Judge delays ruling on access to Jackson footage
PureLove
Posts: 5,891
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.
<!-- m -->http://www.cfnews13.com/article/enterta ... on-footage<!-- m -->
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.
<!-- m -->http://www.cfnews13.com/article/enterta ... on-footage<!-- m -->
Comments
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:
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?
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.
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11440<!-- l -->
This is the most interesting part of the article, throwing in some food for thought:
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.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
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.