Michael Jackson #100

Het lijkt me dat de truukjes die ze eeuwen geleden deden, nu niet meer van toepassing zijn.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli

Bitte

quote:

Op zondag 2 januari 2011 22:53 schreef Robijn48 het volgende:
Het lijkt me dat de truukjes die ze eeuwen geleden deden, nu niet meer van toepassing zijn.

Nee, want tegenwoordig proberen mensen niet meer om elkaar op te lichten om er beter van te worden

quote:

Op zondag 2 januari 2011 23:04 schreef matthijst het volgende:

[..]

Nee, want tegenwoordig proberen mensen niet meer om elkaar op te lichten om er beter van te worden

Pfff, alles wordt erbij gehaald, of het er nou iets mee te maken heeft of niet
Trusten

Lijkt me wel mooi als zoiets uitkomt dat het nep blijkt te zijn, spannende rel, gaan er koppen rollen.

En als het uitkomt zie ik ze er ook nog mee weg komen.
"Ich habe es nicht gewusst"
Denk dus niet dat er koppen zouden rollen.

Slaap lekker Robijn. Morgen gezond weer op!

Dr. Friedberg gives the following three reasons as support for why hes convinced Dr. Murray will be ordered to stand trial at the preliminary hearing:

- According to Dr. Murrays own statements, he was not directly observing Jackson when the legendary pop singer stopped breathing.
- No evidence of a pulse oximeter (a blood oxygen meter) was apparent in published pictures of Jacksons bedroom.
- A brain monitor could have measured the effects of propofol independently of the benzodiazepines also in his body, sparing Jackson from the unintentional over-medication with propofol that appeared to have caused his breathing to stop.

The defense has raised red herrings about the propofol dosage Dr. Murray administered and about whether Michael self-administered, stresses Dr. Friedberg, but all those red herrings have nothing to do with the fundamental issue of physician responsibility.

quote:

Op maandag 3 januari 2011 11:01 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Dr. Friedberg gives the following three reasons as support for why hes convinced Dr. Murray will be ordered to stand trial at the preliminary hearing:

- According to Dr. Murrays own statements, he was not directly observing Jackson when the legendary pop singer stopped breathing.
- No evidence of a pulse oximeter (a blood oxygen meter) was apparent in published pictures of Jacksons bedroom.
- A brain monitor could have measured the effects of propofol independently of the benzodiazepines also in his body, sparing Jackson from the unintentional over-medication with propofol that appeared to have caused his breathing to stop.

The defense has raised red herrings about the propofol dosage Dr. Murray administered and about whether Michael self-administered, stresses Dr. Friedberg, but all those red herrings have nothing to do with the fundamental issue of physician responsibility.

Wie is dr. Friedberg? Bron graag

http://www.google.nl/sear(...)ial&client=firefox-a

Thanks!

'This Is It' Producer -- Star Witness in MJ Prelim

1/4/2011 1:00 AM PST by TMZ Staff

Michael Jackson's producer/director for the "This Is It" tour will be a star witness for the prosecution in Dr. Conrad Murray's preliminary hearing which begins today ... sources tell TMZ.

Our sources tell us ... Kenny Ortega will testify that on June 19, 2009 -- a week before MJ died -- Michael complained he was cold, had the shakes and was unable to perform ... so the rehearsal was canceled.

The next day -- June 20 -- an emergency meeting was held at Michael's home. Kenny Ortega, several big wigs from AEG, Michael, and Dr. Conrad Murray were present. We're told the meeting was "intense, loud and argumentative." Kenny read Michael the riot act, imploring him to take better care of himself because the tour was imminent.

Ortega will testify, during the meeting, Dr. Murray said some "terrible things," showing a lack of concern and respect for Michael. Our sources would not reveal specifics, but we're told it's "damaging" to Murray.

Ortega will also testify that on June 23 and 24 -- the day before Jackson died -- Michael did a complete turnaround in rehearsals, wowing the backup dancers and others present with his moves and singing.

