I think the family is giving Murray his defense

[Ramona122003]

The shadow of doubt lies in whether Murray was forced to administer the propofol because he feared of getting fired by MJ - therefore strengthening the "drug addict made me do it" defense.

The defense can cast a shadow of doubt (which they will), claiming that MJ forced him to give him propofol, which - if the defense creates a convincing picture that MJ made Murray do it, the jury could find Murray guilty for involuntary manslaughter instead of gross negligence or 2nd degree murder.

And I don't think what Murray did is worth 18 months prison- maybe 7-8 months based on good behavior. I would like to see him do 15 years to life prison. But that's just me.

He is a doctor. How is "the patient made me do it", a valid excuse? Also, he was afraid to get fire so he risk the life of his patient for a pay check? Yeah, that will win over a jury.

 

[Bo G]

Ramona, this was interesting from your material:

"In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder."

I didn't realize this... so interesting. That's such a counterintuitive use of the word "malice" -- so confusing. We should be careful here to understand the legal distinction here. In everyday language, "malice" would mean to most people "intent to kill." But legally, it could just mean gross negligence. So if we hear people discuss murder or malice, that does NOT necessarily mean they're saying Murray INTENDED to kill, and should not feed into conspiracy theories.

Ramona, is this the most accessible reference you've found that would help us understand California law? What's the link for that? Anyone got other California-specific legal sources that can be linked to, so we can understand this? So confusing!

 

[Bo G]

A past history of drug abuse is not what killed him. Murray's lawyers can make that claim in court but any competent prosecutor can shoot that down.

Yup.

...

 

[lifeismagical]

Unless MJ asked Mr. Murray to administer propofol at gunpoint, how in the world can the fact that MJ being an addict (which he was) absolve him of guilt? I'm sure he will lose his license and his way of life in addition to facing serious jail time not just for killing MJ but the manner in which he aquired and applied those drugs ona regular basis. And I think he will face harsher criticism than someone who is a lay person because he is a trained physician.

 

[Ramona122003]

Ramona, this was interesting from your material:

"In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder."

I didn't realize this... so interesting. That's such a counterintuitive use of the word "malice" -- so confusing. We should be careful here to understand the legal distinction here. In everyday language, "malice" would mean to most people "intent to kill." But legally, it could just mean gross negligence. So if we hear people discuss murder or malice, that does NOT necessarily mean they're saying Murray INTENDED to kill, and should not feed into conspiracy theories.

Ramona, is this the most accessible reference you've found that would help us understand California law? What's the link for that? Anyone got other California-specific legal sources that can be linked to, so we can understand this? So confusing!

I just used google and looked stuff up. I did a bit of research since I never heard the term criminally negligent manslaughter until I did. It fits more on what Murray did than plain manslaughter or second degree murder.

Especially, you will have to prove alot more than just putting alot of drugs into someone's body to get second degree murder. Although, his actions after Michael stopped breathing will give him a bucket of other changes.

 

[Sirena]

Read the script, if they was no ill intent you cannot carry a second degree murder charge. If he gave him morphine or other illegal drugs perhaps, however propofol is not a control substance and you cannot be arrest for just given it. Unless they can prove malice or intent, you cannot carry second degree murder. Even if there was a large amount of drugs in his body does not prove that point.

What he did was gross/serious negligence, so he would most likely be charge with criminally negligent manslaughter.

The intent is the amount of propofol found in MJ. It was the cause of death.

If I drink antifreeze (a product available in most auto stores) and die from it (God forbid), whoever gave it to me can claim it was an accident, or that I liked the high it gave me & forced them to give it to me. A DA could try to get a 2nd degree murder charge because drinking antifreeze is dangerous and could kill someone, as well as the lesser charges added of manslaughter.

Just because Murray says it was an "accident" - and current laws don't regulate the use of propofol - does not mean that the DA doesn't have enough evidence to hit Murray with a 2nd degree murder charge. The amount found in MJ alone can make the 2nd degree charge stick - if the DA is aggressive enough to push for it.

