Latest on MJJC

GMA First Juror to speak out

if there is a doctor who provided the "standard of care", Michael Jackson will still be here. if there is the infusion pump, if there is the proper equipment, if Conrad Murray watched Michael Jackson, if he simply lifted Michael's chin if he found out Michael didn't breath, if conrad murray didn't delay calling 911... if Michael found other doctor... I had never seen any doctor like this, not did anything to care his patient, but did everything to kill him.

Propofol is the safe drug if used properly. and there do have the study showed it helped people with primary insomia.
 
loveforever said:
I had never seen any doctor like this, not did anything to care his patient, but did everything to kill him.
Click to expand...

Of course, what would have been the use of collecting informations and recordings of Michael if everything went well...

and I was so against any form of conspiration theories... smh...
 
Justthefacts said:
To that end maybe someone else would have got the right equipment maybe someone else would not have left him alone. Maybe someone else would have called 911 Maybe maybe maybe
Click to expand...

exactly. mj died cause of murrays actions. nothing else. if mj had got another dr hed prob still be here. the act in itself isnt dangerous but what murray did was. if mj knew what murray was gonna do u think he would have let him.
 
[h=1]Juror: We convicted Michael Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, because he didn’t call 911 first[/h] [h=2]Blames doc for providing drugs and not having life-saving equipment on hand[/h] BY Nancy Dillon
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, November 9 2011, 11:39 AM


image.jpg
LIONEL CIRONNEAU/AP
A juror in the Dr. Conrad Murray trial said she voted to convict him because he made a covert phone call to Michael Jackson’s handlers rather than dialing 911 in the moments after the drug-addled pop singer went into cardiac arrest.

image.jpg
Pool/Getty Images
Dr. Conrad Murry is being held without bail after his involuntary manslaughter conviction on Monday for the death of Michael Jackson.




LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson's doctor sealed his fate when he found the heavily sedated pop icon unresponsive and failed to call 911 immediately, a juror revealed Wednesday.
Debbie Franklin, a 48-year-old mother of two from Temple City, Calif., broke her silence on ABC's "Good Morning America" and described the nine hours of excruciating deliberations that led to Dr. Conrad Murray's involuntary manslaughter conviction Monday.
She said the panel of seven men and five women did not immediately agree Friday, their first day hashing out the evidence.
"We took a vote and it was not unanimous, so we said let's think about it over the weekend and talk about it on Monday," she told GMA. "It was stressful. It was a lot of work. Yelling, everybody was talking."
She said it was Murray's actions, not Jackson's, that tipped the balance - particularly Murray's decision to leave a cryptic message for a member of Jackson's entourage rather than call 911 in the critical minutes after he found the King of Pop not breathing with a slight pulse on June 25, 2009.
Murray, who never disputed that he gave Jackson the operating-room anesthetic propofol as a sleep aid, left his bedside for a bathroom break and then returned to find the "Thriller" singer in respiratory arrest.
He said he found Jackson unresponsive around noon. The first call to paramedics went out at 12:20 p.m.
"The three biggest things for us were the 911 call, not calling 911. That was a big issue, and not having the medical equipment in the room to put somebody under sedation and leaving the room," Franklin said.
She said the Houston cardiologist was responsible for providing a bedroom pharmacy without proper monitoring or resuscitative equipment and should have been watching the superstar's every breath.
"Even if Michael Jackson injected himself, which I don't think we believed, but we felt, even if he did, that wouldn't have mattered because Conrad Murray brought the situation there," she said. "He was the doctor. He was in charge."

