midnightmover said:

kibbles said:

yes, we've already discussed that mj had been advised of the risks.

i've heard *other* people opine that propofol doesn't provide REM sleep, but clearly mj would beg to differ. mj's stated that it was some of the best sleep he had while under its influence. if it wasn't triggering something in his body to help him fall asleep, why would he have been asking for it?

before you even start, don't whip out the addiction canard. when mj went to see nurse lee, he was seeking out homeopathic remedies. they weren't working, so he asked her about the propofol, which based on the posts above, seems to have been introduced to him as a "sleep aid" by dr. ratner when he was on tour in '97. but there is no evidence that mj had been taking propofol in the intervening years until murray started buying it in april 2009. the dea traced all the propofol found at mj's back to murray.

if there had been any 'stash' purchased before then, the d.a. would have had to turn that info over to the def under the fed rules of evidence as well as the california evidence code as part of discovery. imo, that still wouldn't have meant anything as this trial was about murray's actions on the day of mj's death.

Again, you're giving false information. Jackson never asked Nurse Lee for homeopathic remedies for his sleep problem. He was clear from the start that the only thing that worked was propofol. She persuaded him to try homeopathic treatments for it and he was actually angry with her the following morning because they hadn't worked.

Just to avoid potential confusion, he first approached her for issues that had nothing to do with his insomnia. When it came to his insomnia he was adamant from the start only propofol would work (the specific brand he was asking for was diprovan).

i listened to her testimony so screw you, troll. you started out this discussion trying to paint murray as mj's hapless victim, and you know that you did, despite your attempt to back off your assertions. your only reason for posting in this thread is to rally everyone to wallow along with you in your well documented mj-hate.

most posters on this board have never downplayed mj's tragic decision to trust murray, but unlike you, we can separate his culpability from murray's.

[Edited 11/3/11 9:52am]

DonRants said:

midnightmover said:

My God, you're right. Conrad Murray seems like an angel next to this guy. Murray at least had a clean record before he met Michael. This other guy was clearly a long-term sleazebag. And that's why he got the job.

Again people are not putting the pieces together. Not you midnightmover but in general, including sometimes me, myself. One of the worse things about this trial is that the Judge so severly limited the defense. But MJs behavior is quite normal for someone with a drug dependency. I remember a few years before MJ passed the story of his association with gay porn producer Marc Schaffel, I believe. MJ was causght on the phone asking for his "Milk"...do you remember that? Well when Marc wasn't paid he treathened to go public with the whole story of who MJ "really" was. The case was quickly settled supposedly because MJ did not want his financies made public. But obviously MJ was hiding a lot more than that.

http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/10/jackson-says-he-was-shocked-by-gay-porn/#.TrKvf3Ia_pg

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-hit-3-million-lawsuit

the judge didn't "severely" limit anything. it doesn't matter whether mj was a drug addict in 2003, the time frame you're looking at for the whole schaffel thing. when murray came into his life, and what he was doing there, and what was going on at the time of his treatment of mj is the only relevant time frame.

murray's own "expert" admitted under oath that he could not definitively state that mj was an addict. his opinion was based on his "observations" of mj's public behavior and media reports. he couldn't even explain what he meant by "behavior". just like you - mj's behavior is quite normal for someone with a drug dependency? what does that mean? what specifically are you talking about? the prosecution ripped apart all of this expert's charts while he was on the stand as being misleading. he had dates on the chart where mj supposedly visited klein when in fact he had not.

btw, schaffel has had ample opportunity to cash in on the 'real' story for over two years. he put together a doc and took it on the road to japan; i don't recall there being any press about his revelations about mj's drug dependency. at one point, he leaked a tape in which he made mj out to be an anti-semite, but i don't remember there being any mention of his being a drug addict. there might have been but i don't recall that.

