Conrad Murray Trial - Closing Arguments 11-3-11

[~n/t~]

Oh and one more thing to get off my chest. The hypocrisy of some journalists. Those who were ready to hang MJ during the child molestation trial are now defending him in death. If it wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing.

 

[Talina]

Oh and one more thing to get off my chest. The hypocrisy of some journalists. Those who were ready to hang MJ during the child molestation trial are now defending him in death. If it wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing.

I don't see them as defending him in death. MJ is not the one on trial so there is nothing to defend as far as MJ is concerned. Conrad Murray is on trial and I see the journalists debating and presenting news and commentary as it relates to Conrad Murray's actions. None of the talk shows I've seen have even gone into any molestation discussions whatsoever either way.

Even if a jury had found MJ guilty of the molestation charges, do you believe that he would not deserve charges to be put against someone that had committed a crime against him, regardless of the crime? I just don't follow that line of thinking.

That would turn our justice system on its head. Once a person is accused of a crime, nevermind never convicted of one but let's not stop there, let's include everyone accused and everyone convicted - they forever give up their rights to ever be considered victim of a crime?

IMO

 

[Talina]

IMO, that is what he was trying to tell this jury when he said CM was a small fish in a big dirty pond. If we believe the theory that MJ self induced the meds, then there was nothing that CM could've done to stop him. He basically potrayed MJ as an addict who committed suicide. He gave the psych ward as one example. Also, Walgren in his rebuttal potrayed MJ as a feeble person who put his trust in CM but yet through some of the testimony I've heard, Michael was being potrayed as a healthy, strong person who had nothing wrong with him. I thought that was 'bizarre'. They can't have it both ways.

I think Chernoff did a good job in raising reasonable doubt. I know if I was on the jury, I'd be wanting some of these questions answered before I would vote guilty. Relooking at the evidence is crucial.

And yes, I truly believe that if it wasn't Michael Jackson, we wouldn't be here today discussing this trial.

BBM

Forgetting that the blood levels do not support this theory but if we believe that MJ self injected, then someone is responsible for providing the prescription drugs and left them within his reach to do so that enabled him to do so. That person is Conrad Murray. As a trained physician he knows better than to do that and according to California law, it falls under the legal definition of Involuntary Manslaughter. I'm not even going to go into the committed suicide direction as it is absurd, IMO.

Regarding MJ being presented as feeble - He was not presented as feeble. He was presented as normal human being like the rest of us regarding how we put our trust and faith into our physicians to have our best interests at heart. Does that make all of us feeble when it comes to trusting a doctor? Perhaps so depending on the type of treatment we are receiving. Even something as simple as a prescription, we put our lives in the hands of our physicians to not mix prescriptions that have an adverse effect on us and to avoid giving us something that could give us an allergic reaction if it is known we are allergic to certain drugs. Every day we put our lives in the hands of our physicians in one way or another.

I do believe that this trial would be going on even if it were not Michael Jackson. The difference would be that we'd not know about it unless we were locals in the area and/or a patient of the doctor on trial. The reason we all know about this trial is because it is MJ. In recent years, there have been a number of involuntary manslaughter cases against doctors. This is nothing new just because it is MJ.

IMO

 

[passionflower]

IMO, no doctor should get these drugs and put someone to sleep with dangerous drugs in a bedroom and not in a hospital with life saving equipment and specialists.
IMO, I would not want C Murray to be my doctor.
IMO, C Murray was in it for the money and fame of being MJ doctor.
IMO, he 'forgot' his OATH!
IMO, it could be anyone with enough money to get the drugs and a doctor willing to do this.
Should have nothing to do with MJ.

 

[TxLady2]

But there are problems with the above, imo.

a]MJ was under the care of CM because MJ AGREED to have propofol given to him in his home.

b] there is some reasonable doubt about that. IF in fact he only gave him that smaller amount of P, then he may have thought he was out of danger, and just resting comfortably,which was the usual situation. Afterall, he did do this safely for 2 months straight.
c] that is true, but is it civil and not criminal?
d]are we sure it is criminally negligent? I am not so sure because MJ himself asked for Propofol.

