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.

So you're more qualified to make these determinations than a judge just because you don't like his rulings? Trust me, there is absolutely nothing you can tell me about the legal system,

Deciding what is relevant and admissable under the LAW is the judge's job and after 25 years working directly with judges on a daily basis I know the good ones from the bad and this judge is very good at his job. It's YOU who clearly have no clue how a trial is conducted.

The little snide comments you keep sneaking in about MJ's fans shows what your real agenda is. Personally, I liked a lot of his solo songs but haven't been a die hard Jackson fan since the J5 split up years ago, so there goes that theory too. You have offered nothing but conjecture and speculation.

As far as recommendations of the American Heart Association go, I'm gonna go with what was said by the experts who actually do the work but thanks anyway.

My interest in the case is primarily because I do this for a living and am very familiar with the standards of proof and rules of evidence... I have to be in order to do my job. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly of the justice system and this trial was conducted properly by the judge and the attorneys involved. I don't even see any basis for appeal.

If you think that the circumstances of the MJ trial are in any way comparable to the Murray trial then it only proves that you really don't know what you're talking about. Again, what you think or say in your living room isn't the same standard as what can be admitted in a courtroom and whether you like and accept that fact or not does not matter one whit. What facts are relevant or not is still the judge's decision...not yours.

The ultimate victims are Murray's children...really?

I like to see folks' response if Murray gets convicted lol

"THIS IS AN INJUSTICE! "

When does the verdict come in?

kibbles said:

DonRants said:

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?

Exactly.

A lot of lay-persons make the same wrong assumptions as don does. They can't make the distinction between a courtroom proceeding and a street corner discussion so they believe that any old conspiracy theory or opinion should be brought into the case regardless of relevance.

musicjunky318 said:

When does the verdict come in?

No idea. The jury started their deliberations a few hours ago but it's too early to determine when a verdict is coming in. They may still be deliberating. I forgot what time they were told to deliberate.

musicjunky318 said:

When does the verdict come in?

The judge dismissed the jury after instructions since it was already after 4pm so the deliberations start tomorrow morning.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

When does the verdict come in?

No idea. The jury started their deliberations a few hours ago but it's too early to determine when a verdict is coming in. They may still be deliberating. I forgot what time they were told to deliberate.

It was a little after 4 so they were dismissed for the day. I don't know if they told the judge they would rather stay late or not.

babynoz said:

musicjunky318 said:

When does the verdict come in?

The judge dismissed the jury after instructions since it was already after 4pm so the deliberations start tomorrow morning.

Oh yeah I forgot, the arguments ended a few minutes before the jury was to deliberate so yeah they didn't have time to do it today.

babynoz said:

Timmy84 said:

No idea. The jury started their deliberations a few hours ago but it's too early to determine when a verdict is coming in. They may still be deliberating. I forgot what time they were told to deliberate.

It was a little after 4 so they were dismissed for the day. I don't know if they told the judge they would rather stay late or not.

It's a possibility though.

[Edited 11/3/11 19:31pm]

Timmy84 said:

babynoz said:

The judge dismissed the jury after instructions since it was already after 4pm so the deliberations start tomorrow morning.

Oh yeah I forgot, the arguments ended a few minutes before the jury was to deliberate so yeah they didn't have time to do it today.

They could have asked to stay but I doubt they would have and the judge probably wouldn't have agreed anyway.

babynoz said:

Timmy84 said:

Oh yeah I forgot, the arguments ended a few minutes before the jury was to deliberate so yeah they didn't have time to do it today.

They could have asked to stay but I doubt they would have and the judge probably wouldn't have agreed anyway.

Right.

babybugz said:

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.

Denial or acceptance of the decedent's issues or talent isn't what the trial is about though because the deceased isn't on trial. People are just trying to keep the thread on topic at the request of the OP.

kibbles 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.

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.

The way the defense has been presenting their case, it is as if DOCTOR Murray ( funny how you haters always drop the mans title) was the first person to give MJ Propofol outside of a hospital. That is categorically not true. And that is not hearsay. Dr. Murray himself was introduced to the practice by Micheal who took him to a plastic surgeon to show him how to adminsiter it. Besides Dr. Murrays statement none of that was offered into effidence.

[Edited 11/3/11 21:31pm]

kibbles said:

DonRants said:

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.

It does matter because it was Michael who went and got Dr. Murray to give him drugs. And Schaffel cannot offer any story to the press because he was paid in a settlement not to. The experts on the stand dare not use the word "addict" because MJ was not their client. They cannot diagnose him on the stand.

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]

This I could accept if MJ had died like Rick James, Janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse, Chris Farley, John Belushi, Jimi Hendrix....

you know die of HIS OWN HAND. But that is not what happened. He died at the hands of a licensed physician. Doing some shyt that he KNEW was dangerous. Doesn't that shock you?

Oh, but that is right... I forgot.

Safe medicine and medical prudence should only be kept for people who are legally and morally correct. An addict should not expect that his doctor would adhere to safe practice (heavy sarcasm).

