I think we might have a problem - definition of second degree murder in California

abigaillovesmj

Guests
I have been reading the California penal code for a letter I am writing to the district attorney's office in a request to increase the charges against Dr. Murray. I wanted to quote what I remembered as one of two possible prerequisites to charge a person with second degree murder something along the lines of:

a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.


That is the definition I remembered and I couldn't find it anywhere in the California penal code. It turns out this definition is not there. In California, second degree murder is only defined by its relation to the definition of murder which in California is:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.


First degree murder is defined as:

All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree.


And second degree murder is only defined as: All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.

So if murder of the second degree is all other kinds of murders which are not listed in first degree and murder in California requires malice aforethought, than from what I understand Murray cannot be charged with murder in the second degree since he did not intend to kill Michael – at least not from what was presented in court.

We have lots of evidence to prove the first definition I posted here of murder in the second degree but it seems it is not the definition used in California.

Here is the link to the California penal code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199



What do you guys think? I'm really sad right now and am really hoping that I'm wrong.

 
what murray did was murder in my eyes and in the eyes of Michael's family. Murray was careless, reckless, and had every intention of continuing to provide Michael with a dangerouis/lethal subtance that was by no means ment to be outside of a hospital setting. He left Michael to die and his actions after he passed shows that he did infact murder michael and tried to not just cover it up and cover his tracks but he also ran from the scene and had to tracked down by police in order to be questioned and later charged. Dr's like Murray can not get away with carelessly killing their patients. That IV and needle used to drip the drug in to Michael's veins is a murder weapon just like any gun, knife, explosive, whatever. i would think that the definetion of Murder is the same at Second Degree murder. eather way a life is taken and a punishment must be given to the person(s) responsible. Murray is responisble and he should be given the proper charges for his crime.
 
I did the same thing,but arrived to a different conclusion.
Please,read what I posted here :
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3180047&postcount=36

From what I understand,malice aforethought requires either the intent to do harm or a reckless disregard for the harm that one's actions could cause,for human life.

I've seen recklessness defined in American law as "conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," or alternatively as "a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions."

Also,I hope Autumn doesn't mind me quoting her here from that same thread above :
A jury can be given instructions by the judge to convict on lower charges (I.M.), but cannot raise them to something the accused wasn't charged for. It's still possible to "stack charges," though, as was done to Michael. I.e, add contributing charges to the I.M. charge. If he's convicted of only I.M., I doubt he'll see any jail time. So THAT would amount to "walking," IMHO. Carry on. . .
 
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.


at the end of section 192 :
"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

People v. Watson, 30 Cal : http://www.jstor.org/pss/3480202

How do you understand what I quoted above ?
 
what murray did was murder in my eyes and in the eyes of Michael's family. Murray was careless, reckless, and had every intention of continuing to provide Michael with a dangerouis/lethal subtance that was by no means ment to be outside of a hospital setting. He left Michael to die and his actions after he passed shows that he did infact murder michael and tried to not just cover it up and cover his tracks but he also ran from the scene and had to tracked down by police in order to be questioned and later charged. Dr's like Murray can not get away with carelessly killing their patients. That IV and needle used to drip the drug in to Michael's veins is a murder weapon just like any gun, knife, explosive, whatever. i would think that the definetion of Murder is the same at Second Degree murder. eather way a life is taken and a punishment must be given to the person(s) responsible. Murray is responisble and he should be given the proper charges for his crime.

I agree:clapping::clapping:
 
ow do you understand what I quoted above ?
im no expert but reading that says to me that malice can be implied if the behaviour is a conscious
disregard for life. so bascially u dont have to show the person had direct malice but that their actions were so negligent that they might aswell have had some form of malice in order to do what they did.

theres been loads of direct legal quotes on here from the penal code. i dont have it saved though
 
Thank you so much Selene, bouee and elusive moonwalker. I think you are right and I'm so glad to be wrong.

Selene I read further into malice aforethought and I now understand that it also includes a reckless disregard for the person's life (which is obviously what we have here) and not just expressed intent.

Bouee - does what you quoted means that Murray can be charged with both Murder 2 and involuntary manslaughter?

I have to say, that all this is very interesting and i'm learning a lot​
 
ouee - does what you quoted means that Murray can be charged with both Murder 2 and involuntary manslaughter?
u cant be charged with both. its one or the other. u could charge with murder 2 and then the judge gives the jury the option of finding him guilty of M/S instead.
 
As mentioned malice can be implied as well.

for an action to be considered as implied malice and equal to murder 2, it must be such an action that will results in a high probability of death or harm and this high probability should be foreseen/known. It's called the depraved heart theory.

For example

A man has bought a new gun and wants to try it out. He goes to his backyard and sees that his next door neighbor is having a party and 20 kids is running around. He shots his gun to try it out (has no intent to kill) however he accidentally hits and kills a kid. He can be tried for murder 2 on the basis of deprived heart/ depraved indifference as there was high probability of hitting and killing someone (20 kids running around) and the risk is known (people can be killed by a gunshot).
 
i remember during the 05 trial the judge added more charges during trial. could charges also be raised during trial? could the judge before jury goes into deliberation decide that charges are raised to 2nd degree, but the jury is also able to convict murray for IM instead?
 
i remember during the 05 trial the judge added more charges during trial. could charges also be raised during trial? could the judge before jury goes into deliberation decide that charges are raised to 2nd degree, but the jury is also able to convict murray for IM instead?