 

[Bo G]

The defense can cast a shadow of doubt (which they will), claiming that MJ forced him to give him propofol

This sounds waaay far-fetched. Surely no doctor in the history of the world has EVER been thought by judge or jury to have been FORCED to administer a drug to a patient by his or her financial or employment situation.

I don't think we need to fear that scenario so much that we unnecessarily fear any evidence that may arise about MJ's own actions.

 

[Big Apple2]

I was also wondering if maybe Janet Jackson would end up being the defense's first witness, since she went on air and spoke about "family interventions."

Then I thought, at the same time she is talking about family interventions, she was also talking about OPENING UP FOR THE BROTHERS, if they went on tour. She was on with Ellen, I believe, and she spoke about her having conference calls with "some" of the brothers, and they were all just waiting for one more member to come on board. That member, of course, was Michael.

Bottomline, were they planning family interventions at the same time that they were BEGGING Michael to join them all on tour. It just doesn't add up, in my opinion.

 

[ginvid]

"In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder."

I didn't realize this... so interesting. That's such a counterintuitive use of the word "malice" -- so confusing. We should be careful here to understand the legal distinction here. In everyday language, "malice" would mean to most people "intent to kill." But legally, it could just mean gross negligence. So if we hear people discuss murder or malice, that does NOT necessarily mean they're saying Murray INTENDED to kill, and should not feed into conspiracy theories.

QUOTE]

I remember on Tv they were saying they could go for the 2nd degree murder charge if they could prove that he was so grossly negligent, like above and beyond. I was made to understand that is why they are really trying to get expert testimony to confirm the level of negligence Murray displayed in order to determine if more serious charges are appropriate.

 

[Ramona122003]

Unless MJ asked Mr. Murray to administer propofol at gunpoint, how in the world can the fact that MJ being an addict (which he was) absolve him of guilt? I'm sure he will lose his license and his way of life in addition to facing serious jail time not just for killing MJ but the manner in which he aquired and applied those drugs ona regular basis. And I think he will face harsher criticism than someone who is a lay person because he is a trained physician.

Physical evidences shows he was not an addict. He was not addictive propofol given he only took it to sleep. Just wanted to clear that up, but I do agree with your pose.

 

[Sirena]

He is a doctor. How is "the patient made me do it", a valid excuse? Also, he was afraid to get fire so he risk the life of his patient for a pay check? Yeah, that will win over a jury.

That's been Dr. Kevorkian's defense for the past 20 years.

But don't rule out that Murray's defense won't play the "I was afraid he would fire me" bit. They will. It will cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence. And that's what a defense attorney's job is. That the jury will believe it is another story.

 

[ReneeM]

If you are a victim of a crime, it does not matter if you are like or a monster. People who are in prison get charge with murder if they kill an inmate. Same goes for the prison guards, so this is hardly an issue.

Also, TINI is more dangerous than the Jackson family since they are trying to say that not only was he drug out, but overwork and control by people. It is more graphic than that, but I will not get into that here.

I agree that as victim it shouldn't matter but we are talking about the LAPD. In a perfect world it shouldn't matter but we aren't in a perfect world.

I worry about the LAPD too. The TINI group has not exactly helped either, by painting a picture of an obvious drugged out sick and weak man. They make Michael 'look' like a man totally out of control.

We can all discuss till the cows come home. It doesn't change facts though.

I do agree. The facts aren't going to change.

 

[Ramona122003]

The intent is the amount of propofol found in MJ. It was the cause of death.

If I drink antifreeze (a product available in most auto stores) and die from it (God forbid), whoever gave it to me can claim it was an accident, or that I liked the high it gave me & forced them to give it to me. A DA could try to get a 2nd degree murder charge because drinking antifreeze is dangerous and could kill someone, as well as the lesser charges added of manslaughter.