I just don't get why the fact that there is a possibility that MJ was addicted somehow equates that what happened while he was sedated by a MD is MJ's fault.

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.

kibbles said:

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.

What was eye opening was that they "almost always" die from the drug. I thought they died of other reasons too. Not so. The drug of choice is the killer.

Now as for your points that all the drugs were prescribed by Murray. The prosecution itself said today that Michael and Dr. Murray had an Employer-Employee relationship. That was the seduction of Dr. Murray. He was being paid to be Michael's Enabler/pusher so of course it is his name on it. But all he was doing was buying what Michael/his boss told him to buy.

MJ's history is not irrelevant if he is still practicing that behavior to the point of his death. If he killed himself, which the prosecution's expert admitted is a possiblity then it is certainly not irrelevant. Just as Dr. Murray's history is relevant so too is Michael's.

Trying to say Michael forced Murray's hand is like saying a drunk driver says it wasn't him that rammed over his car, that the car somehow forced him to ram the car. So in that theory, the drunk driver was a victim lol

And honestly Michael's death was not typical of what happens to rock stars and (some) comedians as prodigal said. It wasn't like Michael was using propofol like John Belushi used speedball or Janis Joplin or Frankie Lymon injecting that final dosage of heroin into their veins.

Also again with Klein, Klein wasn't there on Michael's final day. Only Murray. Klein had nothing to do with it.

Timmy84 said:

Trying to say Michael forced Murray's hand is like saying a drunk driver says it wasn't him that rammed over his car, that the car somehow forced him to ram the car. So in that theory, the drunk driver was a victim lol

And honestly Michael's death was not typical of what happens to rock stars and (some) comedians as prodigal said. It wasn't like Michael was using propofol like John Belushi used speedball or Janis Joplin or Frankie Lymon injecting that final dosage of heroin into their veins.

It doesn't matter whether one thinks that MJ was some kind of drug addict or not; the clear legal fault will always lie upon the doctor which facilitated whatever procedure was used. This was clearly a case where the DOCTOR had the power--this is not a case where the usual street drugs were used and the patient alone was at fault. At the VERY least, Murray is guilty of EXTREME negligience.

purplethunder3121 said:

Timmy84 said:

Trying to say Michael forced Murray's hand is like saying a drunk driver says it wasn't him that rammed over his car, that the car somehow forced him to ram the car. So in that theory, the drunk driver was a victim lol

And honestly Michael's death was not typical of what happens to rock stars and (some) comedians as prodigal said. It wasn't like Michael was using propofol like John Belushi used speedball or Janis Joplin or Frankie Lymon injecting that final dosage of heroin into their veins.

It doesn't matter whether one thinks that MJ was some kind of drug addict or not; the clear legal fault will always lie upon the doctor which facilitated whatever procedure was used. This was clearly a case where the DOCTOR had the power--this is not a case where the usual street drugs were used and the patient alone was at fault. At the VERY least, Murray is guilty of EXTREME negligience.

You said the same thing I said!

kibbles said:

DonRants said:

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?

If you are a paralegal then you should know how corrupt the system you work in is and that the odds are stacked in favor of the prosecution. The state wants to win. Period.

Again how Dr. Murray performed CPR is not that reprehensible when you take into consideration his size compared to Michael and the fact is that The American Heart Association teaches you to perform CPR where you find the client and not to move him or her. Dr. Murray being a Cardiologist probably was schooled in this system.I remember shortly after MJ died I was having a conversation with a group and mentioned his technique. An anaesthesiologist who was present spoke up and said " Oh, Michael must have been a very small man because that is how we do CPR on babies". Meaning one hand on the back and one on the front. She said nothing else.

So you have no simpathy for Dr. Murray's kids? Because he is a womanizer and has spend money on a lover his chilidren are better off with him in jail? And I suppose all your purchases are logical and you only spend on what you need?

[Edited 11/3/11 21:38pm]

[Edited 11/3/11 21:42pm]

Okay guys, Im going to send a org note to a mod soon and shut this thread down. I figure that once a verdict is announced either way its going to get testy. Having the first thread get moded and move the the ethers of the orgworld I figured it would be wise to close this one so it can be referenced if need be.

I figure that if this plays out like the first thread TPTB will box if. Thats a cylon referense for you Sci Fi fans.

[Edited 11/3/11 21:56pm]

lazycrockett said:

Okay guys, Im going to send a org note to a mod soon and shut this thread down. I figure that once a verdict is announced either way its going to get testy. Having the first thread get moded and move the the ethers of the orgworld I figured it would be wise to close this one so it can be referenced if need be.

I figure that if this plays out like the first thread TPTB will box if. Thats a cylon referense for you Sci Fi fans.

[Edited 11/3/11 21:56pm]

This has been a very interesting thread for the most part--thanks for hosting it, Lazycrocket. It would be nice if you could post one more, stating what the verdict is. I don't watch the trial anymore--I just follow it on here and the internet, in general.

Whoopsie, I guess if I had mentioned that another thread was started, no one would have been confused.

silly bunny me.

http://prince.org/msg/8/370094