again it is worth mentioning that presence of other drugs that cause CNS (central nervous system) depression & lead to respiratory depression can increase the effect Propofol has on CNS. They are not fatal together, they just cause faster depression & that’s why this anesthetic is supposed to be administered in a controlled setting where the patient can be monitored every second he/she is under anesthesia.

Let’s calculated how much Propofol needed to be administered to a man of Michael’s age & weight to keep him under continuous anesthesia:

Age: 50 yrs
Weight: 61.7 Kg

To induce anesthesia we need 2-2.5 mg/kg, so for a 61.7 kg patient we need at least 123.4 mg = 12.34 ml & at most 154.25 mg = 15.43 ml, to be safe let’s say an average of these two amounts, namely 138.83 mg = 13.88 ml of Propofol to induce anesthesia.

In order to maintain the anesthesia we need 50-100 mcg/kg/min. Although we need a higher does in the first 10-15 minutes of the maintenance process, for the purpose of simplifying our calculation & to avoid use of non-layman methods, let’s use 75 mcg/kg/min as the middle marker between the maximum & minimum doses, in order to get an average dose that is not too high or too low.

To calculate the amount needed to maintain anesthesia using the average dosage required:
75 mcg x 61.7 kg (weight of patient) = 4627.5

We know that (1000 mcg = 1mg ) therefore : 4627.5 / 1000 ~ 4.63
Also (1hr = 60 min) therefore: 4.63 x 60 = 277.8 mg/hr ~ 27.78 ml/hr is the average dose required to maintain at least one hour of anesthesia.

Let’s say Michael wanted to get at least 6 hrs of sleep every night, let’s calculate how much Propofol that would require:

He’d need an average of 138.83 mg = 13.88 ml to induce anesthesia & an average of 277.8 mg/hr = 27.78 ml to maintain the anesthesia per hour, for 6 hrs of sleep we need 1805.63 mg = 180.56 ml of Propofol for just one night!

If Michael was using Propofol as they allegedly said for 6 week prior to June 25 every night, they would need a total of 75836.46 mg = 7583.65 ml = 7.58 liters of Propofol!!!!

***************************************************************************************************************************************

Miraculously the unsealed affidavit only contains information on a purchase made by Murray on May 12 for a total of 5 Propofol injectable emulsion vials, 4 of which were 100 ml & 1 was 20 ml. Based on this information we have no way of knowing whether Murray did manage to get this huge amount of Propofol or was this yet another rumor to convince the masses that the king of pop was a junkie!!! Propofol is not a controlled substance, but it’s not like gum that you could go to the store & pick up a carton full of it & not raise any suspicion; somewhere someone should have picked up on the fact that this Dr. is buying way too much Propofol!

It is my personal opinion that Michael Jackson simply could not have received such huge amount of Propofol during course of 6 weeks without showing some side effects during his waking hours; he simply would not be able to do any sort of physical activity yet alone go through rigorous rehearsals & deliver. Medically speaking that is just not possible!





Quote
Anatomization of the Living Dead: Part 5

Case Report: Pages 22 & 23


Pulmonary (Lungs) Pathology:

Conducted by Dr. Russell P. Sherwin, Professor of Pathology at Keck School of medicine at university of science California. The consult was completed on 7/31/09.

The pulmonary pathology report gives a brief description of the process used to stabilize lungs and preparing them to be examined.

From the examination of different layers of tissue of both lungs & their lobs, the pathologist has noticed various pigmentation & brownish discoloration. These are usually associated with people who are known to be light smokers. Please bear in mind that in previous pages the coroner had stated the the appearance of lung are normal so the coroner's opinion is contradicting that of the specialist's.

There are few masses on the lower left lobe right at the base of the lung, they are not identified as cancerous but as a result of severe inflammation & hemorrhaging of the tiny blood vessels inside the mentioned lobes.

The deceased seems to have suffered from the following:

1- Diffuse congestion and patchy hemorrhage. In laymen’s terms the victim was suffering from gases & blood & other fluids being trapped in his lungs & this is a serious condition if left untreated can lead to death.

2- Marked respiratory bronchiolitis = a severe form of inflammation of the smaller airways inside the lungs, the term marked means the condition was severe & could be seen with naked eye.

3- Histiocytic desquamation = which means clusteration & separation of tissue cells inside the lungs. This is like shedding skin or having a rash but inside the lung.

4- Multifocal chronic interstitial pneumonitis = this is a long term lung disease associated with the scarring of the lungs. The symptoms of this condition are: progressive shortness of breath, and continues coughing

5- Organizing and recanalizing thromboemboli of two small arteries: this means that two small arteries that distribute within the lungs had experienced blockage due to clotting & therefore spontaneously reconstructs itself by forming new canals. People suffering from this condition go through severe coughing periods & sometimes cough blood.

6- Multifocal fibrocollagenous scars with or without congestion and hemorrhage = this is similar to the condition explained in number 4, but it occurs within the lung's passages.

7- Intravascular eosinophilia with occasional interstitial eosinophilic infiltrate = this is a condition that is seen in people with chronic lung diseases and asthma. It means that the concentration of eosinophils which is a byproduct of our immune system, is very high in the area of lungs to the point that it’s causing more damage than helping cure the existing lung condition.

8- Suggestive focal desquamation of reparatory lining cells with squamous metaplasia = this is in reference to conditions 4 & 6. It means that benign (non-cancerous) changes to the lining of the respiratory system have occurred.


Consultant’s Opinion:
Although the consultant makes it clear that the above mentioned conditions did not play a factor in the death of the deceased, it is mentioned that the above conditions are deemed to be chronic & are serious.

