The King's Killer Thriller Trial: A Preview

Moulin Rouge

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,330
Points
0
Location
USA
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-kings-killer-thriller-trial-a/

You’re fighting for your life inside a killer, thriller tonight.
There’s no escapin' the jaws of the alien this time –
This is the end of your life. — Michael Jackson, “Thriller”


This April, in what many predict will be the most watched criminal proceeding since O.J. Simpson’s, Dr. Conrad Murray will be tried for involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop. Meanwhile, the California Medical Board is filing a motion to revoke the cardiologist’s medical license.

Thirty years ago, Dr. George Nichopolous was tried on the same charges in the death of Jackson’s former father-in-law, Elvis Presley. The Tennessee Medical Board also moved to pull his license. Nichopolous was acquitted of manslaughter charges, and the board suspended him for three months. In spite of the acquittal, Vernon Presley insisted that Dr. Nick had murdered his son. In The Death of Elvis, authors Charles C. Thompson and James P. Cole assert that the star’s father made an unsuccessful attempt to have the doctor assassinated at the Memphis Liberty Bowl.

The Jackson family has repeatedly stated its belief that Michael was murdered by Murray, in league with “a shadowy entourage.” Father Joe has denounced the manslaughter charge as inadequate, saying that Michael himself had predicted he might be murdered. Should Murray, like Nichopolous, be acquitted, the Jacksons’ only remaining option may be in a wrongful death civil action, such as that which the Goldmans filed against the acquitted O.J.

Meanwhile, in the next months Dr. Conrad’s defense team will be poring over “thousands of pages of evidence,” according to litigator Michael Flanagan. His colleague, Ed Chernoff, has pledged that they will “fight like hell.” A former prosecutor, Chernoff is now a defense specialist who has lost only one felony jury trial out of forty. The third member of Murray’s team, Joseph Low, has never lost a murder case.

In spite of their collective talents comparable to O.J.’s Dream Team, the Murray team faces no easy task in proving to a jury that their client is not guilty of “gross negligence.”

In presenting evidence of this, the prosecution will claim:

1.Murray left the room after administering Jackson the powerful anesthetic, propofol.
2.He failed to intubate Jackson.
3.He improperly administered CPR.
4.He failed to immediately call 911.

The defense will have difficulty disproving the first two allegations. It will challenge the third with Murray’s own sworn statement that he placed a hand under Jackson’s back while administering CPR. Lastly, it will try to make credible Murray’s claim that he had no immediate landline to call 911, and that he couldn’t remember his street address for a cell phone call.

Chernoff will likely assert that his client made diligent efforts to substitute propofol with less potent sedatives. Similarly, Dr. Nicholopous’s lawyers successfully persuaded the jury that he had tried to “wean” Elvis off narcotics by using placebos. Though unable to make the same claim, Chernoff will stress that his client strenuously resisted Michael’s demands for “my milk” – his propofol.

Now Murray’s team will hammer on Jackson’s history of drug abuse and “doctor shopping.” It will remind the jury of the star’s own 1993 admission of painkiller abuse. It will outline the history of the Jackson family’s many unsuccessful drug interventions. It will enter into evidence documentation of the singer’s failed foreign dry-outs (Mexico, ’93; Seoul, ’99).

The defense may also call to the stand Jackson’s first dry-out doctor, Steven Hoefflin. In ’93 he warned the star’s managers, “Either the drugs are going to kill him or he’s going to die by flying out of a window, because he thinks he’s can fly.” Then the defense may call Michael’s favorite physician, Dr. Arnold Klein, who stated that, during the ’96 HIStory tour, the singer had traveled with an anesthesiologist who “took Michael down at night and brought him back up in the morning.”

Countering this evidence, the district attorney might point out that Jackson did not die on this anesthesiologist’s watch, as he did on Murray’s, because he was not grossly negligent. To prove that not all Michael’s doctors were “enablers,” the DA could call to the stand Dr. Eugene Aksenoff who refused him the stimulants he wanted, and his nurse, Cherilyn Lee, who refused to give him propofol.

Presenting evidence from the searches of Murray’s offices, computers, and car, prosecutors may try to prove that he ran a “pill factory.” Enumerating the half a million dollar court judgments against him, as well as his credit card defaults, and child support nonpayments, prosecutors will portray the defendant as a scofflaw and financial desperado.

The long sealed autopsy report will be hotly debated. Jackson was “fairly healthy” and had a “strong heart,” it concludes. Also, according to his AEG concert promoter, he had passed his three-hour physical exam “with flying colors.”

So, contrary to all the rumors about suffering possibly terminal conditions, Jackson apparently was not on the brink of death at all, the DA will insist. Illustrating this, the jury will surely be shown an animated Jackson rehearsing at the Staples Center the night before he died.