kibbles said:

the judge didn't "severely" limit anything. it doesn't matter whether mj was a drug addict in 2003, the time frame you're looking at for the whole schaffel thing. when murray came into his life, and what he was doing there, and what was going on at the time of his treatment of mj is the only relevant time frame.

murray's own "expert" admitted under oath that he could not definitively state that mj was an addict. his opinion was based on his "observations" of mj's public behavior and media reports. he couldn't even explain what he meant by "behavior". just like you - mj's behavior is quite normal for someone with a drug dependency? what does that mean? what specifically are you talking about? the prosecution ripped apart all of this expert's charts while he was on the stand as being misleading. he had dates on the chart where mj supposedly visited klein when in fact he had not.

btw, schaffel has had ample opportunity to cash in on the 'real' story for over two years. he put together a doc and took it on the road to japan; i don't recall there being any press about his revelations about mj's drug dependency. at one point, he leaked a tape in which he made mj out to be an anti-semite, but i don't remember there being any mention of his being a drug addict. there might have been but i don't recall that.

The judge limited testimony in several ways. He allowed Dr. Klein's notes to be used, but did not permit the defense to question Dr. Klein....I say that alone is severe. Addiction and drug dependency takes place over time. By limiting the case only to Dr. Murray, allowed the legal system to throw Dr. Murray under the bus without looking extensively at MJs history of drug use and the other doctors who contributed to MJ's death. I have often said that the true murderer of MJ is the doctor who convinced him that taking nightly Propofol was safe.

MJs behaviors of hiring quack doctors who give themselves morphine while treating patents; associating and taking money from a gay porn producer; and recklessly putting his life at risk on a nightly basis are examples of behaviors which are quite normal when seen in the context of drug addiction. They are not normal behaviors for most people who are not on drugs.

And for your final paragraph, the first time I heard of MJ wanting his "Milk" was on a tape leaked by Schaffel. Read the second link in my previous post. Schaffel had declared that MJ was a drug addict and he was going to make the story public. I ,like you, did not believe it at the time. In view of present evidence..Schaffel was telling the truth.

In closing, this was not easy for me to recognise. I have a friend who works in a detox unit. When Michael died she said to me that if someone has a drug problem and does not get off it, almost always they will die from the drug. This was eye opening for me. I have observed everyone pointing the finger elsewhere where MJ is concerned. Dr. Klein's attorney said; "MJ was not addicted to Demerol, he was addicted to Plastic Surgery and Propofol." Baloney. Everyone is saying "It wasn't Me." The truth is it was all of them.

[Edited 11/3/11 10:18am]

Darn, money, fame, attracts so many yes people..

Nobody really gave a fuck about Michael. Dr. Klein is an asshole, so is Murray, the nurses, the family

Such a tragedy! Everybody knew but did nothing but supply him with more death.

We need to stop comparing the 2005 trial to this one. It don't really make for good comparison.

sag10 said:

Darn, money, fame, attracts so many yes people..

Nobody really gave a fuck about Michael. Dr. Klein is an asshole, so is Murray, the nurses, the family

Such a tragedy! Everybody knew but did nothing but supply him with more death.

What family are you talking about? Do you mean the Jackson Family? If so I beg to differ. By all accounts they tried to get MJ help. It can be really hard though, especially if MJ was not willing to listen. Denial is more than a river in Egypt. Again that is typical behavior for a drig addict. They often totally lack insight into their problem and will think those who are trying to help them are no good, even if its ones own family.

[Edited 11/3/11 11:58am]

What do you guys think of Walgren's closing argument so far?

DonRants said:

What family are you talking about? Do you mean the Jackson Family? If so I beg to differ. By all accounts they tried to get MJ help. It can be really hard though, especially if MJ was not willing to listen. Denial is more than a river in Egypt. Again that is typical behavior for an addict. They often totally lack insight into their problem and will think those who are trying to help them are no good.

The problem with that statement is that there are conflicting reports about that 'intervention.' Some are saying that it did happen. Some are saying that it didn't.

