intresting comment by judge. its now a murder investigation?

[elusive moonwalker]

so what are u saying? the family was involved? the source is the judge using that word in her ruling. murder doesnt have to mean intent in cali

 

[elusive moonwalker]

And how contentious was the Branca/McClain appointment? Huge.

not contentious at all mj named them back in 97 as executors and again in 02. it was only contentious to some in the family who wanted the power to run things

Thankfully the will & the judge presiding the case ruled in favor of protecting MJs kids & his will -

what do u mean by that.u write as if it went against branca ect

 

[Ramona122003]

Then they are idiots.

And clearly motivated more by revenge/ill will, as well as $$$.

Barely anyonw knew that MJ had a will, that MJ locked everything down so that no one can touch his assets.

I truly believe there is much more to MJs death other than a lazy, reckless doctor. And it looks like the law enforcement source who said it's a "murder" investigation is giving us a heads up as to the same idea: MJ was killed on purpose.

So, you admit that this 'well plan' assassination was poorly done and run by a bunch of idiots. I also fail to see how it is clearly motivated by revenge or ill will. Because you fail to show who would kill Michael and do it such a piss poor job of doing to the point they didn't even check if they was a will or what was in it.

I really don't understand how it is that hard to believe Murray is what yourself describe. Because the facts are, no one gains anything from Michael's death except the family, specially his kids. There are people who are getting money, but it is more or less scraps that they could had gotten anyway if Michael did his tour.

Too many people have to do be stupid and reckless for this work in reality. Especially if you are talking about killing the most famous person in the world. This is not some random act of violent or some crazy poster worker who gunned down Michael in the streets, so the disgruntled employee, friend, or whatnot are pushing the boarders.

I find Murray being a lazy doctor who screwed up more likely that a poorly done assassination network that you are leaning towards.

Also, just because it is murder does not intentional. Do some research on the subject and you will see people who are charge with some form of murder with no intent to actually murder.

 

[Sirena]

not contentious at all mj named them back in 97 as executors and again in 02. it was only contentious to some in the family who wanted the power to run things

what do u mean by that.u write as if it went against branca ect

Precisely. It was contentious. And no, I didn't write that the ruling was against Branca/McClain, if anything, they are the ones that will guarantee that the MJ3 receive what their father left for them & protect their interests.

 

[Sirena]

Ramona, I'm not admitting to anything. I'm just clearly discussing other possible alternatives, other than the lazy, incompetent, reckless doctor scenario.

And what I want to say and end this topic is that I feel there is plenty of motive & means by many, many people surrounding MJ.

Forensic evidence and situations preceding MJ's death can be argued that his cause of death goes beyond the scales of medical malpractice.

That's why it's now a "murder" investigation instead of a "homicide" investigation.

That's all. Please don't read into it more than what I said.

So, you admit that this 'well plan' assassination was poorly done and run by a bunch of idiots. I also fail to see how it is clearly motivated by revenge or ill will. Because you fail to show who would kill Michael and do it such a piss poor job of doing to the point they didn't even check if they was a will or what was in it.

I really don't understand how it is that hard to believe Murray is what yourself describe. Because the facts are, no one gains anything from Michael's death except the family, specially his kids. There are people who are getting money, but it is more or less scraps that they could had gotten anyway if Michael did his tour.

Too many people have to do be stupid and reckless for this work in reality. Especially if you are talking about killing the most famous person in the world. This is not some random act of violent or some crazy poster worker who gunned down Michael in the streets, so the disgruntled employee, friend, or whatnot are pushing the boarders.

I find Murray being a lazy doctor who screwed up more likely that a poorly done assassination network that you are leaning towards.

Also, just because it is murder does not intentional. Do some research on the subject and you will see people who are charge with some form of murder with no intent to actually murder.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Precisely. It was contentious. And no, I didn't write that the ruling was against Branca/McClain, if anything, they are the ones that will guarantee that the MJ3 receive what their father left for them & protect their interests.

ok i think i get you. so u are actually looking at the theory that family members were invovled in getting rid of mj?

 

[MJJ7777]

ok i think i get you. so u are actually looking at the theory that family members were invovled in getting rid of mj?

That is a bit far.:doh:

 

[*Billie Jean*]

This is really interesting and I hope justice will prevail.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

That is a bit far.:doh:

just abit lol

 

[Sirena]

ok i think i get you. so u are actually looking at the theory that family members were invovled in getting rid of mj?