Rebutting, the defense may remind the jury that the star had collapsed on stage in a previous rehearsal. As for the last, televised, event, the performer arrived three hours late, appearing listless and impaired, then apparently danced and sang energetically.

What perked him up? Chernoff might ask an expert medical witness. Could it have been amphetamines which the star had routinely used in the past?

If Jackson had used uppers to perform, getting to sleep that night would have been all the more difficult for him. Indeed, the sedatives Murray administered were inadequate, so Jackson begged him for surgical anesthesia.

Now the crucial question arises: Did the defendant administer a “safe” dose – a dose within accepted medical guidelines?

Experts will debate the “safe” dose issue based on the patient’s size, other drugs in his system, and his general health. The third variable is especially critical and could become Murray’s trump card. Why?

A doctor can competently and safely treat a patient only if he knows his true physical condition. Jackson had suffered many serious ailments over the years – some documented, others rumored – and kept his medical records closely guarded. Was Murray given access to the complete records? Unlikely. More likely, he was shown Jackson’s clean bill of health from the recent three-hour AEG physical. So, he administered a dose of propofol based on the reasonable assumption that Jackson was in good health.

The autopsy report itself confirmed this. But, paradoxically, it added that Jackson had suffered from “chronic lung inflammation, respiratory bronchiolitis… and patchy hemorrhage of right and left lungs.”

So the defense might ask: How could the AEG physical have missed this, especially for a singer? Or was the lung abnormality redacted from their report, since the producers knew it could cause the delay or cancellation of their lucrative London concerts?

Chernoff might subpoena Jackson’s medical records to see if any of his many doctors had independently diagnosed lung disease. But the records could be altered or missing. If so, Chernoff could call for testimony from insiders who have stated that Jackson suffered from alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and needed a lung transplant.

“Because Mr. Jackson’s severe pre-existing lung condition was not revealed to my client – by Mr. Jackson himself, his other doctors, and/or his producer’s medical examiners – he miscalculated a 'safe' dose of propofol, assuming he was treating a ‘healthy’ patient,” Chernoff might tell the jury in closing. “As a result of their own negligent or deliberate failure to disclose a lung condition, Mr. Jackson’s suffered respiratory failure.”

Should the defense risk taking this argument a step further, it could summon former Jackson employees who in recent years have said the star had threatened suicide and believed he had only a short time to live. In this way, a “suicide by doctor” scenario could be suggested. Murray would be portrayed as neither negligent nor unprofessional, but as an unwitting dupe. “A fall guy,” as Joe Jackson himself has insisted, but without a conspiracy behind him.

Even if conspiracy were a charge in People v. Murray, it would be all but impossible to prove. But many Jackson managers and producers will be watching the trial closely since a king’s ransom in life insurance money will be at stake.

Sony, AEG, and untold other giants had multi-million dollar policies on the star. If he had been diagnosed with a terminal lung condition and concealed it, insurance payouts can be voided. If his drug abuse is deemed intentionally self-destructive, the payouts can also be voided. Weeks after his death, his estate executors – worried about the upcoming toxicology report – settled for a $3 million payout on one $20 million policy.

Whatever in fact happens during this historic trial, and whatever verdict is reached, truth and justice will not be the only issue, but hopefully they will be served.
 
the writers of this article entitle and treat this like it's a multi act theatre production. one thing is for sure..the media has contributed to a soulless, desensitized society. in fact, it has initiated it.
 
the writers of this article entitle and treat this like it's a multi act theatre production. one thing is for sure..the media has contributed to a soulless, desensitized society. in fact, it has initiated it.
As said before, this is all entertainment for the media and some fans.
 
the writers of this article entitle and treat this like it's a multi act theatre production. one thing is for sure..the media has contributed to a soulless, desensitized society. in fact, it has initiated it.
Amen.
 
I found this read interesting, it gives an idea of what to expect from both sides.
I hope the DA has a strong case and is ready to counteract every move of the defense.
 
Very interesting article. Its interesting to see what the defense might come up with. Regarding the lungs aspect it was already confirmed by the coroner that the condition would not have contributed to his death so the defense will have difficulty using that. The media are counting the days down until April 5th, and are salivating at the thought of a full blown trial at the end of the year. Its still so hard to believe that we are talking about the manslaughter of Michael. It's still so hard to fathom.
 
involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop.

It will always be so hard seeing these words put together this way.

Now Murray’s team will hammer on Jackson’s history of drug abuse and “doctor shopping.” It will remind the jury of the star’s own 1993 admission of painkiller abuse. It will outline the history of the Jackson family’s many unsuccessful drug interventions. It will enter into evidence documentation of the singer’s failed foreign dry-outs (Mexico, ’93; Seoul, ’99).