Ortega's testimony is important, because prosecutors will argue MJ was fine before Murray began pumping him with drugs the day he died.

Spannend hoor...start vandaag.

Haha, "MJ was fine"... Tuurlijk

Hij was zo fine dat ie voor de gein de eerste concerten verplaatste....
Pfffffffffffffffffffffff, volgens mij was het een wrak, de laatste dagen voor ie dood ging.

Wat is dit trouwens: "The doctor's attorneys could be focusing their client's defense on a syringe found near Jackson that day. Even going as far to suggest that someone else may have injected the fatal dose, maybe even Jackson himself."

--> tot nu toe niks over gelezen...

[ Bericht 22% gewijzigd door matthijst op 04-01-2011 12:50:50 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 12:43 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Haha, "MJ was fine"... Tuurlijk

Hij was zo fine dat ie voor de gein de eerste concerten verplaatste....
Pfffffffffffffffffffffff, volgens mij was het een wrak, de laatste dagen voor ie dood ging.

Ik moet denken aan die Kai Chase, zijn cheffin, die het had over de laatste weken voor zijn dood.
Ze was in april in dienst geweest, en alles ging goed. MJ was in good spirits en had er zin in. Daarna was ze even niet nodig, en kwam begin juni weer terug. Het ging niet meer goed met hem, hij was vermagerd, en zei dingen als: ik weet niet of ik het aankan, ik werk te hard.

Oeeeeh, de tweede naald

... a defence request for a court order allowing the county coroner's office to test the quantity of the drugs in two syringes and an IV bag found in Jackson's room at the Los Angeles mansion he was leasing.

J. Michael Flanagan told the judge the second syringe may have been used by someone other than the doctor to administer the powerful anesthetic that caused Jackson's death on June 25, 2009. "Who injected the propofol? That's the issue in this case," Flanagan told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor.

One syringe was connected to the IV and clearly used by Murray to administer drugs, Flanagan said. The other was found broken and on the floor, with an unidentified fingerprint, according to the lawyer.

"We all know which syringe the doctor used," Flanagan said, comparing the situation to police finding two .38 calibre guns at a crime scene and figuring out "which of these guns did it".

Mattijst, kan je er een gewoonte van maken de bron erbij te geven, en niet enkel 1 stuk uit een artikel te kopieren?

Google?

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 13:28 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Google?

Nee. Het is aan jou om de bron erbij te vermelden. En tevens om niet dingen uit zijn verband te rukken door enkel 1 stukje te vermelden.

Ik ruk niks uit zn verband, ik vat het even samen, da's service.
Iets uit zijn verband rukken (= iets zonder context vertellen waardoor je een verkeerde indruk geeft van de zaak

Zelf plaats je ook geen linkjes naar de bron van je artikel

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 13:34 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Ik ruk niks uit zn verband, ik vat het even samen, da's service.
Iets uit zijn verband rukken (= iets zonder context vertellen waardoor je een verkeerde indruk geeft van de zaak

Zelf plaats je ook geen linkjes naar de bron van je artikel

Je vat niks samen, en dat hoeft ook niet. Je kopiert een stukje uit een artikel wat voor jou blijkbaar van toepassing is. Dat is de zaak uit zijn verband rukken. Je geeft idd. geen bron, en dat is wel de bedoeling.
Waaa, ik zet hier meestal dingen neer van TMZ. En dat staat er dan ook duidelijk bij

Wat zwets je? Ik vroeg me af hoe dat met de 2e naald zat, vind het op internet en post het stukje, met uitleg over de tweede naald. Dat heeft niks met uit z'n verband rukken te maken...

LA defence attorney and former prosecutor Dmitry Gorin about how the court case will work.

What is a preliminary hearing?
A preliminary hearing is a process in California courts where the Government must demonstrate a "probable cause" that the defendant is guilty of the crimes with which they have been charged.
In effect, it is a mini-trial: the prosecution presents witnesses, who can then be cross-examined by the defence team.
This is an alternative to the grand jury process, where the prosecution presents its evidence in private to 12 men or women, who then determine whether the case is strong enough to go to a full jury trial. In this case, the judge, not a grand jury, will decide whether the Government's case has passed muster and proceeds to trial.

Why would the prosecution choose this hearing, rather than a grand jury?
I think the Government is trying to see how weak or strong its case really is against Dr Conrad Murray. They will watch the defence lawyers make their presentation and cross-examine the witnesses, and be able to assess: "Do we even want to take this case to a jury? Do we think we can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt?" When you have a case that is so high profile, the prosecution wants to fine tune its case at the preliminary hearing so they will look professional to the whole world if they have to prove their case to a jury.

Doesn't it help the defence team if they see the prosecution's case in advance?
It definitely helps the defence to see the witnesses in court before a trial.
It is one thing to read the grand jury testimony off a piece of paper and have a sense for what the witnesses are going to say. But it is a whole different situation to face the witnesses, ask them questions and see what kind of energy they give off and how they answer those questions.

What exactly is "involuntary manslaughter"?
It is a violation of Penal Code section 191 and 192 in California law. The prosecution will argue Dr Murray caused the death of Michael Jackson by prescribing and administering a serious anaesthetic in a way that was highly reckless. The state's argument is this: Dr Murray should have known better. He should not have administered propofol under these circumstances.

How soon after the hearing will we know if this case proceeds to trial?
Usually, the magistrate will present his decision of whether or not there is probable cause immediately after the hearing. But this is a high profile case and the judge, Michael Pastor, is a very cerebral, very deliberative type of man, for whom I have a lot of respect. It is possible he may wait a day or two before issuing a ruling as to whether he feels there is probable cause.If that is the case and it moves to trial - which could be months or over a year away - the prosecution then has to convince a jury that Dr Murray is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" which is a much higher burden of proof.

Will there be cameras in court?
That is up to the judge's discretion. He decided not to allow them.

Could he strike a plea deal?
If he takes a plea deal, Dr Murray could lose the ability to practise medicine and could lose his livelihood. If I were his lawyer, I would advise him to go for it at trial because maybe we can win; maybe can we prove that the Government's case is weak.

[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door matthijst op 04-01-2011 14:28:38 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 13:53 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Wat zwets je? Ik vroeg me af hoe dat met de 2e naald zat, vind het op internet en post het stukje, met uitleg over de tweede naald. Dat heeft niks met uit z'n verband rukken te maken...

LA defence attorney and former prosecutor Dmitry Gorin about how the court case will work.

What is a preliminary hearing?
A preliminary hearing is a process in California courts where the Government must demonstrate a "probable cause" that the defendant is guilty of the crimes with which they have been charged.
In effect, it is a mini-trial: the prosecution presents witnesses, who can then be cross-examined by the defence team.
This is an alternative to the grand jury process, where the prosecution presents its evidence in private to 12 men or women, who then determine whether the case is strong enough to go to a full jury trial. In this case, the judge, not a grand jury, will decide whether the Government's case has passed muster and proceeds to trial.

Why would the prosecution choose this hearing, rather than a grand jury?
I think the Government is trying to see how weak or strong its case really is against Dr Conrad Murray. They will watch the defence lawyers make their presentation and cross-examine the witnesses, and be able to assess: "Do we even want to take this case to a jury? Do we think we can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt?" When you have a case that is so high profile, the prosecution wants to fine tune its case at the preliminary hearing so they will look professional to the whole world if they have to prove their case to a jury.

Doesn't it help the defence team if they see the prosecution's case in advance?
It definitely helps the defence to see the witnesses in court before a trial.
It is one thing to read the grand jury testimony off a piece of paper and have a sense for what the witnesses are going to say. But it is a whole different situation to face the witnesses, ask them questions and see what kind of energy they give off and how they answer those questions.

What exactly is "involuntary manslaughter"?
It is a violation of Penal Code section 191 and 192 in California law. The prosecution will argue Dr Murray caused the death of Michael Jackson by prescribing and administering a serious anaesthetic in a way that was highly reckless. The state's argument is this: Dr Murray should have known better. He should not have administered propofol under these circumstances.

How soon after the hearing will we know if this case proceeds to trial?
Usually, the magistrate will present his decision of whether or not there is probable cause immediately after the hearing. But this is a high profile case and the judge, Michael Pastor, is a very cerebral, very deliberative type of man, for whom I have a lot of respect. It is possible he may wait a day or two before issuing a ruling as to whether he feels there is probable cause.If that is the case and it moves to trial - which could be months or over a year away - the prosecution then has to convince a jury that Dr Murray is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" which is a much higher burden of proof.

Will there be cameras in court?
That is up to the judge's discretion. He decided not to allow them.

Could he strike a plea deal?
If he takes a plea deal, Dr Murray could lose the ability to practise medicine and could lose his livelihood. If I were his lawyer, I would advise him to go for it at trial because maybe we can win; maybe can we prove that the Government's case is weak.

Opnieuw geen bron. Ga toch een end fietsen

Ik ben ook wel voor het plaatsen van bronnen bij dergelijke artikelen, vooral nu die rechtzaak op handen is ben ik wel benieuwd welk medium wat bericht.

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 15:27 schreef gifkwal het volgende:
Ik ben ook wel voor het plaatsen van bronnen bij dergelijke artikelen, vooral nu die rechtzaak op handen is ben ik wel benieuwd welk medium wat bericht.

Zal het er de volgende keer wel bijzetten. 't is vooral de manier waarop het 'gevraagd' werd.

_{In die hierboven staat trouwens een link naar de bron, verstopt onder een .}

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 12:43 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Haha, "MJ was fine"... Tuurlijk

Hij was zo fine dat ie voor de gein de eerste concerten verplaatste....

Dat was omdat er aan de metro gewerkt moest worden in Londen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 15:31 schreef matthijst het volgende:

[..]

Zal het er de volgende keer wel bijzetten. 't is vooral de manier waarop het 'gevraagd' werd.

_{In die hierboven staat trouwens een link naar de bron, verstopt onder een .}

Flikker toch op. Gisteren heb ik het vriendelijk gevraagd. Vandaag doe het het rustig weer zonder bron, en presteer je het mij te betichten van het plaatsen zonder bronnen.
Plank voor je kop.

[ Bericht 100% gewijzigd door Robijn48 op 04-01-2011 15:48:22 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 15:33 schreef DrDentz het volgende:
Dat was omdat er aan de metro gewerkt moest worden in Londen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 15:34 schreef Robijn48 het volgende:
...en presteer je het mij te betichten van het plaatsen zonder bronnen.
Plank voor je kop.

Op pagina twee staat er 1 zonder bron van je, dus wat jank je

En gisteren vroeg je om een bron voor die Dr. Friedrich, die heb ik je gegeven, omdat je te lui was om zelf te googlen. Ik wist niet dat je daarna opeens bij elk bericht een bron wilde hebben en dat vraag je dan vervolgens zo:

quote:

Mattijst, kan je er een gewoonte van maken de bron erbij te geven, en niet enkel 1 stuk uit een artikel te kopieren?

Sorry, maar ik bepaal zelf wel welk stuk ik wel en niet copy-paste

[ Bericht 50% gewijzigd door matthijst op 04-01-2011 15:57:29 ]

5 vragen

1.What is the prosecution trying to prove, anyway?
Murray, a Houston cardiologist who was hired as Jackson's private physician, has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter, but has admitted to injecting Jackson on a regular basis including the morning of his death--with propofol, a hospital-grade anesthetic, to help him sleep. Cell phone records show he made several personal calls on his cell phone after dosing Jackson for the last time. Deputy D.A. David Walgren ultimately has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Murray's criminal negligence caused Jackson's death in order to win a conviction; but to send the case to trial he just has to show a judge he has a case to make for Murray's guilt. The defense's job, meanwhile, is to poke holes in the prosecution's argument.

2.Did Michael Jackson kill himself?
Plenty of conspiracy theories have been floated in the last 18 months, but last week was the first we heard that Murray's team was going to raise the possibility in court that Jackson lethally injected himself with the fatal dose of propofol. Well, it's not the most preposterous thing we've ever heard...

3.Will Jackson's children testify?
Surely Katherine and Joe Jackson, Michael's justice-seeking parents, will be in court with bells on Tuesday, but it was eldest son Prince who witnessed some of the life-saving attempts made in his dad's bedroom after he went into cardiac arrest. TMZ reports that no member of the Jackson family will be among the 30 or so witnesses on the prosecution's list, which includes investigators and Jackson staffers who were at the house when he died. The defense, meanwhile, has a witness list but is not planning to use it at this stage of the game. Murray's camp will be able to cross-examine the D.A.'s witnesses in the meantime.

4.Will these proceedings end up smearing Jackson's reputation all over again?
He had been relegated to circus-freak status since being tried and acquitted of child-molestation, but the pop icon's death served to redirect people's attention back toward his pioneering music career and his artistic contributions. Will all the anticipated talk of habitual prescription-drug abuse and anesthesia-aided sleep raise the freak flag yet again, just as Jackson's estate and Sony are embarking on their plan to release hours of "new" Jackson music and related projects?

5.Is there such a thing as an impartial jury in this case?
Judging by the global outpouring of grief when Jackson died on June 25, 2009, you'd be hard-pressed to find 12 whole people (not to mention three alternates) in Los Angeles who either don't have an opinion or preconceived bias against Jackson, or who hasn't read a boatload of information about the case. Legal experts have expressed concern about the ability to seat an impartial panel. Like in any case, really, the court will probably just have to make a leap of faith that the jurors are able to do their part.

[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door matthijst op 04-01-2011 15:58:35 ]

[ Bericht 100% gewijzigd door Robijn48 op 04-01-2011 16:10:52 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 15:51 schreef matthijst het volgende:

[..]



[..]

Op pagina twee staat er 1 zonder bron van je, dus wat jank je

En gisteren vroeg je om een bron voor die Dr. Friedrich, die heb ik je gegeven, omdat je te lui was om zelf te googlen. Ik wist niet dat je daarna opeens bij elk bericht een bron wilde hebben en dat vraag je dan vervolgens zo:

[..]

Sorry, maar ik bepaal zelf wel welk stuk ik wel en niet copy-paste

Blijkbaar ben je te dom om te snappen waarom er juist in een topic van MJ bronnen verwacht worden.
Blijf zo supertriest bezig joh. Je zit in een forum, als je in je eentje wil lullen, maak dan een blog aan ofzo.
Er zijn hier mensen die het wél serieus wat kan schelen hoe het proces zal verlopen.
En nu genoeg.

Wat een zeikerd ben je toch. Sjongejonge. Nog nazeiken terwijl ik net de bronnen al heb toegevoegd en er nota bene alweer een ander bericht, MET BRON na heb geplaatst

En voor het gemak negeer je maar even dat je zelf ook niet altijd bronnen post, maar OK, alles voor Robijntje

En over die juist in een MJ topic crap van je: ik post ondertussen al jaren in MJ topics, doe mij een lol en zoek 10 berichten van mij zonder bron op die verzonnen zijn... Die zijn er niet. Sjenkerd.

Justin Bieber says he's "crazy" and "nuts, but said that he thinks "the best [musicians] probably are. He said he's "definitely influenced by Michael Jackson".

Livestream op TMZ nu

Thanks, ik ga even kijken.

Three of Michael Jackson's employees, including one who was with the pop star when he went into cardiac arrest, are expected to take the witness stand Tuesday at a preliminary hearing for Jacksons doctor, Conrad Murray.

Michael Amir, Jackson's chief of staff; Alberto Alvarez, a security staffer; and Faheem Muhammad, chief of security, have been subpoenaed to testify for prosecutors seeking to prove they have enough evidence to try Murray for involuntary manslaughter, said the employees' lawyer, Carl Douglas.

Douglas, who declined to comment for the story, confirmed that he would appear with his clients following their court appearance Tuesday and make some brief comments.

Douglas, perhaps best known for being a member of O.J. Simpson's defense team, complained in August 2009 that his clients wanted to provide more information to LAPD detectives. Investigators had conducted "informal" interviews with the men about what they saw and heard June 25, 2009, the day Jackson died. One of the interviews lasted about two minutes, and the other filled a one-page transcript, Douglas said at the time. He maintained that some of their information could shed new light on the time line police had established covering Jackson's final hours and the actions of his doctor. Police eventually did conduct formal and complete interviews with all three men in late August 2009.

Alvarez was with Jackson and Murray in the pop star's bedroom in the moments before paramedics arrived and could provide independent insight into what transpired, the attorney said. But he would not elaborate on those details at the time.

In search-warrant documents released at the time, police said Murray told them he gave Jackson the powerful anesthetic propofol at 10:40 a.m., watched him for 10 minutes and went to the restroom briefly. When he returned about 11 a.m., Jackson had stopped breathing. Police said three phone calls totaling 47 minutes were made from Murray's phone, beginning at 11:18 a.m. -- all before 911 was called at 12:22 p.m.

Murray's attorney at the time was critical of the time line as "theory, not fact."

Douglas, who in 1993 served as an attorney for Jackson, said at the time that Amir received a frantic four-second message from Murray at 12:13 p.m. with words to the effect of "come quick."

Katherine, Latoya en Jackie zijn erbij....

Murray is 4x op Forest Lawn geweest, ff kieken bij MJ's graf.

Haat en nijd hier

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 18:16 schreef R4m0n_46 het volgende:
Haat en nijd hier

Heb je daar een bron voor

Kenny Ortega is d'r ook schijnbaar.... Benieuwd wat die gaat zeggen over Murray.

J Randy Taraborrelli had op het laatst toch ook van die quotes van MJ van "I'm better off dead" enzo? Gaan ze hem oproepen?

Tsja, in dat boek van die Jood zegt MJ ook zoiets, dat ie niet oud wil worden volgens mij...

Let the true prevail MURRAY in jail !

If you told me right now " Michael, you can never see another child", I would kill myself, because I have nothing more to live for"

"I don't want a long life, I don't, I don't. I think growing old is the ugliest, the most ugliest thing"

Tja, in de Bashir crapumentaire zegt hij juist weer dat hij nooit dood wil gaan. Denk niet dat we echt iets uit zulke losse uitspraken kunnen opmaken.

Neu, denk ik ook niet, misschien dat de verdediging er wat mee kan

Ik ben inderdaad ook voor bronnen bij berichten danku

LOS ANGELES - A prosecutor has opened a hearing that will determine whether Michael Jackson's doctor will stand trial in the superstar's death by saying the pop superstar was already dead by the time help was summoned.

Prosecutor David Walgren says he will rely on Murray's statements to police, as well as text messages, phone records and expert testimony to show the doctor should stand trial.

He says evidence will show Murray waited at least 21 minutes to call 911 and ordered a bodyguard to help him clean up evidence before summoning help.

Heeft die Murray daar wel een verklaring voor dan waarom hij zo treuzelde? Ook dat reanimeren op een bed met een handje, zo vaag.

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 januari 2011 16:51 schreef matthijst het volgende:
Justin Bieber says he's "crazy" and "nuts, but said that he thinks "the best [musicians] probably are. He said he's "definitely influenced by Michael Jackson".

Justin Bieber snijd hout

Joe heeft ook gesproken

"He's a Jackson. He doesn't think like that. One month before he died he told Katherine THEY were going to kill him for his publishing catalogue," he told the X17online.com celebrity news website, without saying who "they" were.

"He said THEY were going to kill him. Why would he kill himself?" added Joe Jackson, who X17online said was in Las Vegas.