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.
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.
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.
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 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
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!
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
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 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
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.
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.