I mean you can argue about the family isn't wrong, but this is the same family where some deny Michael's story about getting his ass whooped and some that support it. So, essentially, you can't take the family's word as gospel since there's too many of them and all of them have their own interpretations of what happened.

It don't change nothing. He's dead. We can't speculate what would've happened if his family "stepped up" or not. Also, it's still only a speculation that dude was still addicted regardless of what some family members may say and to be frank, only three of them told the press that he was addicted at some stage (Tito, Janet and La Toya). Jermaine denied he was.

Timmy84 said:

It don't change nothing. He's dead. We can't speculate what would've happened if his family "stepped up" or not. Also, it's still only a speculation that dude was still addicted regardless of what some family members may say and to be frank, only three of them told the press that he was addicted at some stage (Tito, Janet and La Toya). Jermaine denied he was.

I agree with you actually. At the end of the day, again, whether he was addicted or not doesn't change the fact that the doctor left his patient alone while he should have been watching him. Even if he was an addict that just makes Murray look even worse.

All of this stuff about him being an addict is nothing, but speculation anyway as there is no actual proof.

Also, there's this poster(s) in here who keep trying to act like we're so blind about MJ's 'true nature' simply because we're not obsessing over whether or not he was a drug addict. Like, seriously, get up off of it already. Even if he was or not, that still doesn't change the fact that MJ's death might be a direct cause of Murray's negligence.

DonRants said:

sag10 said:

Darn, money, fame, attracts so many yes people..

Nobody really gave a fuck about Michael. Dr. Klein is an asshole, so is Murray, the nurses, the family

Such a tragedy! Everybody knew but did nothing but supply him with more death.

What family are you talking about? Do you mean the Jackson Family? If so I beg to differ. By all accounts they tried to get MJ help. It can be really hard though, especially if MJ was not willing to listen. Denial is more than a river in Egypt. Again that is typical behavior for a drig addict. They often totally lack insight into their problem and will think those who are trying to help them are no good, even if its ones own family.

[Edited 11/3/11 11:58am]

What do you want? Are you looking for everyone to agree with you that Michael was addicted to prescription drugs? Most of your postings here are mostly focused on Michael's drug use. It really is a mute point. Michael's gone. Your focus, just as the defense's focus on Michael's drug usage is misguided. Conrad ordered the propofol in large quantities and gave it to him daily.

Your coming off like someone who is kicking Michael while he's down (six feet deep). I'm not saying Michael isn't responsible for his actions, he was a grown man afterall. But damn. Michael has already paid his price, now its time for Conrad to pay. Unfortunately his price won't be much in comparison.

Unholyalliance said:

Timmy84 said:

It don't change nothing. He's dead. We can't speculate what would've happened if his family "stepped up" or not. Also, it's still only a speculation that dude was still addicted regardless of what some family members may say and to be frank, only three of them told the press that he was addicted at some stage (Tito, Janet and La Toya). Jermaine denied he was.

I agree with you actually. At the end of the day, again, whether he was addicted or not doesn't change the fact that the doctor left his patient alone while he should have been watching him. Even if he was an addict that just makes Murray look even worse.

All of this stuff about him being an addict is nothing, but speculation anyway as there is no actual proof.

Also, there's this poster(s) in here who keep trying to act like we're so blind about MJ's 'true nature' simply because we're not obsessing over whether or not he was a drug addict. Like, seriously, get up off of it already. Even if he was or not, that still doesn't change the fact that MJ's death might be a direct cause of Murray's negligence.

CO SIGN thats all that matters. The addict talk bullshit is irrelevant. Thats just another excuse to make Michael look bad. The fact of the matter is just that

Musicslave said:

What do you guys think of Walgren's closing argument so far?

I've seen only half of it, the beginning, but from what I´ve heard, he was great and the part that I saw was great.

Musicslave said:

What do you guys think of Walgren's closing argument so far?