Just because Murray says it was an "accident" - and current laws don't regulate the use of propofol - does not mean that the DA doesn't have enough evidence to hit Murray with a 2nd degree murder charge. The amount found in MJ alone can make the 2nd degree charge stick - if the DA is aggressive enough to push for it.

You need more evident than just amount to get a second degree murder charge. You have to prove malice or intent. If they try to push it, they could lost the case. It happens all the time in these type of cases.

Also, you drinking antifreeze is hardly the same as Murray's situation. Michael was injected with propofol by his doctor. It was not handed to him and he gave it to himself. In that situation, your friend would be charge with manslaughter because you are the one who drank the antifreeze and they would have to prove that your friend gave it to you to begin with and why did he give it to you.

If you were working on a car, your friend handed you antifreeze, and you drank it, that is hardly their fault.

 

[Ramona122003]

That's been Dr. Kevorkian's defense for the past 20 years.

But don't rule out that Murray's defense won't play the "I was afraid he would fire me" bit. They will. It will cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence. And that's what a defense attorney's job is. That the jury will believe it is another story.

It obviously was not a good excuse for Kevorkian since he still went to jail for eight years.

Also, it is different because his patients asked him to kill them. He did not do it for a paycheck or he was afraid he would lost his job, so it is not the same.

So once again, how is "the patient made me do it", a valid excuse for a doctor. Especially if there no threats of physical violence, but a lost pay check. Especially if this person is supposedly an addict.

 

[Bo G]

That's been Dr. Kevorkian's defense for the past 20 years.

But don't rule out that Murray's defense won't play the "I was afraid he would fire me" bit. They will. It will cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence.

Not correct about Kevorkian. He never claimed he was forced to administer anything to a patient. (Besides, that would have made him only look like a foolish liar to a jury or judge, IMO). His defense was that he was assisting patients, who voluntarily took the lethal drug themselves in each case -- that it was physician-assisted suicide, not euthanasia.

 

[ginvid]

I think it will come down to how the prosecution presents their case. If someone tries to use testimony that MJ was an addict, this can be circumvented with physical proof. That testimony, though it may cause the prosectution to have to work harder, and may give jurors pause to think, will not be damning if there is physical proof to the contraryand it is clearly and concisely presented.

And actually, Murray, saying something that is so easily disproven, makes him seem the more incompetent, especially since as the doctor, he should have known.

 

[gerryevans]

This sounds waaay far-fetched. Surely no doctor in the history of the world has EVER been thought by judge or jury to have been FORCED to administer a drug to a patient by his or her financial or employment situation.

I don't think we need to fear that scenario so much that we unnecessarily fear any evidence that may arise about MJ's own actions.

I do believe Murray's defense is going to be Michael overdosed himself. i.e., when he left the room, MJ increased the flow of the drip himself.

 

[Ramona122003]

I do believe Murray's defense is going to be Michael overdosed himself. i.e., when he left the room, MJ increased the flow of the drip himself.

Problem with that theory. Murray admitted himself that Michael was knocked out after he left. They would have to prove that Michael regain conscious at some point and somehow turn the dip on himself. If he was going to do that, why hire a doctor?

Also, I doubt Michael could even think straight enough to turn on any dip, considering the cocktail Murray gave him. Also, Murray should had never left the room to begin with.

 

[elmoy]

We don't know, we're only guessing if and what LAPD is going to charge murray with. And to say that Murray has no defense is not true. He has a very good defense that already makes this case complicated and not easy to win. That defense is called a medical license. He's going to say that he's is a doctor who simply made a mistake and lost a patient. It is not uncommon for doctors to make mistakes that results in the loss of patients lives. They are either sued for it or nothing happens. On top of that, the defense is going to say that he asked for it.

Now suppose the prosecution has evidence and intend to argue that MJ didn't ask for it? The defense has MJ's family, friends, media, ex employees and fans all indicating that MJ did ask for it. This screws with the the prosecutions case. This is why the Jacksons were asked to keep quiet about the case. Whats messed up is that family, friends, media and fans are possibly misled about the alleged drug use or the extent of it and could play a role in MJ not getting justice.

