Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing March 16th
elusive that's where the Anna Nicole smith case comes to mind . we have doctors who prescribed thousands of pills each month to a known addict , you and I and everyone on this board believe they should have been held responsible but an expert came and said they should not be , they were doctors and they acted based on their best judgement , who are you to tell them they were wrong . and look what happened . a doctor prescribing to a known addict , they did not blame the doctor for a much less serious charge .
well the paitent is dead so he obviously neeeded monitoring and for his dr to not be sat on the phone for hours on end
I'm just stating how they will overcome this. Imagine a situation where a doctor is detoxing his addict patient of a drug and the doctor has left to relieve himself for 2 minutes , the addict woke up and injected himself , would you blame the doctor for that ? he was treating him, trying to help him , using his best knowledge as a doctor but the addict chose to do that , can you really blame the doctor ?
That what will happen. Reasonable doubt will be everywhere. It's not what the coroner says , or what an expert says, but how the jurors will piece the puzzles and if they are going to consider Murray leaving MJ to relieve himself a sign of negligent .
He says I gave him 25mg over three minutes , no expert can say that was negligent on his part , the UCLA doctor daid she did not understand why he would even use such a small amount because it would have done absolutely nothing. So if the jurors heard that , and the prosecutors did not prove that was a lie, it will be a point for the defence not the prosecutors.
he says I remained there watching him for almost an hour , and the effect would have worn off within minutes of injection , what expert would say that was negligent ?
He says I had , i was forced to go to relieve myself , and when I came back I found him in distress . I tried my best to save him but did not succeed , who can say he was negligent especially if they by this point believe he might have done it himself .
. only a redneck or a hater could come to the conclusion that the dr was not negligent and what he did was totally normal interms of the standard of care a dr should give and it was normal to buy shit loads if diprivan for insomnia and the death was nothing more than an accident.
They will tell them he was treating him , he was detoxing him from propofol, he was weaning him off propofol if the prosecutors expert comes to tell them yes Jackson was a known addict, jackson was very well beginning and begging to get propofol , how could you guarantee a jury would find him accountable for something MJ might have done ?
if they don't prove the amount he was injecting him with needed monitoring , no one can convince 12 people he was neglegent for leaving to relieve himself .
How many times corners and experts testified to what the prosecutors wanted and the jury returned a not guilty verdict?
Again the amounts he was giving were very little , and if they don't prove he was giving them ALL himself , no jury will find him guilty .
and can you rule out the possibility that a hater will be on that jury ? why anyone would leave the door open for a hater to say I don't consider that negligent and he should be acquitted , we can't be sure he did it, why the doctor should be blamed for what Jackson did ?...etc
but if the prosecutors ruled out the possibility that MJ did it himself , no hater can vote not guilty .
the defence so far were very predictable , they said exactly how they would address everything.
the prosecution's expert was their worst enemy, not only he did not rule out the possibility that MJ did it himself, but he called him a known addict five times.
even the paramedic hesitated and did his best not to call MJ that but here we have an expert who should be the most important expert confirming what the defence have been trying to say since day one.