ALL of the expert doctors agreed that they would never give propofol in a home setting. Any reputable doctor would not give a patient something just because the patient asked for it, if it is not in the patient's best interests. Dr. Murray did not have the proper emergency equipment, he was not monitoring Michael closely, and he was not trained to give anesthesia. Even if Michael self-administered the propofol, Murray is liable because he left it out where Michael could get to it. He was reckless and it cost Michael his life.
An anesthesiologist never leaves the patient's side while they are under the anesthesia, the patient is monitored constantly. Murray did not do that. That is gross negligence.

 

[TxLady2]

I've never served on a jury or even been on a panel to be on a jury --

I would really like to hear from someone who has been on a criminal case -- after the foreperson is elected -- what next? Do you go ahead & take a pre-lim vote? Certainly I know that each jury is way different, but just would like someone's story.

Thanks, if you can.

I was on a jury once, over 20 years ago. I don't think we took a preliminary vote until we had talked about it a bit, but I do remember we did take votes two or three times. It was a minor case, indecency with a child, and we deliberated about 5 1/2 hours total. It was interesting and I enjoyed the experience. We found him guilty.

 

[~n/t~]

I don't see them as defending him in death. MJ is not the one on trial so there is nothing to defend as far as MJ is concerned. Conrad Murray is on trial and I see the journalists debating and presenting news and commentary as it relates to Conrad Murray's actions. None of the talk shows I've seen have even gone into any molestation discussions whatsoever either way.

Even if a jury had found MJ guilty of the molestation charges, do you believe that he would not deserve charges to be put against someone that had committed a crime against him, regardless of the crime? I just don't follow that line of thinking.

That would turn our justice system on its head. Once a person is accused of a crime, nevermind never convicted of one but let's not stop there, let's include everyone accused and everyone convicted - they forever give up their rights to ever be considered victim of a crime?

IMO

They said some really nasty things about MJ during the molestation trial but discussing it would be o/t so I'll stop. Yes I realize he's not on trial here. Just pointing out the hypocrisy but then again ratings is what matters to them anyway. I just find it repulsive. That's all.

 

[TxLady2]

:truce:

Well, I came back here one mo' time, before lights out, to see if anyone
posted any answers to my questions about what's happnin' tomorrow.

So, since no one has , I'll have to go to bed not knowing whether I should get up early.....
or sleep an extra hour.

I wonder if I can find out.... in the next 5-10 minutes - probably not.....
if there'll be anything to watch tomorrow morning, before the jurors go to deliberation.


OK - then. I guess that's it. I'll call it a day!

Good night!

Sleep Well. Sweet Dreams. Say Prayers.

And above all..... Don't let the bedbugs by-choo!

If it helps... yes, they will come back to court today to deliberate. Probably nothing will be televised about them meeting up, going to the jury room, but they will have to be in the courthouse for the deliberations. If they don't reach a verdict today, they will be instructed to return Mon. or Tues. to continue. The judge will stay in his chambers or close by while they are deliberating, in case they have some question. They may be sent home if no verdict is reached by late this evening.
I predict a verdict today.

 

[TxLady2]

I was seriously underwhelmed by the defense argument. There were MUCH BETTER assumption of risk arguments available.

I have represented nursing homes in northern California in civil medical malpractice cases involving patients who were fall risks who chose not to have physical restraints (i.e. not be "tied down") who subsequently fell and died, and patients who refused to drink the nasty-tasting nutritional supplements prescribed by their doctors or to have gastric/parenteral nutrition tubes implanted who subsequently died of malnutrition and/or dehydration, and various other situations where the patient basically refused to follow the doctor's advice but the doctor continued to help the patient with their problems. Also, as a woman, and in particular as a mother of 5 including some high-risk pregnancies, I have an enhanced point of view with regard to assumption of risk with regard to women who choose to give birth at home, or who shop for OB/GYNs willing to perform vaginal birth of twins (most OB/GYNs insist on C-sections) or who refuse to have c-sections despite their doctors advice (which was the basis of a prosecution in Utah) or other risky situations.