That is a bit far.:doh:

Yes, you went out to the stratosphere, Elusive - and no, I'm NOT saying that.

I'm going to repeat myself, but here is my response to Ramona, and now to you:

Ramona, I'm not admitting to anything. I'm just clearly discussing other possible alternatives, other than the lazy, incompetent, reckless doctor scenario.

And what I want to say and end this topic is that I feel there is plenty of motive & means by many, many people surrounding MJ.

Forensic evidence and situations preceding MJ's death can be argued that his cause of death goes beyond the scales of medical malpractice.

That's why it's now a "murder" investigation instead of a "homicide" investigation.

That's all. Please don't read into it more than what I said.

 

[Autumn II]

Murder. The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing, a person who is convicted of murder may be sentenced to many years in prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of Parole, or death.


The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.


The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.
Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind.

California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

 

[Moddie777]

Toy is a drama queen, putting it nicely, and everything that flies out of her mouth should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is the same person who claims that Michael was fed drugs to manipulate him and control his moods. This is the same person that said Michael signed on to only 10 concerts, although his contract has a min of 18. She also claimed to have seen oxygen tanks line against the wall, even though the LAPD never said such a thing. She also claimed that Michael was completely cut off from his family, although he saw them only a mouth ago and saw his father 2 weeks before he died. Not to mention that the family went from saying that they didn't believe Michael had a will and when one showed up, Toy then claimed that Michael updated his will every 5 years.

Also, you have noticed she kind of shut up when the autopsy, TII, and the tox came out. Even the other siblings said Toy jumped the gun on the murder charge, given she said all these things before any solid facts came out.

Given all of this, Toy has no creditability what-so-ever.

Also, if you were a murderer and it was all plan, why the hell would you take money and jewelry that can be track back to your butt. If this was a well organize assassination, they would torch as little in that house as possible. Unless they are complete morons. Which every party in this case has to be to some degree to make this suppose murder worked the way that it has, especially for Murray's part.

My Post in regard to Michael Jackson's older sister was/is my humbled opinion. I understand how you feel about Latoya but I do not share in your opinion of her.

I hope other fans will deciphar for themselves and not base their opinion of someone elese soley on another poster's strong opinion of that person.

 

[Autumn II]

Uhm, if you some of you guys keep quarreling the way you are, you DO realize a mod will close the thread? Is that what you want? Personally, I'd prefer that the thread be kept open to respectful conversation. . . . . . .

See my factual definition of "murder" in the State of California, above.

peace,

Vic

 

[elusive moonwalker]

re the murder law . theres a special cali law where murder two can also be reckless disregard for human life without intent.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Yes, you went out to the stratosphere, Elusive - and no, I'm NOT saying that.

I'm going to repeat myself, but here is my response to Ramona, and now to you:

u are saying that. u just dont want to come out and say it

Ramona, I'm not admitting to anything. I'm just clearly discussing other possible alternatives, other than the lazy, incompetent, reckless doctor scenario.

u wont admit to anything but u are disucssing other possibilities. one of those possibilities you are implying is that the family are involved. if u want to say it say it. if u arent implying that. then u can say that also.

 

[MJJLaugh]

Murder. The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing, a person who is convicted of murder may be sentenced to many years in prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of Parole, or death.


The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.


The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.
Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind.

California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

Thank you Vic, for this. So at the minimum it's a murder charge no. 3 involving extreme recklessness, possibly more, depending on the evidence. lethal amounts of Propofol then constitute an express malice, if I understand the definition here correctly, also taking into consideration the extreme short halflife of propofol ( leaving no trace within 2 or 3 minutes after the substance entering the body of someone living). Not to mention the cover up afterwards; lying to the police, not mentioning all drugs straight away, not performing CPR correctly, waiting at least 47 minutes before calling 911, stifling hot rooms with all the fireplaces on, CCTV tapes missing, not signing the death certificate...

 

[Sirena]

u are saying that. u just dont want to come out and say it


u wont admit to anything but u are disucssing other possibilities. one of those possibilities you are implying is that the family are involved. if u want to say it say it..

In a murder investigation - anyone and everyone is and should be investigated. Family, friends, co-workers, employees, employers, anyone within proximity to MJ.

No one should be exempt from the police's investigation.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

In a murder investigation - anyone and everyone is and should be investigated. Family, friends, co-workers, employees, employers, anyone within proximity to MJ.