Xscape MJ's Opinion:
I’d like to bring it to your attention that all the above mentioned conditions are very serious & labeling them as chronic means that the deceased was suffering from them for a long time. Someone with the above mentioned conditions would not be able to sing, or sing and dance at the same time & if attempted to do so he would most definitely end up in hospital suffering from serious respiration complications.
Do u think the guy who sang at the top of his lungs & danced at the same time in “This is it” could have pulled it off with all the above mentioned conditions?It’s my true humble opinion that it’s impossible!!!! Of course you’re entitled to your own opinion.


viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11440

Offline Grace

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2864
    • Show only replies by Grace
I don't care so much about the distributing source of this text as we may assume that any suitable channel would be used. The content is much too intelligent to be just some blubbering of a disinformed copy & paste journalist.

This is the most interesting part of the article, throwing in some food for thought:

Quote
"If Michael Jackson materials are just out there, there could be amazing consequences for Sony and the Jackson estate," the judge said. "I'm not inclined to order that they just turn them over."



1) Michael is said he might have accumulated some "materials" that belong to him and nobody else.
(With the help of a personal camera team and at least two personal cameras - reminds me of the Bashing tapes.)
So did he realize about getting framed again and did he record not only rehearsals a second time to establish a personal proof? (AEG was filming the first set of footage, right?) CCTV tapes went missing and/or were deleted - was it only CCTV tapes or all of the footage owned by MJ that went off-shore?


2) "Amazing consequences for Sony and the Jackson estate"
Sony?
Jackson estate?
So those feeling safe in their contracts and testament haven should not have found any reliable shores yet?
What would the "amazing" consequences lead to? A deduction or an augmentation?
Shifting from one to the other? Both parties concerned? Same boat or same fleet or under opposing flags?
Both targetted? Both framed?
"Amazing" is a slightly positive expression. It is frequently being used to express "I'm baffled" or "it's not what I initially thought but I like it" feelings. Well, usually one doesn't deal with feelings when it comes to contract parties - except when one is married. Hmmm.


3) We discussed whether the judge would be "in" the hoax or not. We found materials that the judge himself was involved in some controversial past. We found it to be plausible that the court and justice system themselves might be targetted.

However:
if the judge indeed said this sentence (in true life, not only via hear-say as in this article)
- how in the world does the judge show some interest in this matter as it is none of his actual Doc Murray case business
- how does the judge know about the content of the footage - did he spend hours and hours sifting through before the trial even began that should use this footage as evidence, right? (if the material has not yet been turned over - how does the judge know the content? from some past long private movie theatre nights?)
- how does he conclude that there could be any consequences for Sony and the estate - does he know all the details of their contracts to relate the footage to the papers when these contracts are none of his, Doc Murray's judge's business?



And last but not least:
"the materials are just out there" but the judge is "not inclined to order" that "they" "just turn them over".

Is there any evidence or not? If yes, "they" have to turn "them" over - not matter what financial damage may be accompanied by a loss of usability for commercial purposes.
But the judge does not want to make the evidence availabe to court via order?

Who is "they"?
Who is "them"?
Who would have to turn what or whom over to "whom"?

A turn over is to instantly change direction into the opposite, a reverse.
Turning someone over is to hand someone into somebody else's power.
Turning something over is to change its physical position like canting, turning a page etc.
Hmmm.



The judge can ONLY give a statement about consequences for Sony and the estate if he is in the know about the contracts (that should be none of his key focus business). And/or he has seen in the footage that MJ did not die. But then the question would arise why the judge would not blow off Murray's trial as such. So if the judge did indeed state the a.m. sentence, it is more plausible that the judge knows about the background and details of the Sony contracts and MJ's testament and knows the content of the footage (and is a spokesperson too).
Which would lead us one more time to a judge being part of the hoax.

If the judge did not give that statement, it is possible that the pro-MJ-camp has released these informations "as if the judge said so" to initiate some expected actions.



Actually, much of the article's wording does make sense to me only if MJ's camp released the content. This would mean that the reportages about the court are constantly being directed and are coming from a central PR source. Leaking materials before start of the trial is nonsense or we will have a biased jury with the logical conclusion that the court is a hoax court or that Doc Murray will go to jail no matter what.

If relevant material like footage would be leaked outside of the court, there cannot be any sting operation except if one wants to have some targetted individuals get really nervous or into panic. This is borderline to entrapment IMO.

So I tend again more to consider a hoax court and a hoax judge.
The distribution of thought seeds is remarkable.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Create your day. Create the most astounding year of your life. Be the change you want to see in the world! L.O.V.E.
***********************************************************************************************
"I am tired, I am really tired of manipulation." Michael Jackson, Harlem, New York, NY, July 6, 2002
***********************************************************************************************
******* Let's tear the walls in the brains of this world down.*******

Time to BE.

Online ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10124
    • Show only replies by ~Souza~
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
* Reminder to read tonight.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline happythoughts

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 334
    • Show only replies by happythoughts
    • Happy Thoughts
Very insightful post Grace.  :D

The thing that stuck out to me was that Murray's lawer said "if" there were more than two cameras, he would want to see the footage from those as well. Officially, everyone involved in the production of the movie has said that there were only two cameras. It could be that Murray's lawer has been reading the hoax forums where we say that it is impossible that the entire film was shot by two $6,000 cameras.

Also, I think another reason why they are having such conflicts about it is that there ISN'T any more footage beyond what we saw in the film. I think they did takes for specific songs and that was all. There may be footage from the songs they didn't put in the movie like Dirty Diana and Dangerous, but other than that I don't see there being any more footage. Of course, that is strictly opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »