Latest on MJJC

Discussion: Dr. Murray's investigation to test Michael fans' convictions?

Jbpoliticsjunkie

Jbpoliticsjunkie

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
18
Points
0
I've discussed this with some of my other Michael fan friends.

There is no conclusive evidence suggesting Dr. Murray's guilt...yet.

I feel that a probable investigation would test the conviction of Michael's fans. When Michael was being convicted in the media prior to his 2005 trial, we preached about the imperative right of a defendents' presumption of "innocent until proven guilty".

My question to all of you is: Can/will we do the same for Dr. Murray? This calls for an interesting discussion. Before we convict Dr. Murray based upon inconclusive evidence (so far), will we also presume him innocent until proven guilty? In order to do that, one would think that we'd have to seperate our emotional investment in Michael's passing and think logically and rationally.

I believe this will test our convictions. What are your thoughts?

Edit: And for clarification: It is not objectionable to question Dr. Murray because of some sketchy details we already know. But the question is asking how we will treat him before he gets a trial.
 
Last edited:
ur asking a whole hell of a lot

if this man had spoken to the family and told them what happened, mabe a lot of us would be at ease. he took off. the story was mj collapsed then he found him in the bed. first it was we called 911 after three minutes. now it's 25 minutes

what would u think?
 
OP makes a valid point. I keep hearing different stories including some saying the Dr Murray has been cleared by investigators, so it might be prudent just to let all the info come to light before we castigate the man.

There are so many wild rumors that I dont know what to believe about anything.
 
Jbpoliticsjunkie said:
I've discussed this with some of my other Michael fan friends.

There is no conclusive evidence suggesting Dr. Murray's guilt...yet.

I feel that a probable investigation would test the conviction of Michael's fans. When Michael was being convicted in the media prior to his 2005 trial, we preached about the imperative right of a defendents' presumption of "innocent until proven guilty".

My question to all of you is: Can/will we do the same for Dr. Murray? This calls for an interesting discussion. Before we convict Dr. Murray based upon inconclusive evidence (so far), will we also presume him innocent until proven guilty? In order to do that, one would think that we'd have to seperate our emotional investment in Michael's passing and think logically and rationally.

I believe this will test our convictions. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think like other aspects of this situation, people have questions and the right to ask them. That's not a test of anyone's conviction. It's called trying to understand what happened here.
 
Soso Deaf said:
ur asking a whole hell of a lot

if this man had spoken to the family and told them what happened, mabe a lot of us would be at ease. he took off. the story was mj collapsed then he found him in the bed. first it was we called 911 after three minutes. now it's 25 minutes

what would u think?
Click to expand...

We can't conclude anything based upon inconsistent circumstantial evidence being reported differently on the internet and cable news. I believe we have to let all evidence and information come out before we can condemn and convict the man.

Unfortunately, Michael was convicted in the media because of "so called" evidence based upon ALLEGED circumstances. But we know it didn't have merit.
 
mello1 said:
I think like other aspects of this situation, people have questions and the right to ask them. That's not a test of anyone's conviction. It's called trying to understand what happened here.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we just want to know what happened. The thing is, we do know he was the only one with Michael when he died. That means we have a lot of questions about him and for him.
 
cleared for NOW. u can't charge someone w/ murder until u have the evidence so for right now, ur not a suspect.

ever heard that? cuz that'show it works. they're not gonna be stupid and say they're looking at him. let him go business as usual and if they find inconsistencies in his statement or that dont jive w/ the medical findings, they'll find him
 
mello1 said:
I think like other aspects of this situation, people have questions and the right to ask them. That's not a test of anyone's conviction. It's called trying to understand what happened here.
Click to expand...

Of course. And questioning the circumstances is not objectionable. But I've read some posts in other threads from various forums from people saying things along the lines of: "I wish I could take care of the doctor myself and show him what it's like dying on a bed."
 
I am not saying anything other than this doctor did not do CPR properly. That is a FACT. Michael was on the bed, his OWN lawyer said he used ONE hand with the other on MJ's back. All these excuses he are making and him disappearing after MJ died are raising a LOT of questions and all the things he says don't add up. I can say he "killed" Michael bcause he didn't do CPR properly. Can't say what his intentions were. If it was just him not having a clue what he is doing, or if he didn't even want to help or if he did something to MJ before to cause him stop breathing. The only thing I can say for a fact is that he failed to help Michael because he used a ridicilously wrong CPR technique. And IF he did give Demerol to Michael...and failed to give Naloxone (also known as Narcan) as soon as MJ started getting breathing problems...then I don't know what the hell he thought he was doing and how he could call himself a doctor.

