I do find the new judge's allowance of Dan to film the court (including full audio) to be unfortunate.
TMZ had made similar media requests in 2013-2015 with the prior judge and he always flatly denied it.
This judge allowed it right out of the gate on the first request by Dan.
TMZ had made similar media requests in 2013-2015 with the prior judge and he always flatly denied it.
This judge allowed it right out of the gate on the first request by Dan.
While filming the judge, personnel and witnesses are prohibited within the court, there is nothing in the permit that prevents audio recording of the entire proceeding.
Dan and his editor rely mostly on voice-overs in LN in which any excerpts can be seamlessly spliced together.
Dan and his editor rely mostly on voice-overs in LN in which any excerpts can be seamlessly spliced together.
This tactic allows them to alter reality by omitting large parts of the estate's responses or manipulating witness responses to present more compelling guilt arguments.
Like when Schaffel released tiny spliced-together fragments of MJ's voice messages to media while suing him.
Like when Schaffel released tiny spliced-together fragments of MJ's voice messages to media while suing him.
And while some may argue that since we'd be able to obtain transcripts of trial testimony and (hopefully) have another party recording them independently, almost nobody who'd see this play out on TV would have any desire to fact-check them with the real court records. Same as 05.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