What does this have to do with Murray's carelessness and stupidity? If it weren't for that, Michael would still be here. This isn't about Michael's "history of drug abuse." Michael put his trust in this doctor and look what he did to him.
 
This April, in what many predict will be the most watched criminal proceeding since O.J. Simpson’s, Dr. Conrad Murray will be tried for involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson
no it wont its a hearing and nothing more. be lucky if a trial starts this year. everythings entertainment as normal
 
What does this have to do with Murray's carelessness and stupidity? If it weren't for that, Michael would still be here. This isn't about Michael's "history of drug abuse." Michael put his trust in this doctor and look what he did to him.

Exactly. Why would it excuse Murray if Michael had a history of drug abuse? Let me put it this way: does it excuse a drug dealer if his client already had a history with drugs?

Even if Michael had a problem with drugs, a doctor with responsibility should have told him "no" and show him alternative methods to treat his insomnia. Ideally. And in an ideal world we would only have doctors who would have told him "no" and then he would still be with us. But Murray wasn't a doc who told him "no". He was a doc who enabled him.....
 
respect77 - I agree that it would have been ideal for Michael to not have received the treatment he did for insomnia. But I maintain that we only have hearsay and some circumstantial evidence to suggest ANYTHING about Michael's drug use. And the autopsy report made it QUITE clear that Michael was not ABUSING drugs OF ANY KIND.
 
Very interesting article, still, they're basically saying what most have already said here: The defense will use idiots like Oxman and the crap the Jackson family have said to the media in Murray's favour. Not that hard to figure out actually.

It's also interesting to see they touched the subject of the physical conducted by AEG and the insurance policies...no other media had before.
 
the writers of this article entitle and treat this like it's a multi act theatre production. one thing is for sure..the media has contributed to a soulless, desensitized society. in fact, it has initiated it.

You are so right about what you said about the media. And what is sad they is they don't even realise it. When i look at Nancy Grace, and Jane velez the more gory and sadistic the topic is is the more they talk about it.
 
The defense will use idiots like Oxman and the crap the Jackson family have said to the media in Murray's favour. Not that hard to figure out actually.

I hope the Jacksons are proud of themselves now

As said before, this is all entertainment for the media and some fans.

yep nothing but entertainment
from the media I always expected them to be total PIGS, but I did not expect this attitude from fans as well I have to bite my tongue so many times when I read stuff on here - morbid perverted curiosity and some of them are also "lol"-ing here and there - damn it must be so funny!
 
Exactly. Why would it excuse Murray if Michael had a history of drug abuse? Let me put it this way: does it excuse a drug dealer if his client already had a history with drugs?
and whats it got to do with the main part of the case. his negligence in giving it in a home setting with no medical equipment available?
 
I agree. How is 'Michael was an addict' a defense? That makes it worse as a doctor has knowingly prescribed to an addict which is a crime itself. I'm still trying to work out what Murray's defense actually is.
 
I found this read interesting, it gives an idea of what to expect from both sides.
I hope the DA has a strong case and is ready to counteract every move of the defense.
that's why i posted it because it gove some sense of what will be brought up on both sides even if some of it is irrelevant.
 
This is a different senario to Elvis, in that tragedy Elvis helped himself to the drugs, in this case it was the doctor who administered the drug and then left his patient, in the small window that existed to save Michael he was either not in the room, or too busy trying to cover up what he had done. This drug was a potent drug which required careful mechanical monitoring, they do that in hospital for a very good reason, and Murrey cannot pretend not to know that.
 
This is a different senario to Elvis, in that tragedy Elvis helped himself to the drugs, in this case it was the doctor who administered the drug and then left his patient, in the small window that existed to save Michael he was either not in the room, or too busy trying to cover up what he had done. This drug was a potent drug which required careful mechanical monitoring, they do that in hospital for a very good reason, and Murrey cannot pretend not to know that.
Yes. Elvis wasn't trying to sleep, I'm sure he thought he was using the drugs for a purpose but he didn't have a doctor at his home injecting him with the stuff. His doctor's are still at fault for prescribing so many medications but they didn't kill him, hence homicide on michael's death certificate.
 
Okey, but who is the one paying for Murray's lawyers?? Do we know? Murray is bankcrupt.
We, the public, do not know.

You/we can make speculations like
- attorneys waive their fees
- some patients/his 'fans' make donations
- a deal with newspapers / tv
- insurance
- ...

(I don't waste my time on speculations)

The truth will come out, sooner or later. :8-25-03pray:
 
Back
Top