I would have argued that competent adults have the right to make choices concerning their medical care. Smokers with emphysema may continue to smoke; does that mean their doctors have a duty to stop treating them? Twenty OB/GYNs may decline to deliver twins vaginally; does that mean that the OB/GYN who agrees is grossly negligent? Some patients suffering from AIDS or cancer decline to pursue therapies with severe side effects; does that mean that their doctors have to cut them off from palliative (symptomatic) relief? No! Competent adults have the right to control their medical care. And it is not illegal for a doctor to continue trying to help the patient suffer as little as possible.

At a minimum, it is a better "theory of the case" likely to result in "reasonable doubt" than the actual defense argument that everything Conrad Murray did was perfectly safe yet Michael Jackson happened to die anyways.

Katprint
Whose father declined a second series of potentially life-saving chemotherapy because he was unwilling to suffer the side effects,
and who has been so exhausted as a new mother that death would have been an acceptable risk of getting some sleep
Always only my own opinion

BBM: I could be misreading this, but I don't think that's true. C-sections are done if there is a risk to the mother or child, or if a vaginal birth is not possible for some medical reason. They require at least an overnight stay in the hospital, and many of them stay longer. I don't believe most doctors would insist or prefer doing surgery on a mother rather than delivering the child naturally. Surgery is always a higher risk than a vaginal birth. I had a C-section with my last child due to complications, and I nearly bled to death, required 4 pints of blood.
Forgive me if I misunderstood, but this jumped out at me. Sorry for the OT as well.

 

[TxLady2]

IMO, that is what he was trying to tell this jury when he said CM was a small fish in a big dirty pond. If we believe the theory that MJ self induced the meds, then there was nothing that CM could've done to stop him. He basically potrayed MJ as an addict who committed suicide. He gave the psych ward as one example. Also, Walgren in his rebuttal potrayed MJ as a feeble person who put his trust in CM but yet through some of the testimony I've heard, Michael was being potrayed as a healthy, strong person who had nothing wrong with him. I thought that was 'bizarre'. They can't have it both ways.

I think Chernoff did a good job in raising reasonable doubt. I know if I was on the jury, I'd be wanting some of these questions answered before I would vote guilty. Relooking at the evidence is crucial.

And yes, I truly believe that if it wasn't Michael Jackson, we wouldn't be here today discussing this trial.

No, WE wouldn't be here discussing it because it wouldn't be making national news. It would just be one blurb on a local news slot and quickly forgotten. And one reason we ARE here is because this is not something that takes place every day, to ordinary citizens. Doctors do not treat insomnia with anesthesia. It's just not done.
Who in the heck ever heard of propofol before this case, outside of medical personnel?
Medical malpractice suits go on all over the country all the time, unfortunately, we just don't hear about them because most of them don't include celebrities. This is big because it's Michael Jackson, but it wouldn't matter if it was Joe Blow or Jane Doe... it's still a case of medical malpractice, of gross negligence, and it matters to HIS FAMILY.

 

[Crosby87]

No doubt some of you long time board members are aware of this, but I just learned today that Conrad Murray's sainted father, Rawle Andrews, had his Texas Medical License put under a 5 year limitation in 1994 for improperly prescribing controlled substances with no theraputic indication and not keeping proper medical records. Looks like the apple didn't fall too far from the tree (even if they didn't really know each other very well). You can read the Medical Board order here:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/ht_rawle_andrews_090723.pdf

Conrad Murray repeated his father’s mistake tenfold……..“And the sins of the father shall be visited upon the son.” Conrad Murray and his father Rawles met for the first time in 2005 after his father’s medical license was suspended.

Conrad Murray’s father was eventually allowed to practice medicine again so this incident didn’t end his medical career.

Conrad Murray’s bibliography says “Conrad followed in his father’s footsteps” however if Dr. Murray left to go to London, he would not be available to continue treating his father's patients at the clinic which he committed himself to after his father's death.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't see them as defending him in death. MJ is not the one on trial so there is nothing to defend as far as MJ is concerned. Conrad Murray is on trial and I see the journalists debating and presenting news and commentary as it relates to Conrad Murray's actions. None of the talk shows I've seen have even gone into any molestation discussions whatsoever either way.