WHat about Chernoff , the defense?

RosesRred said:

Musicslave said:

What do you guys think of Walgren's closing argument so far?

WHat about Chernoff , the defense?

Good one. I can't believe with BS is Chernof on.

RosesRred said:

Musicslave said:

What do you guys think of Walgren's closing argument so far?

WHat about Chernoff , the defense?

Good one. I can't believe with BS is Chernof on.

Chernof just said "is it hot in here or is it me?" It's you sweating from all the lies you're making up.

dag said:

RosesRred said:

WHat about Chernoff , the defense?

Good one. I can't believe with BS is Chernof on.

Dr. Conrad Murray looks like he is thinking about who his cellmate is going to be,,

----------------

Chernoff: "Conrad needed gallons of propofol."

Rebuttal going on now.

The judge is charging the jury...

Musicslave said:

DonRants said:

What family are you talking about? Do you mean the Jackson Family? If so I beg to differ. By all accounts they tried to get MJ help. It can be really hard though, especially if MJ was not willing to listen. Denial is more than a river in Egypt. Again that is typical behavior for a drig addict. They often totally lack insight into their problem and will think those who are trying to help them are no good, even if its ones own family.

[Edited 11/3/11 11:58am]

What do you want? Are you looking for everyone to agree with you that Michael was addicted to prescription drugs? Most of your postings here are mostly focused on Michael's drug use. It really is a mute point. Michael's gone. Your focus, just as the defense's focus on Michael's drug usage is misguided. Conrad ordered the propofol in large quantities and gave it to him daily.

Your coming off like someone who is kicking Michael while he's down (six feet deep). I'm not saying Michael isn't responsible for his actions, he was a grown man afterall. But damn. Michael has already paid his price, now its time for Conrad to pay. Unfortunately his price won't be much in comparison.

Actually I am not kicking MJ. The fact is I do not view the term "drug addict" as any worse than any other illness. I know that the term is still stigmatized, particularly in America which views drug addiction in moral terms rather than that of illness. But I use it in the same vein I use "cancer sufferer" or "astmatic'. It is just another illness. I am putting his behavior in context of his apparent illness.

The prosecution wants to deny this illness. As I listen to the closing arguments, they are suggesting that it is Dr. Murray and only Dr. Murray who gave Michael Propofol in these unsafe conditions. That is simply not true. I am sure that most times MJ got Propofol he was not in a hospital setting. The prosecution does not want the jury considering Michael long standing use of propofol..since at least the "History" tour. I think that is wrong and unfair to Dr. Murray. The jury should have the whole picture, not a thin slice of it.

DonRants said:

Musicslave said:

What do you want? Are you looking for everyone to agree with you that Michael was addicted to prescription drugs? Most of your postings here are mostly focused on Michael's drug use. It really is a mute point. Michael's gone. Your focus, just as the defense's focus on Michael's drug usage is misguided. Conrad ordered the propofol in large quantities and gave it to him daily.

Your coming off like someone who is kicking Michael while he's down (six feet deep). I'm not saying Michael isn't responsible for his actions, he was a grown man afterall. But damn. Michael has already paid his price, now its time for Conrad to pay. Unfortunately his price won't be much in comparison.

Actually I am not kicking MJ. The fact is I do not view the term "drug addict" as any worse than any other illness. I know that the term is still stigmatized, particularly in America which views drug addiction in moral terms rather than that of illness. But I use it in the same vein I use "cancer sufferer" or "astmatic'. It is just another illness. I am putting his behavior in context of his apparent illness.

The prosecution wants to deny this illness. As I listen to the closing arguments, they are suggesting that it is Dr. Murray and only Dr. Murray who gave Michael Propofol in these unsafe conditions. That is simply not true. I am sure that most times MJ got Propofol he was not in a hospital setting. The prosecution does not want the jury considering Michael long standing use of propofol..since at least the "History" tour. I think that is wrong and unfair to Dr. Murray. The jury should have the whole picture, not a thin slice of it.

