MUZ Muziek
Het forum voor 's werelds enige universele hobby! Snaren of toetsen, vinyl of cd, eendagsvlieg of rasartiest, op de radio of op een festival! Hier kun je al je ongebreideld enthousiasme, maar ook je weldoordachte kritische noten kwijt over muziek
Het lijkt me dat de truukjes die ze eeuwen geleden deden, nu niet meer van toepassing zijn.
Leef en Laten Leven
Nee, want tegenwoordig proberen mensen niet meer om elkaar op te lichten om er beter van te wordenquote: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.
Haters everywhere but I don't really care.
Pfff, alles wordt erbij gehaald, of het er nou iets mee te maken heeft of nietquote:
[..]
Nee, want tegenwoordig proberen mensen niet meer om elkaar op te lichten om er beter van te worden
Trusten
Leef en Laten Leven
Lijkt me wel mooi als zoiets uitkomt dat het nep blijkt te zijn, spannende rel, gaan er koppen rollen. 
standaarddrinker
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!
"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.
- 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.
Haters everywhere but I don't really care.
Wie is dr. Friedberg? Bron graagquote:
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.
Leef en Laten Leven
'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.
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.
Leef en Laten Leven
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 ]
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 ]
Haters everywhere but I don't really care.
Ik moet denken aan die Kai Chase, zijn cheffin, die het had over de laatste weken voor zijn dood.quote:
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.
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.
Leef en Laten Leven
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".
... 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".
Haters everywhere but I don't really care.
Mattijst, kan je er een gewoonte van maken de bron erbij te geven, en niet enkel 1 stuk uit een artikel te kopieren?
Leef en Laten Leven
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.quote:
Leef en Laten Leven
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
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
Haters everywhere but I don't really care.
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.quote:
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
Waaa, ik zet hier meestal dingen neer van TMZ. En dat staat er dan ook duidelijk bij
Leef en Laten Leven
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 ]
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 ]
Haters everywhere but I don't really care.
Opnieuw geen bron. Ga toch een end fietsenquote:
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.
Leef en Laten Leven
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.quote:
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.
In die hierboven staat trouwens een link naar de bron, verstopt onder een .
Haters everywhere but I don't really care.
Dat was omdat er aan de metro gewerkt moest worden in Londen.quote:
Haha, "MJ was fine"... Tuurlijk
Hij was zo fine dat ie voor de gein de eerste concerten verplaatste....
standaarddrinker
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.quote:
[..]
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 .
Plank voor je kop.
Leef en Laten Leven