She conceded Jackson "had a lot of issues…I believe he had addictions and dependence." But it didn't matter. Murray, 58, recklessly bent the rules when he gave Jackson propofol to fight the chronic insomnia that gripped him during rehearsals for his comeback tour, she said.
"I really think they didn't have a lot to work with," she said of Murray's defense lawyers. "They tried to do what they could with what they had."
Franklin said prosecutors were smart to set the bar low with a single count of involuntary manslaughter and not try for second-degree murder.
"We absolutely agree that he did not mean to do this," she told GMA. "We don't think he even had a motive to do this. We think it was something that he was doing that was careless that got out of hand."
She said she didn't feel bad that the judge denied Murray bail and had him led away in handcuffs.
"I never gave it a second thought," she said. "It didn't bother me."
But she's relieved her juror job is over and sentencing is up to the judge.
"I'm glad I don't have to make that decision," she said. "I really have no feeling one way of the other what the sentence is. We did our job."
The Grenada-born doctor faces up to four years in prison at his sentencing Nov. 29 and the loss of his career, at least in the U.S.
The doctor's California medical license already is suspended, and Texas officials expect to yank his privileges in the coming weeks.
"We've already initiated an investigation off his conviction," Leigh Hopper, spokeswoman for the Texas Medical Board, told the Daily News.
"He has the right to a full hearing. In something like this, I don't think the process would take very long because there's really no disputing the facts of the case. He was initially convicted, and state law dictates that the medical board suspend the license of someone initially convicted of a felony," she said. "If he appeals and then a judge upholds the verdict, that final conviction would lead to a revocation of his license."
Murray's Nevada license expired in July.
ndillon@nydailynews.com


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...idn-t-call-911-article-1.974999#ixzz1dEEYab7G
 
The bottom line is this: yes, Michael was asking other doctors to give him propofol as he was desperately seeking something to help him sleep, but if any doctor (including Murray) is going to be stupid enough to agree to it in a home setting, the LEAST that person can do is to have the proper medical equipment, other medical personnel, called 911 immediately upon finding your patient not breathing, not leaving your patient abandoned and not lying to paramedics and ER doctors about what was administered.

I think we all agree that propofol should never have been given, but Michael was not medically trained and I suspect some other doctor had given it to him in the past by playing on his vulnerabilities in order to get paid to provide it and not give him the right advice. Murray is medically trained, and whether he is an anesthesiologist or not, he would have known that what he was doing was dangerous and could realistically lead to the death of his patient. He may have convinced Michael that the monitoring he was providing was sufficient and safe - when he knew damn well that it wasn't. Michael may have believed him when he said that monitoring was enough - Mike wouldn't know any better as he is not a doctor.

And when you suspect your patient may have a dependency issue, it is even more imperative that you take extra precautions.

Some people can point the finger at Michael and say "he wanted it and he asked around for it so he has no one else to blame but himself" - but that is a load of crap. Just like in so many other aspects of his life, Michael had disingenuous leeches surrounding him praying on his vulnerabilities. In this case it was a doctor who probably lied to him that he would be safe - so that he could get his $150,000 cheque every month.
 
Just saw the interview. Now I know the majority of us feel it should have been Murder 2, but let's be realistic here, it would have never got an unanimous guilty verdict. I do feel IVM is the right charge and we got the guilty verdict. I'm sure Murray never meant to kill Michael, but it was his lack of duty and negligence that killed him. Fortunately we got the right verdict here and Murray is in jail. Whether he stays there remains to be seen. That's up to Judge Pastor.
 
bobmoo79 said:
Murray was the one who got caught breaking ethical standards, but somebody else would have done it instead if he hadn't, just as they had in the past.
Click to expand...
OR maybe Michael would have run into a doctor who not only said NO, but would have advised Michael that he has a sleeping disorder and needs to seek out somebody who is QUALIFIED in that area.

I don't have first hand knowledge in sleeping disorders, but I'm positive that there are GOOD doctors out there with that type of expertise who would have been more than happy to help Michael get a good night sleep, WITHOUT having to be monitored.
 
"Even if Michael Jackson injected himself, which I don't think we believed, but we felt, even if he did, that wouldn't have mattered because Conrad Murraybrought the situation there," she said. "He was the doctor. He was in charge."
Click to expand...

exactly. and thats what we have said all along aswell.
 
I actually changed my mind about the charges. I had thought the pros were right to be cautious and go for IVM but after all the evidence i thought they shd have gone for murder 2. I'm not sure i see anything in the juror's statement that suggests IVM was realistically the only charge they could agree on. She seems under the impression that murray would have to have meant it and have a motive, whereas the jury instructions and the pros would make it clear that wasn't necessary for murder 2. Any juror who might have been holding out on murray not being guilty of ivm appeared to be won round v quick. I'll be interested in hearing from the other jurors before i decide murder 2 wasn't a realistic option.
 
