GUILTY Conrad Murray Trial - Verdict Watch

[borndem]

Yes, they can and imo that is why they aren't in any hurry to come to a verdict.

Also several have been jurors in the past and I am sure they know about Fridays brings verdicts and they do not want to seem predictable.

So I imagine it could be sometime Monday afternoon or even Tuesday morning.

Imo, I cant see them letting Murray walk free. If so then they are sending the wrong message that doctors are above the law and what he did or did not do is acceptable to them.

IMO

So let me ask again, if anyone knows....

Who determines how the sentence will be carried out, if it's Guilty?

The Judge?

(That's the way it is in NC, but what do I know?)

If it's Hizzoner, I think he'll give him as much time as the crowded CA prison system will allow -- which would probably be about 6 months active, IMO, just because the prison system is apparently so crowded...from what I've read lately.

I certainly think Judge Pastor -- who is, IMO, unbiased, brilliant, fair and all of the superlatives we have lauded upon him -- does not like that man nor his crime one dayam bit.

 

[borndem]

Maybe the jury has made a decision and agreed to ponder it over the weekend??

That's what I am afraid of them doing. If they know it, they know it.

Pondering is not good, IMO. It bothers me a bit.

Maybe they've decided, late in the day, and plan to execute the jury form, sign it and have everything neat & ready first thing Monday morning.

Let's hope it's Guilty tied with a little bow.

<gnaw, gnaw>

 

[peace9274]

Well, well, well, now it comes out, peace!

No wonder your words are so well-thought and stated. And then you are such a stitch sometimes. Aha!

You are the one who has given them their talent for this.... Now we know!!

Bravo!

That is such a nice thing to say, borndem!

To copy one of your phrases:
It's compliments like yours that keep ME at WS!!!

Well, and your funny jokes and serious comments... with all the added icons!!!


BTW: I decided to add some icons to my last post...
it took me as long to write that one post with icons...
as it took YOU to read others' posts, then write and
post 6 comments... all with icons!!! WOW - You, girl, are fast!!!

I don't think or type fast, so I can't waste time adding icons.
It's bad enough... that by the time I get a comment posted...
the comment to which I was responding, is usually long passed
and several topics ago.

So, I spend a lot of time reading, taking it all in... and then pondering over it!!!
That's because I really am in awe at the amount of knowledge, wisdom, experience,
common sense, education, careers, humor, friendliness, and compassion that is here at WS.

I'm always soooo impressed by all the great (serious, sad & funny) comments I read here.
In the past 8 years, it has never ceased to amaze me how much I learn & how much I laugh
when I come here! Sometimes I cry, too.

 

[legalmania]

So let me ask again, if anyone knows....

Who determines how the sentence will be carried out, if it's Guilty?

The Judge?

(That's the way it is in NC, but what do I know?)

If it's Hizzoner, I think he'll give him as much time as the crowded CA prison system will allow -- which would probably be about 6 months active, IMO, just because the prison system is apparently so crowded...from what I've read lately.

I certainly think Judge Pastor -- who is, IMO, unbiased, brilliant, fair and all of the superlatives we have lauded upon him -- does not like that man nor his crime one dayam bit.

Judge Pastor was one of the best judges I have seen in a long time. I don't think he made one bad call during the entire trial. The only thing I didn't agree with him about was the jury being sequestered. I don't know about CA but sometimes they ask the jury for their recommendation for sentencing or the judge makes the decision. I think it has to do with what kind of case it is also.

 

[peace9274]

That's what I am afraid of them doing. If they know it, they know it.

Pondering is not good, IMO. It bothers me a bit.

Maybe they've decided, late in the day, and plan to execute the jury form, sign it and have everything neat & ready first thing Monday morning.

Let's hope it's Guilty tied with a little bow.

<gnaw, gnaw>

OK. I get the part... and it's ok... that they MAY know what the verdict is.

And I get... and it's fine.... that they MAY have good reason to wait til Monday to announce it.

What I don't get... and I do not like.... is that my emotions & thoughts are being controlled by 12 other people.

 

[Credence]

I completely agree, he should never be allowed to practice medicine again IMO but having much experience with addicts I will add that if propofol is needed to go to sleep where demerol or any other sleep aid is not effective, you must be an extreme addict of many, many meds where the body becomes immune to the standard medications and needs excessive and stronger meds to do the trick. I believe MJ was a severe drug addict be it at the time of his death or before and recovering where his system was still unbalanced. The autopsy released is not necessarily the autopsy findings. Many actors, singers etc... have died this past year and the public was giving the most outrageous reasons I have ever heard while the "said" person had a true past of cocaine any other addictions. I think CM should lose his license for putting money before morals but still on the fence about jail time.