No one should be exempt from the police's investigation.

there u said it:scratch:murray is the only one being investigated at the mo as hes the one who did it. heck he even admitted it

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Thank you Vic, for this. So at the minimum it's a murder charge no. 3 involving extreme recklessness, possibly more, depending on the evidence. lethal amounts of Propofol then constitute an express malice, if I understand the definition here correctly, also taking into consideration the extreme short halflife of propofol ( leaving no trace within 2 or 3 minutes after the substance entering the body of someone living). Not to mention the cover up afterwards; lying to the police, not mentioning all drugs straight away, not performing CPR correctly, waiting at least 47 minutes before calling 911, stifling hot rooms with all the fireplaces on, CCTV tapes missing, not signing the death certificate...

yeah there should be a stacking of charges in this, its not just about manslaughter/murder its about lieing to the police in statements. lieing to the doctors at the hospital. covering it up etc. and possible charges in relation to how he got hold of the drugs. its things like this that would make any police force suspicious that this was more than just an accident. so hes hardly helped himself. (not that we care)

 

[Autumn II]

Thank you Vic, for this. So at the minimum it's a murder charge no. 3 involving extreme recklessness, possibly more, depending on the evidence. lethal amounts of Propofol then constitute an express malice, if I understand the definition here correctly, also taking into consideration the extreme short halflife of propofol ( leaving no trace within 2 or 3 minutes after the substance entering the body of someone living). Not to mention the cover up afterwards; lying to the police, not mentioning all drugs straight away, not performing CPR correctly, waiting at least 47 minutes before calling 911, stifling hot rooms with all the fireplaces on, CCTV tapes missing, not signing the death certificate...

Right. The cover-up, that was so obvious, implies knowledge of guilt and I would assume, "malice."

Murray is, as we know, NOT the only one under investigation. Other doctor's office were searched, including Klein's, and others, and many people have been interviewed. Not going to go into all that here, just clearing up misconceptions. See the I.U. for more detail, anyone who needs more factual stuff, and links?

 

[Soundmind]

Murder: Second degree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

this is what Elusive is referring to , I used to think that was the case but lorazepam and lethal levels of propofol made me think it was the first one , an intentional killing that was not planned

 

[Autumn II]

Murder: Second degree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

this is what Elusive is referring to , I used to think that was the case but lorazepam and lethal levels of propofol made me think it was the first one , an intentional killing that was not planned

Right. In California it's somewhat different, and more articulated, as:

"California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

Not sure what "an abandoned and malignant heart" would translate as under the law in California, but that does NOT sound good. . . . I think probably the cover-up (i.e. delay in calling 911, additional calls, and all the rest of it) would seem to qualify?

 

[Sirena]

Murder: Second degree
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

this is what Elusive is referring to , I used to think that was the case but lorazepam and lethal levels of propofol made me think it was the first one , an intentional killing that was not planned

The first point contradicts itself:

1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned

So how is an "intentional" killing not premeditated or planned?

If the intent is to kill the person, isn't that planning/premeditating the death of someone???

 

[Autumn II]

The first point contradicts itself:
So how is an "intentional" killing not premeditated or planned?

If the intent is to kill the person, isn't that planning/premeditating the death of someone???

I think an "intentional killing without premeditation" might be one that arises suddenly during a fit of rage? Suppose someone goes to a bar with no intention of harming anyone, but then is horribly insulted by someone and "goes off on them" resulting in their death? (as in a huge anger-management problem?) The intention was not "premeditated," but sudden?

It has to do with timing and preparation? If someone cold-bloodedly intends to kill someone, they might get a weapon and plan an escape route, etc. That would show both malice and premeditation. Alternatively, if a person is afflicted with road-rage they might in a moment try to kill someone, but there was no planning involved.

 

[Soundmind]

you know I have a theory over what happened that night, Murray left , came back , found MJ in dire need of help, instead of helping him by calling 911, he pushed MJ over the edge with more propofol and lorazepam . he did not plan to kill him intially .

 

[Sirena]

you know I have a theory over what happened that night, Murray left , came back , found MJ in dire need of help, instead of helping him by calling 911, he pushed MJ over the edge with more propofol and lorazepam . he did not plan to kill him intially .

OR....

Murray left, as it was his normal thing to do after knocking MJ out for a few hours, and someone else came in to up the dosage on the Propofol drip knowing that it would kill MJ, then left.