Even if a jury had found MJ guilty of the molestation charges, do you believe that he would not deserve charges to be put against someone that had committed a crime against him, regardless of the crime? I just don't follow that line of thinking.

That would turn our justice system on its head. Once a person is accused of a crime, nevermind never convicted of one but let's not stop there, let's include everyone accused and everyone convicted - they forever give up their rights to ever be considered victim of a crime?

IMO

I honestly don't understand why some think Michael Jackson shouldn't receive justice for his untimely death. He was killed by the hands of another. Since when does our justice system mete out justice for some and not all victims?:waitasec:

Do we as a society let drug dealers go when they have given bad drugs to addicts and it kills them? NO!

I really thought the Defense closing argument was quite lame. They should have picked one target and gnawed on that bone instead of blaming anyone and everyone that breathed who was connected to the case. That is bad lawyering imo. And Walgren is right......if the DT had enough time they would have somehow worked Prince into the blame game especially if he had testified against Conrad Murray. Walgren has coined a phrase that is going to stick like glue "Poor Conrad Murray" everyone is bad but him. GAG!:innocent:

Yes, it is for certain that Michael was an adult but even he knew that he had to have a doctor monitoring him the entire time. That is why he hired a licensed doctor who he thought he could trust with his life. Administering the propofol was a lawful act. Even the indictment against CM states it was but what he did with that lawful act is reprehensible and has turned the medical community on its head.

Murray is the one who purchased these drugs and brought them into the home. MJ was not a doctor. He could not have gotten these drugs on the street. Murray is the one that was so preoccupied doing other things and abandoned his patient even though he knew he was administering a powerful anesthetic that needed constant monitoring.

This is not a trial about what Michael Jackson did. This trial is against Conrad Murray solely based on his criminal actions or inactions done on June 25, 2009 which senselessly ended MJs life.

If only Murray had done his lawful duty that day then MJ would be alive today unless Murray continued to care for him in a grossly negligent way after that day.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

They said some really nasty things about MJ during the molestation trial but discussing it would be o/t so I'll stop. Yes I realize he's not on trial here. Just pointing out the hypocrisy but then again ratings is what matters to them anyway. I just find it repulsive. That's all.

I know this is O/T but I think their opinion changed once the FBI report came out after investigating MJ for decades and the FBI found absolutely nothing criminal in his history of any kind.

I admire people who can open up their minds and look at the facts when they are presented and form a different opinion based on them.

I think a lot of them must feel terrible guilt about the media myths they spun for years. So many millions made by claiming he didn't have a serious skin disorder when he certainly did just like he told everyone way back in 1993. A lot blew up in the media's face when the MJ autopsy report came out.

Just like I saw JVM do an interview with Ed Smart the other day and she apologized to him because at the time when Elizabeth was missing Jane was sure her father had done something to her and was accusing him falsely. She was wrong and even though I cant tolerate Jane for more than 10 minutes I did admire her when she had enough guts to apologize to Ed Smart and of course he graciously accepted her apology.

IMO

 

[Crosby87]

Dr. Murray said MJ wanted him to direct his hospital, so maybe MJ hoped to take Propofol for the remainder of his life but when Dr. Murray couldn't obtain the drug Propofol in London, they couldn't overcome this obstacle.

As far as I know, drugs alter a person's mood and personality and they can potentially rob a person of their will so drugs can imprison a person and make an addict completely dependent upon them for their survivial which is what happened to MJ.

After Dr. Murray started giving Michael propofol, it likely became crystal clear to both of them that it wouldn’t be possible for Dr. Murray to find a supplier in London which meant Murray couldn’t promise MJ he could fulfill his contractual obligations to Michael Jackson. CM couldn’t ship his stock out of the country so neither MJ or CM could wield their power, status, and influence to remove this major obstacle which stood in their way.

Michael had to give up Propofol if he wanted to perform in London and obviously his addiction to propofol had control of him and prevented him from making this choice.