I don't know why everybody thinks Murray is a "nice guy". What makes him so nice? The fact he tapes his patient while he is under influence? The fact he is shopping for a documentary when MJ's body is not even cold yet? The fact he's a pathological liar? He lied in the police interview and he lies in his documentary as well. So what does make him a "nice guy"?
 
I guess based on the character witnesses. but in the end they were irrelevent as they should have been
 
so what are tmz tryin to achieve with this post??

CONRAD MURRAY JURY
Language Barrier in Jury Room?

English was not the only language used in the jury deliberation room in Conrad Murray's case ... this according to a relative of one of the jurors ... and there may have been a language barrier in the juror room.

We're told at least 2 of the jurors began discussing the case in Spanish during the 8-hour deliberation.

A relative of one juror -- we'll call him juror A -- tells TMZ ... another juror -- juror B -- had "some trouble" understanding some of the testimony. During the deliberations juror A had to translate the testimony into Spanish to juror B.

In the questionnaire jurors were required to fill out, the first question read, "Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking or understanding English.

A spokesperson for the court tells TMZ ... no juror ever requested a court-appointed translator at any time during the trial or deliberations.
 
Remember the talking heads on In session and others all said the jury was taking long because they were having conflict with causality. Well they never get it right but still insist in presenting their opinions as facts.
 
Thrill said:
so what are tmz tryin to achieve with this post??

CONRAD MURRAY JURY
Language Barrier in Jury Room?

English was not the only language used in the jury deliberation room in Conrad Murray's case ... this according to a relative of one of the jurors ... and there may have been a language barrier in the juror room.

We're told at least 2 of the jurors began discussing the case in Spanish during the 8-hour deliberation.

A relative of one juror -- we'll call him juror A -- tells TMZ ... another juror -- juror B -- had "some trouble" understanding some of the testimony. During the deliberations juror A had to translate the testimony into Spanish to juror B.

In the questionnaire jurors were required to fill out, the first question read, "Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking or understanding English.

A spokesperson for the court tells TMZ ... no juror ever requested a court-appointed translator at any time during the trial or deliberations.
Click to expand...

Maybe just giving a bit of info that jury i suppose?
 
Bonnie Blue said:
I actually changed my mind about the charges. I had thought the pros were right to be cautious and go for IVM but after all the evidence i thought they shd have gone for murder 2. I'm not sure i see anything in the juror's statement that suggests IVM was realistically the only charge they could agree on. She seems under the impression that murray would have to have meant it and have a motive, whereas the jury instructions and the pros would make it clear that wasn't necessary for murder 2. Any juror who might have been holding out on murray not being guilty of ivm appeared to be won round v quick. I'll be interested in hearing from the other jurors before i decide murder 2 wasn't a realistic option.
Click to expand...

I think that is possible, as well. We know something now that we didn't know during the trial. And that is? That Murray was likely planning this documentary BEFORE Michael died. In May, 2009? I now believe that that awful tape, was to be part of the documentary. Murray was betraying Michael, way back THEN. He was already USING him, for financial gain. He must be a total sociopath!

I think that Judge Pastor's reaction was very telling. He easily could have given Murray bail, and set him free until the sentencing. WAS Murray a "danger to society?" Maybe NOT, given that it's not likely he'd be giving anyone else propofol, in a home? But I think Pastor was ANGRY. I think he wanted to PUNISH Murray, to the full extent that he was able. I hope to see that same punishment, at sentencing.

So, a higher charge? We all have levels of tolerance for risk. Personally, I would have accepted that risk. I DO understand that others may feel differently. As did THOUSANDS, and thousands, of fans, who signed that petition.Now, Murray could actually get off with house-arrest. Whatever. At least, he was found GUILTY, of something.