Murray comes back, find MJ dead - or almost, and frantically starts making phone calls because he can't explain what went wrong & wants to know what to do next. Then comes the botched CPR, the vast intervals of time between a 911 call versus 3 others for 47 minutes.

 

[Sirena]

I think an "intentional killing without premeditation" might be one that arises suddenly during a fit of rage? Suppose someone goes to a bar with no intention of harming anyone, but then is horribly insulted by someone and "goes off on them" resulting in their death? (as in a huge anger-management problem?) The intention was not "premeditated," but sudden?

It has to do with timing and preparation? If someone cold-bloodedly intends to kill someone, they might get a weapon and plan an escape route, etc. That would show both malice and premeditation. Alternatively, if a person is afflicted with road-rage they might in a moment try to kill someone, but there was no planning involved.

In your first paragraph, that's considered a crime of passion, in the heat of the moment (and fueled by alcohol). So the intention is to shut the person up, not to kill them. It would be an accidental death, at the result of a "passionate" response.

Murray showed means to escape, not signing a death certificate despite having lividity when the paramedics arrived, never going to the hospital & high tailing to the nearest airport to Houston, hiding for 2 days and show up to Los Angeles with a lawyer.

Road rage is a crime of passion - sounds weird but true. And you're right about the anger management - but would Murray have that anger towards MJ because MJ did not sign the doctor contract yet????

Hmmm..... but he NEEDED the money, desperately - $150,000 a month is serious money. SO MJ was worth more to Murray ALIVE, than dead. And that's my whole "wait a minute, why the F--- would Murray want to kill MJ" moment.

IMHO: Murray is not innocent - but someone took advantage of his sloppiness to end MJs life.

 

[Autumn II]

OR....

Murray left, as it was his normal thing to do after knocking MJ out for a few hours, and someone else came in to up the dosage on the Propofol drip knowing that it would kill MJ, then left.

Murray comes back, find MJ dead - or almost, and frantically starts making phone calls because he can't explain what went wrong & wants to know what to do next. Then comes the botched CPR, the vast intervals of time between a 911 call versus 3 others for 47 minutes.

I think this is EXACTLY what happened. This is not the I.U. and I won't haul out the data and links, but yes, I do believe this is likely. (And THAT is why the security tapes are missing.) If this is likely, then it's also likely that Murray will eventually sing like a canary. I'm still hoping for that. Murray had no real motive that we know of, and others. . . .did.

Actually, I'll add to this. It might have been a drip just for rehydration, but then someone else added the propofol and Michael didn't have time to react. Hence, Nurse Lee's turning the tide toward propofol? She came out of absolutely nowhere, and vanished into. . nowhere. Was she paid, in addition to being paid for being on the talk-shows? Don't know. I'm just hoping for Murray to spill

 

[Soundmind]

well, I have a feeling sirena's theory is murray's only defense at the moment , but ofcourse he has to admit he left the house or the room for more than just two minutes .

I feel there was a reason why murray said MJ was always awake during the night, and in the morning and propofol was only given at 10.40 am . he was seen outside that room before that particular time.

 

[Sirena]

PLEASE - oh please DO!!! If you can, of course!

I've read through some of the forum, but it's VERY LONG & I haven't read through all of it.

See? Great minds think alike then! Glad we can agree - and I do appreciate your insight & wonderful commentary.

Yep - the faster they lock Murray up, the louder he'll sing. Remember, this man is a playa, and thinks he's gonna get away with it. I feel very sorry for his 7 children, but their daddy did some very bad things to their mothers as well as to others (ooh, that rhymed!).

The best he can do is to TELL the truth, because forensic evidence totally tells a different story than the one he's trying to pull.

The LAPD - as well as MJ fans - are not his mistresses he can lie to & think we'll believe that shyt.

I think this is EXACTLY what happened. This is not the I.U. and I won't haul out the data and links, but yes, I do believe this is likely. (And THAT is why the security tapes are missing.) If this is likely, then it's also likely that Murray will eventually sing like a canary. I'm still hoping for that. Murray had no real motive that we know of, and others. . . .did.

Actually, I'll add to this. It might have been a drip just for rehydration, but then someone else added the propofol and Michael didn't have time to react. Hence, Nurse Lee's turning the tide toward propofol? She came out of absolutely nowhere, and vanished into. . nowhere. Was she paid, in addition to being paid for being on the talk-shows? Don't know. I'm just hoping for Murray to spill