Talk about not being able to sleep .... grrrr LOL

I agree with some of what you said. There was absolutely no evidence that MJ was taking drugs other than what was prescribed for insomnia nor has there been any evidence he was taking other drugs since his trial in 2005.

The pills that were prescribed between Jan-April 2009 still had pills left in them. I believe that once Dr. Murray entered the scene in April, MJ discontinued taking those and just took what Dr. Murray administered. The lorazepam prescription that the defense claims MJ took pills from, was prescribed by Dr. Murray and I wish Walgren had gone into that more because that is a controlled substance and Murray did not have a DEA license for CA. I do agree with you and believe he built up a tolerance to the sleep meds and that is probably why they did not work anymore but I do think he was a recovering addict and was not actively abusing drugs and possibly had not used any since his trial. Most of the doctors investigated were from a list that LE got from the drugs confiscated in 2005. Those doctors did not appear to even have been treating him anymore except Dr. Klein. As Dr. Metzger testified, MJ spent a lot of time in Vegas prior to him moving to CA in October 2008. Dr. Murray was his primary physician and Dr. Klein had recently started reconstructing his face (not just simple botox or restylane as the defense implied). I wish Dr. Klein had been allowed to testify too.

You are not allowed to write a prescription or administer a controlled substance without a license. They should have charged him with illegally writing prescriptions and administering a controlled substance as well or hopefully the DEA is waiting in the wings.

Nurse Lee testified that she gave two complete blood work ups and found no drugs in his system and also testified he just wanted to sleep and felt he would be safe with a doctor monitoring him and wanted propofol. Dr. Murray failed him miserably.

To my knowledge the defense team had a coroner from Texas who was on the potential witness list. I don't know what happened, but he never testified. IMO he probably did not find anything wrong with the autopsy report.

In addition to that the Jacksons had their own private autopsy done and I recall they got their report back much sooner than the one we saw that the state released. I recall IIRC it was LaToya, emphatically stating that the public was going to be very surprised at MJ's autopsy findings and in hindsight, I can understand now what she meant. jmho

 

[Credence]

I am worried about the verdict unless they are going to do what OBE suggested and fill out forms and turn it in early Monday. I really thought that if a verdict was not reached by end of day -- that means the jury is not agreement. They asked for no additional exhibits or reading of the transcripts either.

 

[Credence]

Conrad Murray Filming Documentary While Waiting For Verdict

"The film crew has been interviewing Dr. Murray all morning, and cameras will be rolling when he is notified by his attorney, Ed Chernoff, that a verdict has been reached. Dr. Murray gave a one hour interview last night, after court ended. Dr. Murray will probably have a camera crew in the car with him when he goes to the courthouse when a verdict is formally announced. The film crew would potentially be filming Dr. Murray's final moments of freedom" a source close to the doctor tells us.

Dr. Murray needs the money from the documentary to pay his lawyers and experts. "Dr. Murray and his lawyers were hoping it would sell for a million bucks, but it looks like the max a network would pay is around 250k

Read more: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ray-filming-documentary-while-waiting-verdict

 

[peace9274]

Talk about not being able to sleep .... grrrr LOL

I agree with some of what you said. There was absolutely no evidence that MJ was taking drugs other than what was prescribed for insomnia nor has there been any evidence he was taking other drugs since his trial in 2005.

The pills that were prescribed between Jan-April 2009 still had pills left in them. I believe that once Dr. Murray entered the scene in April, MJ discontinued taking those and just took what Dr. Murray administered. The lorazepam prescription that the defense claims MJ took pills from, was prescribed by Dr. Murray and I wish Walgren had gone into that more because that is a controlled substance and Murray did not have a DEA license for CA. I do agree with you and believe he built up a tolerance to the sleep meds and that is probably why they did not work anymore but I do think he was a recovering addict and was not actively abusing drugs and possibly had not used any since his trial. Most of the doctors investigated were from a list that LE got from the drugs confiscated in 2005. Those doctors did not appear to even have been treating him anymore except Dr. Klein. As Dr. Metzger testified, MJ spent a lot of time in Vegas prior to him moving to CA in October 2008. Dr. Murray was his primary physician and Dr. Klein had recently started reconstructing his face (not just simple botox or restylane as the defense implied). I wish Dr. Klein had been allowed to testify too.

