Latest on MJJC

Will a jury believe that Michael Jackson killed himself?

  • Thread starter Dangerous Incorporated
  • Start date
Could someone please repost the "IV catheter with a Y connector" photo example because I can't get the link nor see the image. Thanks.


:wub:
 
Justthefacts said:
Infusion is like a drip it is what keeps the person out during surgery. Now that would mean Michael woke up hooked the Propofol up to a tube and let it run in. So he hooked the IV up to let it drip out All of this with a condom catheter on and within two minutes.
Click to expand...
Please don't forget that MJ also made sure to get some lidocaine before propofol :smilerolleyes:

Ok, there is an unidentified fingerprint on the broken syringe. What about the propofol vial?
 
souldreamer7 said:
Could someone please repost the "IV catheter with a Y connector" photo example because I can't get the link nor see the image. Thanks.


:wub:
Click to expand...
http://img.industry-medical.com/file/18af2d5d-d945-4afe-ae28-2045cc62c925/hemostasis-y-connector.jpg

hemostasis-y-connector.jpg
 
Soundmind said:
Please don't forget that MJ also made sure to get some lidocaine before propofol :smilerolleyes:

Ok, there is an unidentified fingerprint on the broken syringe. What about the propofol vial?
Click to expand...

The fingerprint if mjs could have been put there after death
 
Re: Dr. Conrad Murray's Incredulous Defense

mier said:
This is so crazy.
When you wake up after being put down by propofol, you're woozy and certainly not able to do such a thing (injecting yourself).
They should put some patients from a hospital (who had surgery while they where on propofol) on the stand.
Click to expand...

^ YES. This is the most laughable defense ever!
 
Unidentified means they don't know who it was. What sense would it make to put Michael's print on a broken syringe? It would make more sense to put his prints on the syringe with Propofol don't you think? I think more then not the print either belongs to an EMT or there is just a half a print and they don't and they can't tell
 
do you remember during the trial that the one crucial fingerprint or so the prosecution thought was ruled unidentified in September 2004, and suddenly in February ,2005 Sneddon got an expert to "retest" it and they claimed it belonged to Star or Gavin don't actually remember. Chernoff & co seem very capable of doing the unthinkable to clear Murray. From the report of the last hearing posted by elusive , Flagan's plan was to get all the fluids and ruin them and then come back with an expert stating propofol was found in the tube and the IV bag. It would then be his expert against the prosecution expert which will leave doubts in the jurors' minds over who's telling the truth.
 
That is why he did not get the full sample. And when Mez pushed on that fingerprint thing Sneddon tried to not use it has evidence
 
Famed MJ Lawyer -- Michael Was NOT Suicidal! :clapping:







The mega-lawyer who successfully defended Michael Jackson in his molestation case is coming out swinging at Dr. Murray's defense team -- blaming MJ's death squarely on Murray because the singer was "not suicidal."


Thomas Mesereau went on MSNBC today -- and stated, "The defense lawyers have to do something and what they're gonna try and do is reflect attention away from their client and onto Michael Jackson."

He adds, "The reality is Michael Jackson was not suicidal, he was not self-destructive in the way they're trying to say, and hopefully their defense will not succeed."

For the record, Mesereau's "suicidal" statement is not accurate -- because according to our sources, the defense will argue that Michael MAY have accidentally killed himself after trying to self-administer Propofol ... but he was not suicidal.

Perhaps Mesereau's strongest comment -- "I'm sorry that the defense is going to have to bash Michael Jackson to try and divert attention from their guilty client."
 
Annie123 said:
Famed MJ Lawyer -- Michael Was NOT Suicidal! :clapping:







The mega-lawyer who successfully defended Michael Jackson in his molestation case is coming out swinging at Dr. Murray's defense team -- blaming MJ's death squarely on Murray because the singer was "not suicidal."


Thomas Mesereau went on MSNBC today -- and stated, "The defense lawyers have to do something and what they're gonna try and do is reflect attention away from their client and onto Michael Jackson."