What you keep missing is that none of your opinions, theories, speculation or heresay is admissible in a court of law. None of it is relevant to what Murray is actually charged with.

What happened on the History Tour or who else gave him drugs or his addictions have no bearing on Murray's decision to lie, hide evidence, leave the room, administer cpr on a bed or fail to call 911.

Right. The past should never matter when it came to what happened that led to someone's death. I had as much a problem when the judge allowed Michael's past to be broadcasted in the 2005 trial. Luckily, his trial never resulted in him being convicted but Conrad doesn't have nothing to save his butt and besides his defense doesn't really have a case.

I don’t really understand why fans are denying that Michael had an issue with drugs it doesn’t take away his talent etc I have been accepted it already and I don’t think of him any less. I really feel bad for him and wish he made better decisions in his life I just hope that the doctor gets time if he doesn’t then I will be truly speechless.

babynoz said:

What you keep missing is that none of your opinions, theories, speculation or heresay is admissible in a court of law. None of it is relevant to what Murray is actually charged with.

What happened on the History Tour or who else gave him drugs or his addictions have no bearing on Murray's decision to lie, hide evidence, leave the room, administer cpr on a bed or fail to call 911.

Actually a lot of what I have said could have been admissable. It was the judge who decided not to bring it in. In MJ's case the judge allowed the Chandler material which was at the time 12 years old. You need to understand your legal system a little more. And the corruption of said system.

Did you watch the closing arguments? Basically the way you see things, even down to the "administer cpr on a bed" is the way the prosecution wants you to see them. Turns out that the American Heart Association recommends that you do cpr where you find the patient, not move them as the prosecution suggests and most people now believe.

Anyway get a closing argument transcript, you will see that this case is not as clear cut as many are lead to believe. And I believe you and most MJ fans will have your satisfaction. Although I count myself as an MJ fan, I see no satisfaction in this verdict, whichever way it goes. MJ is gone and a good doctor seduced into going rogue and possibly paying dearly for it, not to mention his six children who will be the ultimate victims if he is convicted. While the doctors who enabled MJs drug dependencies for almost 3 decades go scot-free. Sorry if I don't share the average fan's enthusiasm for Dr. Murrays head.

babynoz said:

DonRants said:

Actually I am not kicking MJ. The fact is I do not view the term "drug addict" as any worse than any other illness. I know that the term is still stigmatized, particularly in America which views drug addiction in moral terms rather than that of illness. But I use it in the same vein I use "cancer sufferer" or "astmatic'. It is just another illness. I am putting his behavior in context of his apparent illness.

The prosecution wants to deny this illness. As I listen to the closing arguments, they are suggesting that it is Dr. Murray and only Dr. Murray who gave Michael Propofol in these unsafe conditions. That is simply not true. I am sure that most times MJ got Propofol he was not in a hospital setting. The prosecution does not want the jury considering Michael long standing use of propofol..since at least the "History" tour. I think that is wrong and unfair to Dr. Murray. The jury should have the whole picture, not a thin slice of it.

What you keep missing is that none of your opinions, theories, speculation or heresay is admissible in a court of law. None of it is relevant to what Murray is actually charged with.

What happened on the History Tour or who else gave him drugs or his addictions have no bearing on Murray's decision to lie, hide evidence, leave the room, administer cpr on a bed or fail to call 911.

soooo okay, in your world, the judge tells the jury that the 'history' tour doc gave mj propofol fourteen years earlier. the def drags the 'history' doc to the stand. he says, 'yes, i gave it to him fourteen years earlier'. he would likely also have said, 'and i monitored him to ensure his vital signs were stable and that i took precautions to ensure his airway wasn't blocked, blah, blah, blah, and i wasn't on the cell phone talking.

because, since it seems we're pulling factoids out of our asses, that is likely what happened. that why mj had this false confidence about the drug; it had been given to him without incident by someone else.

so even if the jury had the "whole picture" (which i put in quotes b/c what you're claiming has not been substantiated), you still don't have a point. baby is dead on; how does the fact that mj got propofol in the past mitigate murray's action now?

you and midnight mover should join a conrad murray support group or something.