There is something that I have said, and SAID, not that it matters now? That is, that in California, the jurors could have been given the OPTION, to convict on IM, OR on Murder Two. Not sure why more here have not understood this? It was not "one or the other," but both options could have been given. Whatever. What is done is done, and I'm just relieved at the conviction, for SOMETHING.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
I actually changed my mind about the charges. I had thought the pros were right to be cautious and go for IVM but after all the evidence i thought they shd have gone for murder 2. I'm not sure i see anything in the juror's statement that suggests IVM was realistically the only charge they could agree on. She seems under the impression that murray would have to have meant it and have a motive, whereas the jury instructions and the pros would make it clear that wasn't necessary for murder 2. Any juror who might have been holding out on murray not being guilty of ivm appeared to be won round v quick. I'll be interested in hearing from the other jurors before i decide murder 2 wasn't a realistic option.
Click to expand...

murder 2 requires "implied malice".

malice: the intention or desire to cause harm (as death, bodily injury, or property damage) to another through an unlawful or wrongful act without justification or excuse

implied malice : malice inferred from the nature or consequences of a harmful act done without justification or excuse

as the definition shows us implied malice requires the jurors believe that he intended harm. as they believe he "absolutely didn't mean to do this" you can see that implied malice was an uphill battle.
 
Well the important think was that they did not believe Michael injected himself, so I guess Flan and Chernoff wasted a lot of time trying to show that, oh and we cannot forget White with his idea that a syringe was lying around and Michael injected himself, not to mention Michael walking around with his IV and popping the pills. The defense needs an award for stupidity.
 
I knew a least one or more juror(s) would think MJ had drug dependency/or was an addict. I wish to know what they think of the auptosy report then?
 
Blue I guess they are going by the fact that the medications were found in his house and there was no evidence showing the pills were used infrequently; then they heard the addict specialist say Michael was an addict and figured he knew what he was talking about; then Walgren did not highlight that the autopsy showed there was no damage of tissue and organs due to addiction, so I basically went with what they heard. Since this was not an "addiction" case and Walgren did not want to lose the focus of the trial he did not go there. This is only my opinion though.
 
Petrarose your opinion is fair. There is so much more they could have given the jury that would have given a clearer picture of Michael. Many of Michael's friends could testify that he had the same sleeping problem for many years. Especially when he was in a very creative mode. Dr. Metzger touched on that but expounding on why Mr. Jackson couldn't sleep would have eliminated most of the defense argument.

The prosecution did a GREAT job, just speaking on the jurors comments.
 
I am just glad they made the right decision. I can say this now but if they had said not guilty I would not know how to accept that.
 
legacylegacy7 said:
Petrarose your opinion is fair. There is so much more they could have given the jury that would have given a clearer picture of Michael. Many of Michael's friends could testify that he had the same sleeping problem for many years. Especially when he was in a very creative mode. Dr. Metzger touched on that but expounding on why Mr. Jackson couldn't sleep would have eliminated most of the defense argument.

The prosecution did a GREAT job, just speaking on the jurors comments.
Click to expand...

I think because none of these is relevant to the case. They already have tons of witness and evidence. They don't want to drag the jury through irrelevant stuff. Like we all said before, what's MJ addict or not relevant to the case?
 
Metzger is a lupus expert so he knew alot but obviously tried to respect mjs privacy ad much as possible
 
ivy;3533434 said:
murder 2 requires "implied malice".

malice: the intention or desire to cause harm (as death, bodily injury, or property damage) to another through an unlawful or wrongful act without justification or excuse

implied malice : malice inferred from the nature or consequences of a harmful act done without justification or excuse

as the definition shows us implied malice requires the jurors believe that he intended harm. as they believe he "absolutely didn't mean to do this" you can see that implied malice was an uphill battle.
Click to expand...
No, it's actually the exact opposite of what you are saying, implied malice is precisely for the situation when there was NO intent to kill, but the actions were so careless/risky that the person doing them had to know that death was a possible result (but didn't care about that).
The only difference between the IM and the murder 2 charge would have been that for murder 2 the prosecution would have also needed to prove that Murray knew (because of his medical training) that his actions could potentially result in death. NO intent is required, just extreme carelessness.

For a more eloquent explanation:http://patterico.com/2007/05/02/fracture-murder-implied-malice-and-the-la-riots/
But there is another kind of murder — called “implied malice” murder — that does not require an intent to kill.