He is innocent of MURDERING Michael until proven guilty...but he is already guilty of not performing CPR properly and that way not giving Michael a chance to live.
 
Jbpoliticsjunkie said:
Of course. And questioning the circumstances is not objectionable. But I've read some posts in other threads from various forums from people saying things along the lines of: "I wish I could take care of the doctor myself and show him what it's like dying on a bed."
Click to expand...
Then I think perhaps you need to address those individuals who are saying those things and not paint a broad brush. None of us know what happened to him, except that the initial findings were inconclusive. Waiting six to eight weeks is going to be tough and unfortunately, the media is part of the problem with all of these unconfirmed reports about what the police have found in the house. Speculation is running rampant and emotions are very high. Sometimes some people have the tendency to want to blame someone because they are so hurt. It happens.
 
There's enough reliable (911 tape) physical evidence there to show that the Dr is at fault in some capacity.
 
Your question has already been answered. Yes it most definitly does test convictions, and some haven't passed that test, so to speak. Some people have already convicted this Doctor, or wished him dead, there's your answer. However, it's understandable that raging emotions often take the upper hand right now. But I really feel that NOW more than ever do we need to remember what Michael stood for, and reserve judgement unil the complete picture has been painted. We all know better, and that's a fact.
 
true that.

Duly noted...besides, I'd rather the doctor not be at fault. Best case scenario is natural causes....followed by accidental overdose. For now I'll channel my anger toward one thing for sure...doing cpr on the bed.

You are right, until we have more conclusive info, we can't blame him. For all we know the stories are all jumbled up and he was dead in his sleep. Too many stories are circulating to pick out the truth. Thanks for the reminder you are very right.
 
Soso Deaf said:
ur asking a whole hell of a lot

if this man had spoken to the family and told them what happened, mabe a lot of us would be at ease. he took off. the story was mj collapsed then he found him in the bed. first it was we called 911 after three minutes. now it's 25 minutes

what would u think?
Click to expand...

Check this out! now It's back to 3-5 min. They are soooo trying to cover their butts.
 
oh well perez has it at 30. it's pathetic. that's y u d on't go on record until u get ur story straight. this dude...if u have nothing to hide, then tell the truth. ulie, u get tripped up
 
Jbpoliticsjunkie
don't act like you know something and speak for that Dr.
 
Jbpoliticsjunkie said:
I've discussed this with some of my other Michael fan friends.

There is no conclusive evidence suggesting Dr. Murray's guilt...yet.

I feel that a probable investigation would test the conviction of Michael's fans. When Michael was being convicted in the media prior to his 2005 trial, we preached about the imperative right of a defendents' presumption of "innocent until proven guilty".

My question to all of you is: Can/will we do the same for Dr. Murray? This calls for an interesting discussion. Before we convict Dr. Murray based upon inconclusive evidence (so far), will we also presume him innocent until proven guilty? In order to do that, one would think that we'd have to seperate our emotional investment in Michael's passing and think logically and rationally.

I believe this will test our convictions. What are your thoughts?

Edit: And for clarification: It is not objectionable to question Dr. Murray because of some sketchy details we already know. But the question is asking how we will treat him before he gets a trial.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Thanks for having a clear mind.
I was also getting sucked into the media's accusations of the doctor... but now i have learned that i am simply being bitter and looking for someone to point fingers at. Why does there need to be someone to point a finger at? does it make us feel better? bigger? i think we should take a breather and wait for some REAL facts. Everyone that accuses Michael of being guilty are also backing it up with "facts" that people have found from interviews etc.
I don't know if the doctor is guilty and neither do ANY of you here. Maybe he is, and we will find out soon enough! But if he isnt, wouldn't you feel as disgusting as the media, throwing "facts" around and almost WANTING him to be guilty?
It's not healthy behaviour!
 
All I know is I can't wait to find out about that toxicology report....
 
Sharlene said:
Thank you. Thanks for having a clear mind.
I was also getting sucked into the media's accusations of the doctor... but now i have learned that i am simply being bitter and looking for someone to point fingers at. Why does there need to be someone to point a finger at? does it make us feel better? bigger? i think we should take a breather and wait for some REAL facts. Everyone that accuses Michael of being guilty are also backing it up with "facts" that people have found from interviews etc.
I don't know if the doctor is guilty and neither do ANY of you here. Maybe he is, and we will find out soon enough! But if he isnt, wouldn't you feel as disgusting as the media, throwing "facts" around and almost WANTING him to be guilty?
It's not healthy behaviour!
Click to expand...


Thank you. You understand the point completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top