You are not allowed to write a prescription or administer a controlled substance without a license. They should have charged him with illegally writing prescriptions and administering a controlled substance as well or hopefully the DEA is waiting in the wings.

Nurse Lee testified that she gave two complete blood work ups and found no drugs in his system and also testified he just wanted to sleep and felt he would be safe with a doctor monitoring him and wanted propofol. Dr. Murray failed him miserably.

To my knowledge the defense team had a coroner from Texas who was on the potential witness list. I don't know what happened, but he never testified. IMO he probably did not find anything wrong with the autopsy report.

In addition to that the Jacksons had their own private autopsy done and I recall they got their report back much sooner than the one we saw that the state released. I recall IIRC it was LaToya, emphatically stating that the public was going to be very surprised at MJ's autopsy findings and in hindsight, I can understand now what she meant. jmho

Thanks for your post, Credence. I agree with everything you said.

In fact, I've been saying the same things...
only you explained it much better!


I can't sleep either!!!

 

[peace9274]

Conrad Murray Filming Documentary While Waiting For Verdict

"The film crew has been interviewing Dr. Murray all morning, and cameras will be rolling when he is notified by his attorney, Ed Chernoff, that a verdict has been reached. Dr. Murray gave a one hour interview last night, after court ended. Dr. Murray will probably have a camera crew in the car with him when he goes to the courthouse when a verdict is formally announced. The film crew would potentially be filming Dr. Murray's final moments of freedom" a source close to the doctor tells us.

Dr. Murray needs the money from the documentary to pay his lawyers and experts. "Dr. Murray and his lawyers were hoping it would sell for a million bucks, but it looks like the max a network would pay is around 250k

Read more: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...ray-filming-documentary-while-waiting-verdict

It's late, I'm tired, can't sleep and my brain ain't working too well....
so I have to think about this a minute. :waitasec:

Why is it that CM is doing this documentary film and making money off it?

Isn't it true... that someone convicted of a crime,
can NOT profit from books, films, articles, interviews, etc?

Or am I missing something? Am I forgetting why the 'Son of Sam Law' would
not pertain to CM, if he is found to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter?



Hmmmm - Maybe I should look it up.
Maybe I'm too lazy and won't.

 

[peace9274]

Re the Son of Sam Law:

I did look it up, but each state is different.

3 states have never enacted Son of Sam statutes:
New Hampshire, North Carolina and Vermont


Here is the Law as it pertains to California:

Citation: CAL. CIV. CODE § 2225 (Deering 2001)
History: Enacted in 1987.
CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3. Obligations
PART 4. Obligations Arising from Particular Transactions
TITLE 8. Involuntary Trusts
Cal Civ Code § 2225 (2001)

§ 2225. Proceeds from sale of story of felony by convicted felon; Involuntary trust

(a)(3)(B) "Profiteer of the felony" means any person who sells or transfers for profit
any memorabilia or other property or thing of the felon, the value of which is enhanced
by the notoriety gained from the commission of the felony for which the felon was convicted.
This subparagraph shall not apply to any media entity reporting on the felon's story or on the
sale of the materials, memorabilia, or other property or thing of the felon. Nor shall it apply to
the sale of the materials, as the term is defined in paragraph (6), where the seller is exercising
his or her first amendment rights. This subparagraph also shall not apply to the sale or transfer
by a profiteer of any other expressive work protected by the First Amendment
unless the sale or transfer is primarily for a commercial or speculative purpose.

(10) (b)(1) All proceeds from the preparation for the purpose of sale, the sale of the rights to, or the sale
of materials that include or are based on the story of a felony for which a convicted felon was convicted,
shall be subject to an involuntary trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries set forth in this section.
That trust shall continue until five years after the time of payment of the proceeds to the felon or five years
after the date of conviction, whichever is later. If an action is filed by a beneficiary to recover his or her interest
in a trust within those time limitations, the trust character of the property shall continue until the conclusion of the
action. At the end of the five-year trust period, any proceeds that remain in trust that have not been claimed by a
beneficiary shall be transferred to the Controller, to be allocated to the Restitution Fund for the payment of claims
pursuant to Section 13969 of the Government Code.

 

[Talina]

Re the Son of Sam Law:

I did look it up, but each state is different.

