JUST IN: Michael Jackson died of lethal levels of propofol, court documents show

[Autumn II]

but vic, they can only ascertain intent IF he knew what he was doing. for all we know, he could've been getting lucky or dodging bullets by giving this to mj in the past and this time he was just too reckless.

IF he were an anesthesiologist, then this could be seen as deliberate. if he knew the risks and didn't educate himself on how to do this, it's not deliberate, just reckless.

now what he did after teh fact will play a major part in how he's charged and what he's charged w/

Right. And that remains the question. Did he KNOW what he was doing? At this point, he seems like incredibly inept doctor. So how would intent be discovered? One way would be the tox-report, that the LAPD have. If there was a massive level of propofol found -- far more than any recommended amount, that would tend to, in my opinion, be a strong indicator of intent.

If you are cooking and the recipe calls for a half-teaspoon of salt, but you put in a half-cup of salt, is that stupidity, and a total lack of knowledge about cooking, pretty much? Sure, and you should probably stay out of the kitchen. But if you are a doctor and read the label, and know the dosages of a medication (as ANY doctor should), and then put in many, many times the recommended amount, that goes beyond simple stupidity. It would be a dosage designed to KILL someone, wouldn't it? Probably? So in that sense, the tox-report MATTERS. Even an individual with a prescription reads the label of a medication, knows how much to take, and in what intervals. We don't just take fistfuls of aspirin!

What he did after the fact, and what he did NOT do, would seem to indicate knowledge of screwing up. Meaning that he knew he'd messed up and was trying to cover his tracks. That would make the charges worse, and not just simple manslaughter. Or, he did it deliberately and was covering tracks. No way to know now, but SOMEONE does. The amount of propofol in Michael's system would give some answers, or at least strong indications if this was an accident within a range of possible limitations, or a MASSIVE dose that could have no other outcome than death.

I just wish someone would leak the entire tox-report! Well?

 

[Autumn II]

Here are some various definitions of "acute." Also, it would make a difference if the propofol were given as a "bolus," or an "infusion." It clearly states on the bottle (that we've seen pictured on CNN and elsewhere) to be given by infusion, i.e. a "drip." A bolus means all-at-once, pushed into the IV tube. Those are different, in that the same amount would have different effects depending on how rapidly it's given, by drip, or bolus. A drip might be harmless, but the same amount all-at-once could kill someone.

Definitions of Acute toxicity on the Web:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...fayonCBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

* Acute toxicity describes the adverse effects of a substance which result either from a single exposure or from multiple exposures in a short space ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_toxicity

* The ability of a substance to cause poisonous effects resulting in severe biological harm or death soon after a single exposure or dose. Also, any severe poisonous effect resulting from a single short-term exposure to a toxic substance. (See: Chronic Toxicity.)
www.njhazwaste.com/glossary.htm

* Causing death within 96 hours pr less after a brief exposure period.
www.aquatext.com/list-a.htm

* Adverse effects occurring within a short time of administration of a single dose of an agent, or immediately following short or continuous exposure, or multiple doses over 24 hours or less.
www.fsra.eu/glossary.html

* The toxicity of a material as determined by its ability to cause injury or death from a single dose or exposure.
ai.psur.cornell.edu/PesticideGlossary.aspx

* the short-term effects of a one-time exposure to a chemical substance.
altweb.jhsph.edu/glossary.htm

* Effects resulting from short term exposure at generally high concentrations.
www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/1552/Default.aspx

* Any poisonous effect produced by a single short-term exposure. The LD 50 of a substance (the lethal dose at which 50 percent of test animals succumb to the toxicity of the chemicals) is typically used as a measure of its acute toxicity.
training.fema.gov/EMIweb/downloads/is5/glossary%20appdx%20a.doc

* Capable of producing illness from a single dose or minimal exposure.
www.hss.energy.gov/pp/epp/definitions.html

* any poisonous effect produced within a short time after exposure to a toxic compound, usually within 24 to 96 hours. Top
www.purdue.edu/envirosoft/housewaste/src/glossary1.htm