DonRants said:

kibbles said:

the judge didn't "severely" limit anything. it doesn't matter whether mj was a drug addict in 2003, the time frame you're looking at for the whole schaffel thing. when murray came into his life, and what he was doing there, and what was going on at the time of his treatment of mj is the only relevant time frame.

murray's own "expert" admitted under oath that he could not definitively state that mj was an addict. his opinion was based on his "observations" of mj's public behavior and media reports. he couldn't even explain what he meant by "behavior". just like you - mj's behavior is quite normal for someone with a drug dependency? what does that mean? what specifically are you talking about? the prosecution ripped apart all of this expert's charts while he was on the stand as being misleading. he had dates on the chart where mj supposedly visited klein when in fact he had not.

btw, schaffel has had ample opportunity to cash in on the 'real' story for over two years. he put together a doc and took it on the road to japan; i don't recall there being any press about his revelations about mj's drug dependency. at one point, he leaked a tape in which he made mj out to be an anti-semite, but i don't remember there being any mention of his being a drug addict. there might have been but i don't recall that.

The judge limited testimony in several ways. He allowed Dr. Klein's notes to be used, but did not permit the defense to question Dr. Klein....I say that alone is severe. Addiction and drug dependency takes place over time. By limiting the case only to Dr. Murray, allowed the legal system to throw Dr. Murray under the bus without looking extensively at MJs history of drug use and the other doctors who contributed to MJ's death. I have often said that the true murderer of MJ is the doctor who convinced him that taking nightly Propofol was safe.

MJs behaviors of hiring quack doctors who give themselves morphine while treating patents; associating and taking money from a gay porn producer; and recklessly putting his life at risk on a nightly basis are examples of behaviors which are quite normal when seen in the context of drug addiction. They are not normal behaviors for most people who are not on drugs.

And for your final paragraph, the first time I heard of MJ wanting his "Milk" was on a tape leaked by Schaffel. Read the second link in my previous post. Schaffel had declared that MJ was a drug addict and he was going to make the story public. I ,like you, did not believe it at the time. In view of present evidence..Schaffel was telling the truth.

In closing, this was not easy for me to recognise. I have a friend who works in a detox unit. When Michael died she said to me that if someone has a drug problem and does not get off it, almost always they will die from the drug. This was eye opening for me. I have observed everyone pointing the finger elsewhere where MJ is concerned. Dr. Klein's attorney said; "MJ was not addicted to Demerol, he was addicted to Plastic Surgery and Propofol." Baloney. Everyone is saying "It wasn't Me." The truth is it was all of them.

[Edited 11/3/11 10:18am]

really? that was eye opening for you? you had never of people dying from their drug addictions before?

but to your other points. mj didn't die as a result of morphine or demoral addiction. he hadn't been to see klein in several days before his death and the last time he went, as was pointed out in court, he received a low injection for whatever procedure. there was no morphine or demoral found at his home. no needles that he had purchased, only what murray had purchased.

klein and the other mj docs around at the time were put under investigation by the dea; not one other doctor was charged for overprescribing or misprescribing drugs to mj. that history tour doc you keep going on about was nowhere to be found, so regardless of what he did in the past, he simply is not relevant.

there was no other narcotics found in his home outside of what murray had prescribed, and what metzer prescribed still remained in the bottles.

the judge didn't allow klein in because no one else caused mj's death. klein didn't give him propofol that night, he didn't administer the lorazapam, he didn't not call 911, and on and on. whatever 'behaviors' you continue to point to as being indicative of drug addiction are irrelevant, especially since the drugs you believe mj was hooked on were not even in his house at the time of his death. it is total irrelevant if mj was a drug addict 14 years ago, or in 2003 when schaffel knew him. totally irrelvant, and the judge was right to throw out that hearsay speculation.