What Ivy posted is accurate. So. . . thanks, for that and the example.

More charges can be added, called "stacking charges." They could be added to the IM charge, or if the DA elevates the charges to Murder 2 (doesn't seem likely at this point.)

Not sure if the judge can elevate the charges, and when? Probably only the DA.

The petition also called for adding ("stacking") charges. I think that can be done at any time. Among them were: "concealment of accidental death; reckless endangerment; reckless conduct; conspiracy; obstruction of justice."

The "concealment of accidental death" could mean delaying the time of calling 911, and also asking EMTs to work on someone already gone.

"Reckless endangerment" is obvious.

"Reckless conduct" is obvious. (see Ivy's example of the gun and the yard full of children.)

"Conspiracy" doesn't mean "conspiracy theory," as in a plot. In this case it would mean involving someone else in an attempt to cover-up evidence (Alvarez, and maybe the girlfriend, and the call to Houston for staff to remove items from a storage locker?)

"Obstruction of justice." Running from the hospital and hiding for two days. Trying to conceal evidence. Plus, any false statements to police or other official investigators.
 
I don't quite remember at which point the additional charges of a lesser demeanor were added in Michael's case - was it done at the indictment?

And if so, is it possible for the DA to elevate the charges to 2nd murder on january 25th, when Murray is being indicted?

Another question: if it is possible to charge for murder 2nd and at the same time to give the jury the possibility of IM as well, why wouldn't the DA do so? I mean there is enough evidence and he doesn't have anything to lose because the jury has an option to still convict Murray of IM.
 
"concealment of accidental death"
Wouldn't the DA have to prove that Michael was dead before the call. How would they prove this? Remember, the hospital did manage to get a brief heart beat for 10 minutes or so around 1400, if my memory serves and then he was pronounced later.

As for the rest, totally concur.

Also, found this on a California law firm website: Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

At the very minimum, looking at murray's phone calls and what is given as his timeline of events, it seems obvious he was on the phone when he says he was giving Michael drugs. So he sure didn't display much concern for what he was doing.
He admits to keeping no records, so how does he know when he gave what? He told a doctor at UCLA he had no watch thus: Dr. Thao Nguyen (UCLA) Testimony "Murray couldn't give an estimate about when the drug was injected and how long MJ was down. Nguyen says Murray’s exact words were he ‘did not have any concept of time’ which is why he was unable to say when MJ stopped breathing."

Seems like pretty reckless behavior.
 
cinzia;3198765 said:
"concealment of accidental death"
Wouldn't the DA have to prove that Michael was dead before the call. How would they prove this? Remember, the hospital did manage to get a brief heart beat for 10 minutes or so around 1400, if my memory serves and then he was pronounced later.

As for the rest, totally concur.

Also, found this on a California law firm website: Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

At the very minimum, looking at murray's phone calls and what is given as his timeline of events, it seems obvious he was on the phone when he says he was giving Michael drugs. So he sure didn't display much concern for what he was doing.
He admits to keeping no records, so how does he know when he gave what? He told a doctor at UCLA he had no watch thus: Dr. Thao Nguyen (UCLA) Testimony "Murray couldn't give an estimate about when the drug was injected and how long MJ was down. Nguyen says Murray’s exact words were he ‘did not have any concept of time’ which is why he was unable to say when MJ stopped breathing."

Seems like pretty reckless behavior.

Alberto Alvarez said Michael appeared to be already dead. EMTs thought the same. And there were the hospital personnel. The "heartbeat" they got at the hospital may have been registering from the balloon pump. They'd prove it by having experts testify as to signs of time-of-death. I'm certain hospital personnel were working on Michael just for show -- it was obvious he was already gone.

Yes, extraordinarily reckless behavior.
 
Autumn II;3198789 said:
Alberto Alvarez said Michael appeared to be already dead. EMTs thought the same. And there were the hospital personnel. The "heartbeat" they got at the hospital may have been registering from the balloon pump. They'd prove it by having experts testify as to signs of time-of-death. I'm certain hospital personnel were working on Michael just for show -- it was obvious he was already gone.

Yes, extraordinarily reckless behavior.

It's all just too much. In my heart of hearts, I believe he was gone long before Murray knew anything about it...but then there is this:

At 13:21 hours or 1:21 p.m., the nurses and physicians at UCLA detected a weak femoral pulse
and cardiac activity for Michael Jackson.
At 13:22 hours he showed cardiac activity.
At 13:33 he showed a weak ventricular rhythm (contracting of the lower heart chambers). Dr. Cooper reported that when Michael Jackson was intubated with an endotrachial tube he had good breath sounds and “The initial
cardiac rhythm appeared to be wide and slow in the 40s.” (did they reintubate at the hospital?
At 13:52 or 1:52 p.m. he had a pulse of 53 beats per minute, with a MAE complex (major arrhythmic event).
24. At 14:05 the physicians inserted an intra aortic balloon pump (mechanical device placed in the
aorta to assist blood flow) to attempt resuscitation and obtain circulation with a spontaneous heart-beat.