 

[Moddie777]

I agree 100% with the logic of the original post that started this thread.

Unfortunately, for those of us older fans this aint the first time Janet has gone on record throughout her career saying something about her brother that leaves one to question......


She did it several times back in the day.

She looked very beautiful and I will always have love for all of them.

 

[Sirena]

Not correct about Kevorkian. He never claimed he was forced to administer anything to a patient. (Besides, that would have made him only look like a foolish liar to a jury or judge, IMO). His defense was that he was assisting patients, who voluntarily took the lethal drug themselves in each case -- that it was physician-assisted suicide, not euthanasia.

It obviously was not a good excuse for Kevorkian since he still went to jail for eight years.

Also, it is different because his patients asked him to kill them. He did not do it for a paycheck or he was afraid he would lost his job, so it is not the same.

So once again, how is "the patient made me do it", a valid excuse for a doctor. Especially if there no threats of physical violence, but a lost pay check. Especially if this person is supposedly an addict.

But the defense can and will use this strategy to paint Murray as a simple doctor who was following his patient's instructions.

And Murray can claim - especially supported by recent family statements - that MJ was an out of control addict who'd do anything, even force Murray to administer propofol. That Murray was afraid of being fired because he desperately needed the $$$. Trust me, they are going to paint Murray like a Boy Scout. Of course Murray's no Boy Scout, especially with 7 out-of-wedlock kids with 4-5 baby mamas, but they are going to try.

I'm playing devil's advocate - I'm not arguing or invalidating anyone's discussion here. I actually like the discourse we're having.

 

[Bo G]

(Hopefully we can stay off the mods' radar screen by keeping cool... so far so good...)

I think, whether we like it or not, agree or not, think it's wise or not... we should probably presume that Janet was talking about relatively recent events that she considers pertinent when she talked bout MJ's addiction and interventions. There's really no credible reason, IMO, why she would bring up old news in such a situation.

 

[Sirena]

"In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder."

I didn't realize this... so interesting. That's such a counterintuitive use of the word "malice" -- so confusing. We should be careful here to understand the legal distinction here. In everyday language, "malice" would mean to most people "intent to kill." But legally, it could just mean gross negligence. So if we hear people discuss murder or malice, that does NOT necessarily mean they're saying Murray INTENDED to kill, and should not feed into conspiracy theories.

I remember on Tv they were saying they could go for the 2nd degree murder charge if they could prove that he was so grossly negligent, like above and beyond. I was made to understand that is why they are really trying to get expert testimony to confirm the level of negligence Murray displayed in order to determine if more serious charges are appropriate.

That's exactly what I've been saying - the amount of propofol found is above and beyond "negligence" - that's what could get Murray the 2nd degree charge.

 

[ginvid]

I do believe Murray's defense is going to be Michael overdosed himself. i.e., when he left the room, MJ increased the flow of the drip himself.

I am having a problem understanding this and I think more information will have to be given. But propofol immediately puts someone out. If Murray gave enough to knock MJ out and had a cont. flow being provided, there is no way that MJ would wake up and then up the dosage himself. that doesn't sound logical to me. Once you are asleep, you stay asleep unless the flow is interrupted (at least this is what I have read).

 

[lifeismagical]

MJ had a chemical dependency – ie an addiction. We know that he became a person who needed to use an anesthesia to go to sleep each night, who went through the trouble to have someone with him to administer those drugs. When I was working in a mental health clinic, people would come to us Dr. Shopping all the time. They would pretend they are in pain or have uncontrolled depression in order to get a hold of pain medicine or depression medicine. Our job was to recognize when that was happening and typically, the patient would be off to the next doctor until they racked up enough meds to feed their addiction. If we ignored the signs and gave them drugs anyway, we could be in serious trouble. Dependency on anything, for whatever reason, denotes addiction. Let's not be in denial for MJ. That doesn't take away from the fact that he was a beautiful, wonderful soul - just shows he was human with vulnerability and he fell into a very unfortunate trap. I'd be much more upset with his family if they were in denial with him because then they would be culpable in his demise. I’m glad they tried to help and now I understand that they just didn’t know how much danger he was in. I don’t think Janet’s words last night compromised Dr. Murray’s prosecution at all.

