I agree with you. It looks like they are determined to stick Murray with a "prescribing to an addict" charge as well. They claim they're having a hard time rounding up MJ's "medical history" becuz of the aliases but, imo, what they really mean is they're having a hard time proving Michael's addictions versus a possible dependency due to legitimate causes.
The article here claims they plan to use this "addiction" to show it led to his death. Uhhh, what led to his death was too much propofol and an overload of benzos...all given to Michael by hands other than his own.
I never thought the LAPD were genuinely interested in Michael's case as a possible homicide. I feel they were forced to follow up when information became too public for them to ignore. From day one, they took MJ's death as a celebrity addict overdose case. Never securing the scene was the first indication they were ready to wrap this ish up and call it a day.
Not only did he lie but he purposely left out information. He didn't tell the paramedics on the scene he gave Michael propofol and he failed to tell police he made phone calls that morning. His attorney claimed the police never asked Murray if he made phone calls that morning which goes to show Murray was already playing the game of "if they don't ask, you don't tell" with the police. That's not something a man who wanted to tell the truth would do. If they asked him to recount what he did that morning and he conveniently left out making those calls, he was purposely being deceitful. A jury will wonder WHY the need for omission. It makes you wonder what else the police didn't ask Murray and he didn't volunteer.
I'm inclined to agree with you about exonerating evidence over incriminating...at the very least something to soften Murray's blow with a jury. As for looking at other doctors, they could also be looking for the doctor who showed Murray how to administer propofol. That may explain Murray's need to meet with Dr. Adams.
Really pay attention to the bolded part. Agwara doesn't say what took place during the meeting (of course) but is adamant propofol was not administered to Michael or anyone during that meeting. He doesn't say whether or not Adams discussed HOW to admininster it with Murray? Talking about administering propofol and doing the act are 2 separate things. The thing is this...someone had to show Murray what to do if he didn't already know. Who better than an actual anesthesiologist? Who knows if Murray tried to recruit Adams in some way, but Adams-- having the good sense the good Lord gave him wasn't having it. Teaching Murray may have been the next best thing, imo. If anything, it's going to be a case of Murray against Adams about what happened that day, but Imma say Adams has the upper hand.
Adams- all his patients woke up; no credibility issues thus far
Murray- Michael died; crapload of lies behind him
And that brings me to my last points.
What we do know is, according to Nurse Lee (if you believe her), altho Michael was aware, he knew that he needed to be monitored for this to be safe. I doubt he had any expectation that he would be left "unmonitored" and therefore, "unsafe" by Dr. Murray at any time. So even IF he was aware of the risks and decided to take it, he had the expectation of safety under the watchful eye of someone he deemed a professional...someone who presented themselves as a capable professional. That has to count for something, imo.
Uhh... "involuntary" generally means someone had no intention of doing something or rather something happened for which they had very little or no control over. IF he researched it (a voluntary act) and he was aware of the risks (consciousness), YET didn't excercise due caution and circumspection before administering it (another voluntary act), how in the hell is it IN-voluntary manslaughter? Come on, now. Get otta here with that nonsense.
To me, involuntary manslaughter would have been IF he had done everything in his power to insure Michael was properly monitored, proper equipment to resusitate him was available, AND he had not done a single thing (like say, pump Michael with other drugs which might accelerate propofol's effect) during the administration of the drug. THAT would be involuntary manslaughter becuz it would mean this doctor did everything correctly and did everything in his power to protect, preserve and restore Michael's life and all efforts failed despite that. That's what I would categorize as being beyond someone's control.
That wasn't the case here. We have a doctor who pumped Michael with benzos and propofol and then left the room to make 45 minutes worth of phone calls during the time he claims he was trying to save Michael's life. Chernoff tried to clean it up and say Murray didn't have to leave the room to make the calls but poor thing forgot he initially told ABC that his client "fortuitously" entered Michael's room and found him not breathing. Uhhh in case Chernoff didn't know, one has to be OUT of the room before one can ENTER it. DUH! So was Murray out or was he in?? Make up your lying little minds, eh? :smilerolleyes: Making the conscious decision to leave the room (another voluntary act) while a person is under propofol sounds like conscious disregard for human life to me. Every anesthesiologist and expert I've heard talk about this subject has said a patient shouldn't be left unmonitored under zero circumstances. Murray will never find an expert to side with him and agree it was okay for him to do so...even to take a 2-minute pee. Second Degree Murder...clear as day. And if lividity shows time of death was earlier than suspected, it would show he delayed calling for help long before he claimed and covered up.
Justice may be slow but it'll come. Murray's not going to get away with this by a longshot. If he does, the Jackson family should consider putting the LAPD on their list of ppl to sue for incompetence. How can a man who admits what he's done, which is clearly wrong no matter how you slice it, and has told obvious lies, walk? Even Dr. Kevorkian was locked up and his victim asked to die.
Translation: The victim has nothing to do with it when his life is taken or harmed by the hands of another. If that's the case you'd have ppl getting away with murder everyday. "Oh you shot Johnny in head becuz he cut you off in traffic? Well, Johnny was a known a-hole anyway, so we won't prosecute." Uhh I don't think so.