* The effect of a single large dose of a substance.
www.egr.msu.edu/tosc/glossary.shtml

* The short-term toxicity of a product in a single dose. Can be divided into oral, cutaneous, and respiratory toxicities.
www.etfinancial.com/solventgloss.htm

* the potential for an ingredient to cause ill health or death within a few hours to a few days after a single dose or exposure.
nzdl.sadl.uleth.ca/cgi-bin/library

* effects occurring shortly after, normally upon a single exposure of a substance, which can vary from a simple flush to the death of the individual
www.balticuniv.uu.se/environmentalscience/ch14/wordexp_14.htm

* means a toxic effect which occurs immediately or shortly after a single exposure.
www.health.adelaide.edu.au/ohs/docs/chemical/define.doc

 

[Soso Deaf]

he could be charged w/ obstruction, tampering w/ evidence (turing on the fireplace), all sorts of things and it's his conduct after the fact that could possibly cause a manslaughter charge to be increased to second degree murder

 

[Autumn II]

he could be charged w/ obstruction, tampering w/ evidence (turing on the fireplace), all sorts of things and it's his conduct after the fact that could possibly cause a manslaughter charge to be increased to second degree murder

Yes, I think a second-degree murder charge is likely, because of his behavior immediately following Michael's death. If it's NOT second-degree, then we really would need to know why NOT?

 

[Oceangirl]

Yes, I think a second-degree murder charge is likely, because of his behavior immediately following Michael's death. If it's NOT second-degree, then we really would need to know why NOT?

no he will be charged with second degree murder because of his behaviour which led to mj's death .
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

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

thanks

he could be charged w/ obstruction, tampering w/ evidence (turing on the fireplace), all sorts of things

defo should be charged with these. id be shocked if he wasnt from what we know.

couldnt they charge him with murder but give manslaughter as an option aswell but doesnt this just happen right at the end with instructions and can the defence object. trying to think what happened with mj with the xtras. tbh id be surprised if hes charged with murder i dont think the D.A has the balls reardless of the evidence.

 

[Misio]

for me Dr. Murray = very stupid man who take away father from hes children and our inspiration...Murray only count hes becoming money that's all, poor Michael...
If they charge him ok but thats not alive Michael and this is so sad for me

 

[Oceangirl]

thanks


defo should be charged with these. id be shocked if he wasnt from what we know.

couldnt they charge him with murder but give manslaughter as an option aswell but doesnt this just happen right at the end with instructions and can the defence object. trying to think what happened with mj with the xtras. tbh id be surprised if hes charged with murder i dont think the D.A has the balls reardless of the evidence.

if Murray's story was true( I'm not insulting any one's intelligence ) then the manslaughter case would have been a slam dunk case for the prosecution . Murray's own admission is more than enough to convict him of manslaughter .

the thing we all know , Murray's story is not true , and his lawyer knows what his client is hiding is something more absurd than the story he already told
and he knows it will probably lead to a second degree murder .

 

[Soso Deaf]

ok lemme make it real simple...lol

to be found guilty u need two things....mens rea and actus reus.

actus reus refers to the actual act that is the crime.

mens rea means guilty mind.

now unless he was under duress at the time of the crime, which he wasn't, then he has no reason to state a defense. he wasn't afraid for his life or being threatened.

even if he were to have been acting recklessly or negligently, he killed someone. even if he did NOT intend for this to happen, his actions still show mens rea. that concept still applies.

if i wanted to slap thom but i end up slapping hari instead, im still guilty. even though i didn't intend to do that.

another example....if a mother leaves her baby in a hot car. she didn't intend for that to happen but it still did. so mens rea is still applicable.

u need those two things to prove guilt. his actions after the fact prove mens rea...he was guilty, he knew it, he tried to cover itup. his actions suggested that of a guilty man who panicked.

for the doc's lawyers to claim he'd been cooperating w/ police, it's funny access hollywood noted in the report that he was toldto stay at the hospital (ucla med) by the police. it was inhis best interest to stay and speak further w/ them. he did not and took off.