3 states have never enacted Son of Sam statutes:
New Hampshire, North Carolina and Vermont


Here is the Law as it pertains to California:

Citation: CAL. CIV. CODE § 2225 (Deering 2001)
History: Enacted in 1987.
CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3. Obligations
PART 4. Obligations Arising from Particular Transactions
TITLE 8. Involuntary Trusts
Cal Civ Code § 2225 (2001)

§ 2225. Proceeds from sale of story of felony by convicted felon; Involuntary trust

(a)(3)(B) "Profiteer of the felony" means any person who sells or transfers for profit
any memorabilia or other property or thing of the felon, the value of which is enhanced
by the notoriety gained from the commission of the felony for which the felon was convicted.
This subparagraph shall not apply to any media entity reporting on the felon's story or on the
sale of the materials, memorabilia, or other property or thing of the felon. Nor shall it apply to
the sale of the materials, as the term is defined in paragraph (6), where the seller is exercising
his or her first amendment rights. This subparagraph also shall not apply to the sale or transfer
by a profiteer of any other expressive work protected by the First Amendment
unless the sale or transfer is primarily for a commercial or speculative purpose.

(10) (b)(1) All proceeds from the preparation for the purpose of sale, the sale of the rights to, or the sale
of materials that include or are based on the story of a felony for which a convicted felon was convicted,
shall be subject to an involuntary trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries set forth in this section.
That trust shall continue until five years after the time of payment of the proceeds to the felon or five years
after the date of conviction, whichever is later. If an action is filed by a beneficiary to recover his or her interest
in a trust within those time limitations, the trust character of the property shall continue until the conclusion of the
action. At the end of the five-year trust period, any proceeds that remain in trust that have not been claimed by a
beneficiary shall be transferred to the Controller, to be allocated to the Restitution Fund for the payment of claims
pursuant to Section 13969 of the Government Code.

So, am I reading this right? He can do his documentary but whatever he gets goes into a trust to be held for 5 yrs in case he has a claim filed against him (eg a civil lawsuit or perhaps even past due child support or other creditors?). If so, his attorneys can kiss any of that good bye IMO.

 

[Talina]

Just sitting here thinking about that documentary on Dr. Murray. If they are relying a lot on interviews with him and his attorneys, then it won't be worth a dime. He is not going to be honest and his attorneys aren't going to be honest about what their true feelings or beliefs are IMO.

 

[peace9274]

Well, I guess what I thought was right is wrong!

From what I've read, in the past 30 min or so, supporters of the Son of Sam law
say they help crime victims and prevent criminals from profiting from their misdeeds.

Opponents counter that the laws infringe on fundamental First Amendment principles.

Apparently many of the states have changed the Son of Sam Law and it appears to me
to be a case by case thing, with nothing actually written in stone. And that there are ways
in California anyway, to get around the law, allowing that the felon/criminal MAY profit from
book, film, etc, deals relating to the crime.

But on the other hand, there seems to be ways to write and submit a request to the court or Judge,
asking that the criminal MAY NOT profit from any deals made, that mentions or pertains to the crime.
IMO, it looks like it all depends on how good the attorney is and how well written and how convincing
the request is.... that either prevents or to allows the felon/criminal to profit.

After reading about several cases in CA, including, and as in, the Scott Peterson/Sharon Roche Case,
it seems to me that sometimes it just depends on a judge's decision to enforce or not enforce it.
Other times, it has gone before the Supreme Court.

As of right now, I am not so sure at all what I've read or whether it makes sense or
if anything I wrote here does. It's 1:30 am... so I think I'll try to get some sleep.... again.

 

[peace9274]

Just sitting here thinking about that documentary on Dr. Murray. If they are relying a lot on interviews with him and his attorneys, then it won't be worth a dime. He is not going to be honest and his attorneys aren't going to be honest about what their true feelings or beliefs are IMO.

This film has been called a documentary.
There is a documentary film crew working with CM,
has been when he wasn't in court and will be with him,
after the verdict is read.

From what I know about documentary filmmakers...
there's usually an issue or incident that's very important and sometimes very dear to them. It means so much to them and they're so affected, that they want to make a statement to the world about it. And so they study it, write about it and put it on film... to show the world.

I'm just not getting it... what statement this documentary film, about and with CM, is supposed to say. What point are the filmmakers wanting to make?

I could see CM doing a TV interview and people watching... for free.

But I can not see a lot of people paying $10 to see a 90 minute film about and starring Conrad Murray... and with what message?