He adds, "The reality is Michael Jackson was not suicidal, he was not self-destructive in the way they're trying to say, and hopefully their defense will not succeed."

For the record, Mesereau's "suicidal" statement is not accurate -- because according to our sources, the defense will argue that Michael MAY have accidentally killed himself after trying to self-administer Propofol ... but he was not suicidal.

Perhaps Mesereau's strongest comment -- "I'm sorry that the defense is going to have to bash Michael Jackson to try and divert attention from their guilty client."
Click to expand...

:bugeyed Holy Cow! Wonder what kind of evidence Thomas Mesereau has seen/read about in order to make that comment.
He even refused to make any statements earlier- that's pretty tough coming from him!
Calling Murray a 'guilty client' weighs HUGE coming from someone who refused to comment 'without having seen any evidence."

Stands to reason that he is privy to knowledge that he might not have had earlier. He's part of of legal circle of LA- he must have his own thoughts if he's willing to get over his own declared dislike of cameras. "cases are not won in the media, but the courtroom."
Sends a clear message to the defense- he of all people would know how his former client was 'treated' by 'Lady Justice'.
 
Last edited:
I've always liked t_mez but i do find it odd that hes talking bout it now, when b4 he wouldnt make any comment at all
 
8701girl said:
I've always liked t_mez but i do find it odd that hes talking bout it now, when b4 he wouldnt make any comment at all
Click to expand...

He's simply aware that the defense is going to try and put his former client on trial, a dead man at that.

Mesereau has always stated what this type of 'deflection' did to Michael- that is one heck of an attorney to have- that goes far beyond the call of duty.

And I am wondering if he had gotten insight into some of the evidence to speak up in this way.
 
Pace said:
He's simply aware that the defense is going to try and put his former client on trial, a dead man at that.

Mesereau has always stated what this type of 'deflection' did to Michael- that is one heck of an attorney to have- that goes far beyond the call of duty.

And I am wondering if he had gotten insight into some of the evidence to speak up in this way.
Click to expand...


Yeh im wondering that too and if he does i hope he testifies
 
Love Mez , MJ deserved a lawyer like him. The difference between him and the other assholes MJ hired in 1993 and 2003 is very remarkable. Even after his death he still speaks very fondly of him, can't say the same about the estate's lawyer Weitzmann. He did not even try to say the word "innocent" on tv back in 2003 so he would not lose his tv job. Have nothing against the estate , but sometimes memories come back and regardless of the efforts to "forgive" the backstabbing was too much to forget.
 
Thank you for posting this Ivy...it breaks my heart the way the defense is gonna drag Michael through the mud with their defense..the things they are gonna say to attack his character....It makes my eyes fill up with tears already...:boohoo:
 
xthunderx2 said:
Thank you for posting this Ivy...it breaks my heart the way the defense is gonna drag Michael through the mud with their defense..the things they are gonna say to attack his character....It makes my eyes fill up with tears already...:boohoo:
Click to expand...

I know exactly how you feel. I don't know if I want hear any of it and I hope people don't believe these lies.
 
Thank You,Soundmind very much for reposting the image. That helps me understand more. :)
Goes back to catch-up on the thread.
:wub:




 
8701girl said:
Yeh im wondering that too and if he does i hope he testifies
Click to expand...

unless he first handedly experienced stuff do not expect him to testify as it will be hearsay.

xthunderx2 said:
Thank you for posting this Ivy...it breaks my heart the way the defense is gonna drag Michael through the mud with their defense..the things they are gonna say to attack his character....It makes my eyes fill up with tears already...:boohoo:
Click to expand...

unfortunately the trial most probably be a variation of "blame the victim", it's sad but we must stay strong for Michael.
 
oh! i see now that my link had been already posted. i will look more in future in these threads. sorry! i like thomas mesireau a lot! :)
 
Last edited:
They can't seriously just go by such speculation, or Murray's so-called testimony. It just doesn't make any sense...
 