Implied malice has nothing to do with hatred or ill will towards the victim. It is similar to what many call “reckless disregard for human life.” In California (and I’m collapsing, paraphrasing, and simplifying the elements for clarity’s sake) a defendant acts with implied malice if he intentionally commits a potentially fatal act with conscious disregard for human life.

For example, say I stab you in the neck because I am angry at you — but I don’t really intend to kill you. I just don’t care if you live or die. If you die, I have still committed murder. I have committed a potentially fatal act (stabbing someone in the neck) with conscious disregard for your life.
Click to expand...
 
ivy said:
murder 2 requires "implied malice".

malice: the intention or desire to cause harm (as death, bodily injury, or property damage) to another through an unlawful or wrongful act without justification or excuse

implied malice : malice inferred from the nature or consequences of a harmful act done without justification or excuse

as the definition shows us implied malice requires the jurors believe that he intended harm. as they believe he "absolutely didn't mean to do this" you can see that implied malice was an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

I agree it would be a much harder battle to win to get that conviction. But as walkingonmoon's post points out, if an act shows such a disregard for human life that there is a high probability of death, then that could be murder 2. The testimony of shaffer and steinberg nailed that for me at least, white was the only witness that disagreed but i felt his credibility was shot when he was forced to defend not phoning 999, not keeping medical records etc.

The fact it wasn't just a over-complex mixture of sleeping medication that led to mj's death, but was a death caused by propofol, an anesthetic with all the safety requirements that surround it ignored, and the consciousness of guilt on murray's part to cover up the use of propofol , to me at least, is the key to lifting this homicide into murder 2.
 
Last edited:
^ I've always believed it was murder 2.And it wasn't because I was irrational or only because I wanted a more severe penalty.
I didn't know much at first,but as soon as I started to gather info and try to understand the legal concepts,it became clear to me murder 2 was the charge I would have chosen.

As it's been said,implied malice doesn't require intention.
Sure,it would have been a much harder battle,but I don't think it would have been impossible cause the evidence was very strong.The juror used the word overwhelming,I believe.
With the right instructions or even the option of a lesser charge there wouln't have been a problem.
It's my opinion that the decision to charge IM was the same reason Walgren wasn't fronting the post-verdict press conference : politics.

And it wouldn't have been such a rare occurrence,imo.See here : http://www.grimesandwarwick.com/second_degree_murder

Most people think of murder as an intentional act, and that anyone guilty of it must be a cold, calculating killer.

In a murder trial in California, the jury is instructed that murder is the killing of another person with malice aforethought. Malice can be express, when there is the intent to kill, or it can be implied. The concept of implied malice has developed through the years in California.

One of the leading cases on implied malice is People v. Watson, in which the California Supreme Court upheld a conviction for second degree murder for a defendant who caused the death of another person while the defendant was driving drunk and in a reckless fashion.

In another leading case in 2007, the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Marjorie Knoller (an attorney), after her dogs killed Diane Whipple, in San Francisco. The dogs weighed 100 pounds and 140 pounds and had a history of violence, and the California Supreme Court held that Knoller had shown a conscious disregard for danger to human life. She was sentenced to 15 years to life.
Click to expand...

But it is what it is and yes,I'm glad Murray is now a convicted felon and legally declared guilty of this tragedy.
 
Last edited:
bobmoo79 said:
Many of the anti-MJ / pro-CM comments I see online usually come down hard saying that MJ was addicted and effectively caused his own death because he was the one ofter the fix and if it wasn't Murray he would have died anyway because he would have found somebody else. Unfortunately the jurors' comments just back up their argument, and although we instincively know it was Murray's negligence that caused MJ's death on June 25th 2009, if MJ had been shopping around for doctors then he may have found somebody else to administer the drug and died regardless.
It's a sad fact we'll have to get used to. Murray was the one who got caught breaking ethical standards, but somebody else would have done it instead if he hadn't, just as they had in the past. MJ IS partly to blame for this, although that doesn't absolve Murray at all. There, I said it. Let the fury of MJJC come raining down upon me *ducks for cover*
Click to expand...
NOt really. The others doctors could have not killed him because they knew what they were doing even though they should not have that drug either. SO NO ONE can say MJ would have died by getting another doctor either. Remember, MJ was healthy for a 50 year old man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top