Thing is I know Michael had drug problems but his drug problems didn't result in him getting killed. It's like people are making excuses for someone who kissed someone's ass to get him whatever he want and if you're a doctor, you just don't do that. So nah we ain't excusing Michael's problems at all. It's just that some of you just don't wanna believe that this supposedly respected doctor didn't do it but there's more proof of his negligence than there is proof that Michael set him up. Why would Michael be a drug enabler when he wanted to sleep and be healthy enough to do his shows? But anyways, his supposed drug enabling is not on trial, a doctor's negligence to protect his patient is.

Also ain't no way Klein was gonna be brought in, he wasn't there when Murray was shooting him up so therefore he's not the reason Michael's in a grave now.

DonRants said:

babynoz said:

What you keep missing is that none of your opinions, theories, speculation or heresay is admissible in a court of law. None of it is relevant to what Murray is actually charged with.

What happened on the History Tour or who else gave him drugs or his addictions have no bearing on Murray's decision to lie, hide evidence, leave the room, administer cpr on a bed or fail to call 911.

Actually a lot of what I have said could have been admissable. It was the judge who decided not to bring it in. In MJ's case the judge allowed the Chandler material which was at the time 12 years old. You need to understand your legal system a little more. And the corruption of said system.

Did you watch the closing arguments? Basically the way you see things, even down to the "administer cpr on a bed" is the way the prosecution wants you to see them. Turns out that the American Heart Association recommends that you do cpr where you find the patient, not move them as the prosecution suggests and most people now believe.

Anyway get a closing argument transcript, you will see that this case is not as clear cut as many are lead to believe. And I believe you and most MJ fans will have your satisfaction. Although I count myself as an MJ fan, I see no satisfaction in this verdict, whichever way it goes. MJ is gone and a good doctor seduced into going rogue and possibly paying dearly for it, not to mention his six children who will be the ultimate victims if he is convicted. While the doctors who enabled MJs drug dependencies for almost 3 decades go scot-free. Sorry if I don't share the average fan's enthusiasm for Dr. Murrays head.

excuse me, but it's you who needs to understand the u.s. legal system more. i'm a paralegal in the state of california.

the only reason that sneddon was able to bring in the hearsay evidence against mj was due to what called a hearsay exception. under the exception in both the fed rules of evidence and calif. evidence code (section 1108), there is an exception for hearsay involving prior acts when said acts include child abuse, rape or other sexual misconduct. it doesn't even have to be proven, just alleged, which is why sneddon was able to bring it in. otherwise, prior acts are generally not admissible, and the judge may exclude evidence which is overly broad, may serve to confuse the jury from the facts, or is irrelevant. so you need stfu on that score.

also, none of the experts on the stand ever corroborated your assertion that what murray did was proper cpr. in fact, they questioned the whole use of it since mj's heart was fine. he coudn't breathe, and he needed ventilation. murray wasn't seduced into doing anything that he didn't want to do. if he was a good doctor, money couldn't have seduced him into doing what he did. if he was a good doctor, he would have known how to save mj's life.

as for his kids, you've got to be fucking kidding me. this man was in arrears on his child support and probably still is. but he certainly had $1500 to throw away on some young chippy, didn't he? what about the children he has with his wife? why do they have to see pictures of him out with his outside kid and the kid's mother instead of being at home with them? boy, you sure do know how to shovel the shit, don't you?

^ Yeah, in child abuse cases, past allegations or actual stories of abuse CAN be brought into court. You can't do that with drug cases. Therein lies the difference. Like if Elvis' doctor was charged for administering the drugs that killed Elvis, they wouldn't have brought past doctors who were involved in Elvis' growing sense of addiction.

[Edited 11/3/11 18:42pm]