 

[Bo G]

I do believe Murray's defense is going to be Michael overdosed himself. i.e., when he left the room, MJ increased the flow of the drip himself.

I think you're probably right, Gerry. Which is why it's SO crucial LAPD get every scrap of evidence, and I want them to take all the time they need.

The thing is, they may have some kind of setup to keep Murray "clean," although logistically I can't see how that would be possible. But they absolutely need to prepare for that defense, and show that EVEN IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE TRUE, it's criminally negligent for him to go along with such a scheme.

 

[Ramona122003]

We don't know, we're only guessing if and what LAPD is going to charge murray with. And to say that Murray has no defense is not true. He has a very good defense that already makes this case complicated and not easy to win. That defense is called a medical license. He's going to say that he's is a doctor who simply made a mistake and lost a patient. It is not uncommon for doctors to make mistakes that results in the loss of patients lives. They are either sued for it or nothing happens. On top of that, the defense is going to say that he asked for it.

Now suppose the prosecution has evidence and intend to argue that MJ didn't ask for it? The defense has MJ's family, friends, media, ex employees and fans all indicating that MJ did ask for it. This screws with the the prosecutions case. This is why the Jacksons were asked to keep quiet about the case. Whats messed up is that family, friends, media and fans are possibly misled about the alleged drug use or the extent of it and could play a role in MJ not getting justice.

He gave drugs he was not train to give without the proper equipment to care for the patient. If this happen in a hospital he would have a valid excuse, but he did it in a home. Also, as a doctor you should know not to give this drug for sleep. Even if he did ask for it, the doctor should had known better not to. Also, there is all the crap he pull after Michael stopped breathing.

Also, they have physcial evident that counters any addiction stories. And even if he was an addict, it makes given him drugs even worst. He has medical files on Michael and have known him for several years. If he was an addict, why did you give in to his demands and give him drugs?

 

[ginvid]

(Hopefully we can stay off the mods' radar screen by keeping cool... so far so good...)

I think, whether we like it or not, agree or not, think it's wise or not... we should probably presume that Janet was talking about relatively recent events that she considers pertinent when she talked bout MJ's addiction and interventions. There's really no credible reason, IMO, why she would bring up old news in such a situation.

It gave me the impression that she was talking about recent events as well. And I believe during the interview that the before the commercial they said we will give revleations about MJ's drug use soon before he died ( something to that effect). So although Janet did not say what time she was refering to, the interviewers inferred that it ws more recent. And I do believe, whether correct or not, that she believed he was recently on drugs.

 

[Ramona122003]

But the defense can and will use this strategy to paint Murray as a simple doctor who was following his patient's instructions.

And Murray can claim - especially supported by recent family statements - that MJ was an out of control addict who'd do anything, even force Murray to administer propofol. That Murray was afraid of being fired because he desperately needed the $$$. Trust me, they are going to paint Murray like a Boy Scout. Of course Murray's no Boy Scout, especially with 7 out-of-wedlock kids with 4-5 baby mamas, but they are going to try.

I'm playing devil's advocate - I'm not arguing or invalidating anyone's discussion here. I actually like the discourse we're having.

"I was just following orders.". Yeah, that excuse worked for the Nazis.

So, he was afraid to lose his paycheck so he gave drugs to a suppose out of control drug addict and didn't monitor him correctly.

Yeah, winning hearts and minds on that one.

 

[Bo G]

I'm playing devil's advocate - I'm not arguing or invalidating anyone's discussion here. I actually like the discourse we're having.

Got it... and I agree -- I'm finding this really helpful to help me sort it out in my own mind. I've waited till the emotions simmered down and the thinking can start...