 

[peace9274]

Just sitting here thinking about that documentary on Dr. Murray. If they are relying a lot on interviews with him and his attorneys, then it won't be worth a dime. He is not going to be honest and his attorneys aren't going to be honest about what their true feelings or beliefs are IMO.

This film has been called a documentary. There has been a film crew working
with CM, when he wasn't in court, and will be with him, after the verdict is read.
(I guess they mean if he doesn't get carted off jail.)

From what I know about documentary filmmakers...
there's usually an issue or incident that's very important and sometimes very dear to them.
It means so much to them, and they're so affected by it, that they want to make a statement
and tell the world about it. They study it, write about it and put it on film... to show the world.

So I'm just not getting it. What important message could this film,
about CM and starring CM, be trying to relay to the public?


Well... I guess I could see CM doing a TV interview and people watching... for free.

But I can not see a lot of people paying $10 to see a 90 minute film about and starring Conrad Murray... and with what message?

(It's now 2:27 am and I mean it this time... I really am off to bed now.)

 

[Melanie]

Hi Melanie...

Your post is really scary to me! :doorhide:
I keep wondering what's the delay with the verdict? ullhair: anic:

Did your DH say why he said he knows the verdict will be not guilty? :tears:

Is he aware of something we're not getting/seeing; that we forgot? :doh: :noooo:

Or is it just a "man's intuition"? :slapfight:

Actually DH said something that didn't sound like a grunt He hasn't followed the case as closely as I have, but no doubt has been listening to HLN in the background. He said that since Michael Jackson asked for the drug, it's not the good doctors fault that he died from it. Kinda like John Belushi and Cathy Smith type of scenario (I had to remind him that Cathy Smith did in fact go to jail).

In short, MJ wouldn't be dead if he didn't beg for the propofol, and therefore, the doctor is innocent.

:waitasec:

Mel

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am worried about the verdict unless they are going to do what OBE suggested and fill out forms and turn it in early Monday. I really thought that if a verdict was not reached by end of day -- that means the jury is not agreement. They asked for no additional exhibits or reading of the transcripts either.

Morning!

Now that I have had time to reflect on the deliberation time (6 hours-8 minutes) I am no longer angst about it.

Even the A jury 'deliberated' longer than that.

I think they want their verdict to represent that they took their time to come to the verdict and doesn't want it to seem they just rushed through it.

With them not asking for any additional exhibits it shows me they all are pretty much in agreement and don't have one or two wanting to look at an exhibit.

Beth said that all the evidence has already been put in the room for them to have except the medical items entered. If they want to see any of those they have to summon the bailiff and the jury will be taken into the courtroom and shown there. I am sure that is to protect them from any bio hazard material.

So I still say it will be sometime Monday and even could be Tuesday morning.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Actually DH said something that didn't sound like a grunt He hasn't followed the case as closely as I have, but no doubt has been listening to HLN in the background. He said that since Michael Jackson asked for the drug, it's not the good doctors fault that he died from it. Kinda like John Belushi and Cathy Smith type of scenario (I had to remind him that Cathy Smith did in fact go to jail).

In short, MJ wouldn't be dead if he didn't beg for the propofol, and therefore, the doctor is innocent.

:waitasec:

Mel

My hubby said the opposite. He said they WILL find this doctor guilty. He said it doesn't matter if the patient begged or didn't beg......it was the doctor who was to say 'no.'

He also doesn't believe MJ begged Murray for anything or injected himself. He thinks Murray is a big liar trying to cover his own *advertiser censored** since he knew from minute one he had killed MJ.

He said the consciousness of guilt in this case is overwhelming.

Yes, poor hubby, he has had to come in and listen to it after he gets in from work each day and this week he was off on vacation the entire week.:floorlaugh:

 

[TxLady2]

I can't believe they can go home while in deliberation. Good grief they return on Monday. That is strange.

They often do let them go home, if it's not a murder one case. They can't deliberate around the clock, and there are no rooms with beds in the courthouse. Folks gotta sleep! Not much different than putting them up in a hotel overnight, really, except they aren't under guard.

I heard Vinnie say something yesterday about them needing a bathroom break. When I was on a jury, there was a little restroom right in the jury room, with a toilet and sink. We had to run the water to disguise the sound of us actually using the toilet! Embarassing. And they didn't let us go outside, so we didn't get smoke breaks. But we were told that we could stop at 5 p.m., go home and come back the next morning. We chose to stay and IIRC, we reached a unanimous decision by about 5:45.