This is why I believe Dr. Murray when he said he tried to wean MJ off Propofol before the tour began but MJ was non-compliant. This is why imo MJ might have taken Propofol on his own volition during this power struggle that ensued and separated the two the day Michael died.

If Dr. Murray couldn’t supply MJ with Propofol in London this could be the reason Michael Jackson didn’t sign Dr. Murray's contract with AEG. If Michael went to a rehab centre, it would postpone the tour indefinitely so he was probably unwilling to seek outside help for his secret addiction to Propofol because of the trouble it would cause not only himself but Dr. Murray as well.

How do we know Dr. Murray didn't inject MJ with Propofol May 10, 2009 at 9:05 am while he was recording MJ on his IPhone? Near the end of the tape MJ said “I am sleeping” after a brief pause so maybe he was consciously sedated and under the influence of Propofol?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

There is no evidence that Michael ever used propofol except when he was on tour. In fact it has been said when he wasnt on tour he went to bed around 10pm and slept through the night.

Like Walgren said there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that another doctor administered propofol in MJs home.

Michael wasnt going to build a hospital for adults. This hospital would be for children only where they could come from all over the world to be treated.

I think maybe one of the reasons why MJ didn't sign the contract is he was having second thoughts about the care he was getting from CM. Murray actually seemed very lackadaisical, cold and nonchalant about MJs complaints. "Just put a blanket on him.":innocent: and not even come to make sure he was ok.

I believe that is why MJ had someone contact Nurse Lee instead of calling Murray first. He knew NL would take his symptoms seriously which she said she looked up in the medical book later on and it was a side affect of propofol use.

Of course MJ couldn't even get out of his door to go anywhere without fans and the paparazzi being there and following him right on his bumper. So going to the hospital wasnt an option for MJ, imo.

Murray did not say he put MJ under light sedation. He said he gave him a bolus and a drip 6 nights a week for two months straight. Whatever MJ was on Murray gave it to him. Maybe it was the lorazepam meant to relax him first and then he was given the propofol bolus and drip.

But what is certain Murray sat right there and two days later he is ordering another mother lode of propofol.

Where are all the bottles of propofol? Had he already use them all up but a couple?

IMO

 

[angelainwi]

I do not understand how people can think this was an assisted suicide.

 

[Isabelle]

IMO, no doctor should get these drugs and put someone to sleep with dangerous drugs in a bedroom and not in a hospital with life saving equipment and specialists.
IMO, I would not want C Murray to be my doctor.
IMO, C Murray was in it for the money and fame of being MJ doctor.
IMO, he 'forgot' his OATH!
IMO, it could be anyone with enough money to get the drugs and a doctor willing to do this.
Should have nothing to do with MJ.

Hi Passion. Didn't Conrad Murray's letter say something about 'leaving medicine'? Kind of sounded like he wasn't going to be practicing - am sure I'm interpreting it wrong, but considering the outcome?? I wouldn't consider what he did as practicing medicine, since the first and most important tenant of the oath is First Do No Harm.

 

[octobermoon]

After the verdict is reached there will be a two hour delay to allow people, lawyers, family etc. to get to the court before it is announced. (said on In Sessions)

 

[Isabelle]

I had not realized that Michael Jackson had been rehearsing for almost 6 months before his death. Heard this from the photographer that captured his last pic in the ambulance. He gave an interesting interview.

 

[RainyGirl]

I'm feeling anxious about this verdict! As we all know, there's NO such thing as a "slam dunk", despite how impressed I was by Mr. Walgren. Such a sad, sad case to begin with!!! Walgren (IMO) really nailed that closing argument, but did he connect with the jurors?? Argh.....I don't know. I'm not making any sense here....but I've followed the trial carefully. I'm still so burned by the Anthony verdict. It knocked me WAY off balance......despite being a very different kind of case and defendant!

I'm just praying for the best possible solution/verdict here.......it seems like both Murray and MJ had very complicated and troubled lives (and secrets, of course). I want to cry whenever I see shots of Katherine Jackson or MJ's kids!!

PS: Not to be flip (because this is all very serious business) but what is up with JVM's extra huge and mega-fuzzy microphone??? Just a strange, light moment there!!

Peace XOXO