I have not had time to read the whole thread so I apologize if I am being redundant: BUT- I do not see how this defense will not be torn apart by ANY medical expert. I have talked to several docs I work with and they all stated it is pretty much impossible to self-administer propofol after already having been given the drug. So, unless the jury consists of idiots (well, - and remember, we will have a jury of his peers) -it should be a slam dunk for the State. But then again, I thought the OJ case would be a slam dunk, too- so what do I know...
 
i think no person is stupid enought to think michael killed himself...he was happy and if he wanted to just do drugs the way the defense is trying t say he wouldn't hire a doctor...
 
I am sure that Murray know how to give CPR, but he knew Michael Jackson was already dead. You don't give CPR to a dead person. Murray should have been honest at the first place, but instead he played dumb. And second, the case was ruled homicide to late, the place where MJJ died, was already contaminated, too many fingerprints, surveillance tapes were missing. I wonder will we have fair trial... Poor kids my heart & prayers go out to them.
 
The one thing that I can"t stop thinking about is....the hospital is only 5 mins away.
What the hell was happening that day.....that creature left Michael.
I can not get over that.
This is torture. I hope he will rot in jail.
 
Maria MJ;2754828 said:
Does anyone know the standard procecures for selecting the jury?
In Michael's case, there are either lovers or haters. It's very difficult to spot neutral people, and even if they do, I am afraid they will probably be concealed haters, those who went with the m***station accusations or have preconceptions about addiction.
Click to expand...

Jurors are selected from a jury pool formed for a specified period of time—usually from one day to two weeks—from lists of citizens living in the jurisdiction of the court. The lists may be electoral rolls (i.e., a list of registered voters in the locale), people who have driver's licenses or other relevant data bases. When selected, being a member of a jury pool is, in principle, compulsory. Prospective jurors are sent a summons and are obligated to appear in a specified jury pool room on a specified date.

However, jurors can be released from the pool for several reasons including illness, prior commitments that can't be abandoned without hardship, change of address to outside the court's jurisdiction, travel or employment outside the jurisdiction at the time of duty, and others. Often jurisdictions pay token amounts for jury duty and many issue stipends to cover transportation expenses for jurors. Work places cannot penalize employees who serve jury duty. Payments to jurors varies by jurisdiction.

In the United States jurors for grand juries are selected from jury pools.
Selection of jurors from a jury pool occurs when a trial is announced and juror names are randomly selected and called out by the jury pool clerk. Depending on the type of trial—whether a 6 person or 12 person jury is needed, in the United States—anywhere from 15 to 30 prospective jurors are sent to the courtroom to participate in voir dire, pronounced [vwaʁ diʁ] in French, and defined as the oath to speak the truth in the examination testing competence of a juror, or in another application, a witness.

Once the list of prospective jurors has assembled in the courtroom the court clerk assigns them seats in the order their names were originally drawn. At this point the judge often will ask each prospective juror to answer a list of general questions such as name, occupation, education, family relationships, time conflicts for the anticipated length of the trial. The list is usually written up and clearly visible to assist nervous prospective jurors and may include several questions uniquely pertinent to the particular trial. These questions are to familiarize the judge and attorneys with the jurors and glean biases, experiences, or relationships that could jeopardize the proper course of the trial.

After each prospective juror has answered the general slate of questions the attorneys may ask followup questions of some or all prospective jurors. Each side in the trial is allotted a certain number of challenges to remove prospective jurors from consideration.

Some challenges are issued during voir dire while others are presented to the judge at the end of voir dire. The judge calls out the names of the anonymously challenged prospective jurors and those return to the pool for consideration in other trials. A jury is formed, then, of the remaining prospective jurors in the order that their names were originally chosen. Any prospective jurors not thusly impaneled return to the jury pool room.

Source:Wickipedia

Peace, Happiness, L.O.V.E

God Bless Always :angel:~~~

:rollingpeace: :rollingpeace:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top