Latest on MJJC

"Alleged victim" and "alleged date"?

crismjj

Guests
Hi, everyone. I have a question regarding the verdict and I'd like some explanation, can anybody help me?
When I watched the reading of the verdict again, I noticed that Michael was stated as "alleged victim" and 06/25/2009 was stated as "alleged date".
Theoretically, I think that you can't find a defendant guilty of committing a crime against an alleged victim. After all, based on evidence and facts, the jury found Murray guilty of involuntary manslaughter against a proved victim, in my opinion. Am I right or am i missing something here?
 
Did they use those terms before they actually read the verdict or after?
 
i'm curious, too.

Mrs Benson, court clerk:

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the defendant, Conrad Robert Murray, guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of Penal Code Section 192 Sub-Section B; alleged victim, Michael Joseph Jackson, alleged date of June 25th, 2009, as charged in count 1 of the information, this 7th day of November, 2011, foreperson juror ID No. 145, seat no. 3.......
 
I think that everything on that page was written before the verdict and there was an empty space to the jury to write "guilty" or "not guilty" (and probably the date of the verdict). Thus the use of "alleged"
 
I guess shes reading off the charge sheet.he was on trial for that crime and has been found guilty of killing the alledged victim.terminology ad obviously once u are found guilty its not alledged anymore
 
Huh? None of the explanations provided above make any sense to me. I've heard other verdicts read and this is the first time I've heard someone get convicted for killing an "alleged victim" on the "alleged date" of the crime. There was a conviction, nothing should have been "alleged" at that point. But that goes into a whole other theory many would rather avoid ,so I can only remain in confusionland about this until I get a very good explanation.
 
Last edited:
Ok the whole case was a sham and staged and mj is really working at disneyland as mickey mouse. there u go. if your that intrested ask the court
 
well it is strange and the only thing that makes sense to me it is that there is no victim and Michael is alive
 
GINAFELICIA said:
well it is strange and the only thing that makes sense to me it is that there is no victim and Michael is alive
Click to expand...
Can you explain your reasoning for that bold statement? There was a whole trial the Jury found Murray guilty and he went to jail and you base that asumption on the way something was worded and ignore all the rest ??

Im curious then what is your explaination about the trial all the witnesses that testified the Jury's verdict and Murray being in jail ?
 
You are right qbee.
It is just an assumption and I have no explanation for it.
But some would think that in such an IMPORTANT trial that the whole world watched SHOULD be no room for mistakes like this one with the "alleged victim" and "alleged date".

What kind of court would accept such a mistake?
And if it was a mistake, why they don't release some note to clear it and apologize for it? Just an idea of mine, they should clear it if it was a mistake. Why fuel the conspiracy theories with it? And there is not the only one mistake actually.
 
GThomson93 said:
What do the conspiracy theorists think about the pictures? Are they fake too?
Click to expand...

Who knows if they were fake or not?
I personally, when I saw the MJ dead pic I couldn't believe they used it for dramatic effect.
I am not expert in trials but to me it was disrespectful and proved nothing about Murray's guilt. It was there just for dramatic effect, to impress us and the jury.
And why was it so unclear, like it was edited or something?

Anyway, it was hard to see it :((
 
GINAFELICIA said:
You are right qbee.
It is just an assumption and I have no explanation for it.
But some would think that in such an IMPORTANT trial that the whole world watched SHOULD be no room for mistakes like this one with the "alleged victim" and "alleged date".

What kind of court would accept such a mistake?
And if it was a mistake, why they don't release some note to clear it and apologize for it? Just an idea of mine, they should clear it if it was a mistake. Why fuel the conspiracy theories with it? And there is not the only one mistake actually.
Click to expand...

Seems it It wasnt a mistake at all. The question was presented to an attorney. Here is the answer
The Jury form is drawn up in advance - the verdict itself is evident the alleged is now overuled
They just read from that form a guity verdict makes it evident the crime is no longer just alledged
I hope that clears that up for you :)
http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/conrad-murray-case-verdict-michael-119617113/a
Question
Why in the Conrad Murray case, during the verdict Michael Jackson was still stated as alleged victim?and waht does alleged date means?Verdict:
Superior court of California Los Angeles County. The people of the state of California plaintiff versus Conrad Robert Murray defendant. Case number SA-073164. Title of court and cause. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Conrad Robert Murray guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In violation of penal code section 192 subsection B alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009 as charged in count I of the information

Answer

When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true.

Michael Stone

Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE
3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Click to expand...
 
"When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true."

This is careless IMO.
The verdict draft has to be accurate and if the first draft was not accurate they should have re-drafted it before reading it.Just to make things crystal clear.

I couldn't imagine they would be so careless in such an important case.

I am sorry :(
 
There is nothing careless about the form it was drafted before the jury came to their decision therefore he was presumed innocent hence why it says alledged victim. it was not a mistake.

toly you twink didnt i lol
 
Come one you guys, it makes no sense, why wasn't the same in other trials/verdicts?
Weren't other victims "alleged" before and "ascertained" after the verdict?
If the first draft was wrong they could have re-drafted it, they couldn't spare another piece of paper for Michael Jackson :( ?

:((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
 
Yeah, the prosecution was so "careless" that they actually won their case... but hey, it's just a big show to believers.

But who knows, hey, some conspiracy theorists out there will not stop from photoshopping something in there just to hype it a little. So of course it's gonna be a big deal. It got to the point where I knew exactly what 'believers' in particular will jump on.

By the way, I can't believe how people have the nerve to 'allege' all sorts of weird things just based on internet folklore, slander and defamation. "Can't spare a piece of paper for Michael Jackson"???? Seriously????? After the judge clamped down on one character assassination tool after the other- that the defense wanted to use to defame Michael? I wished people would just stop it. Get real. Not absolutely everyone hates Michael Jackson's guts. The prosecution won their case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top