The pump was placed in the aorta just above the heart, and his diastolic blood pressure (blood pressure
between heart beats) went from 20 to approximately 40 at times and sometimes to 60 mmHg. Despite these efforts, Michael Jackson did not regain a spontaneous pulse or heart-beat.

Excerpted from the lawsuit of Joe vs murray http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0622_michael_jackson_Preliminary.pdf

So it looks as if something was going on prior to the IAP and that's why it was inserted. But it also seems as if there was no spontaneous heartbeat after the insertion? But the ventricular rhythm was spontaneous, it seems, although not capable of sustaining life.

If his pupils were fixed and dilated as was reported, essentially he was brain dead at the scene. I can't understand how UCLA was able to get any heartrate. And did UCLA assess pupillary status? I haven't read that.


But frankly, the implications of a successful resus. at that point in time just don't bear thinking about. *going away in depression now*
 
cinzia;3198920 said:
It's all just too much. In my heart of hearts, I believe he was gone long before Murray knew anything about it...but then there is this:

At 13:21 hours or 1:21 p.m., the nurses and physicians at UCLA detected a weak femoral pulse
and cardiac activity for Michael Jackson.
At 13:22 hours he showed cardiac activity.
At 13:33 he showed a weak ventricular rhythm (contracting of the lower heart chambers). Dr. Cooper reported that when Michael Jackson was intubated with an endotrachial tube he had good breath sounds and “The initial
cardiac rhythm appeared to be wide and slow in the 40s.” (did they reintubate at the hospital?
At 13:52 or 1:52 p.m. he had a pulse of 53 beats per minute, with a MAE complex (major arrhythmic event).
24. At 14:05 the physicians inserted an intra aortic balloon pump (mechanical device placed in the
aorta to assist blood flow) to attempt resuscitation and obtain circulation with a spontaneous heart-beat.

The pump was placed in the aorta just above the heart, and his diastolic blood pressure (blood pressure
between heart beats) went from 20 to approximately 40 at times and sometimes to 60 mmHg. Despite these efforts, Michael Jackson did not regain a spontaneous pulse or heart-beat.

Excerpted from the lawsuit of Joe vs murray http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0622_michael_jackson_Preliminary.pdf

So it looks as if something was going on prior to the IAP and that's why it was inserted. But it also seems as if there was no spontaneous heartbeat after the insertion? But the ventricular rhythm was spontaneous, it seems, although not capable of sustaining life.

If his pupils were fixed and dilated as was reported, essentially he was brain dead at the scene. I can't understand how UCLA was able to get any heartrate. And did UCLA assess pupillary status? I haven't read that.

But frankly, the implications of a successful resus. at that point in time just don't bear thinking about. *going away in depression now*

This is incredibly sad. Shows that on some deep level, he was struggling to LIVE? But no, I can't understand either how they were able to get any heart-rate at all. Brain death surely had occurred. (didn't read any "assessed pupillary status," from UCLA. There was just what EMTs reportied "fixed and dilated" at the scene.) Also, this shows that once he was intubated he had "good breath sounds." Murray should have had the equipment at hand to intubate him. If he had, Michael could have survived. (Sanjay Gupta did a piece on propofol. There was a guy about to undergo surgery. His breathing stopped once the propofol was administered. That was not unexpected, and he was intubated very quickly.)

What does this mean? "At 13:52 or 1:52 p.m. he had a pulse of 53 beats per minute, with a MAE complex (major arrhythmic event)"? Fibrillation? In which case, there would not have been anything close to adequate blood circulation?

This is truly awful, but. . . . did anyone mention organ donation? If a person is brain-dead but has a heartbeat, that is usually suggested to the family? Or, were they unable to do that because there had to be an autopsy? (probably)

I do remember CNN reporting that he was "in a coma." But that news was quickly replaced by "he died."
 
reckless behavior equals to involuntary manslaughter.

for murder 2 you need more than reckless behavior - doing something knowing that it would in great probability cause harm or death.

Giving propofol in a HOME without the proper rescue equipment would qualify? Giving a general anesthetic in a home is unheard of, but if a doctor does it anyway, having additional personnel AND the capacity to intubate, and to defibrillate, would be essential. As would oxygen, be essential? The tank was EMPTY! All this (to say nothing of the other concerns) would seem to qualify as "great probability of causing harm or death?" With those conditions, "great harm or death" seem inevitable?
 
cinzia;3198920 said:
It's all just too much. In my heart of hearts, I believe he was gone long before Murray knew anything about it...but then there is this:

At 13:21 hours or 1:21 p.m., the nurses and physicians at UCLA detected a weak femoral pulse
and cardiac activity for Michael Jackson.
At 13:22 hours he showed cardiac activity.
At 13:33 he showed a weak ventricular rhythm (contracting of the lower heart chambers). Dr. Cooper reported that when Michael Jackson was intubated with an endotrachial tube he had good breath sounds and “The initial
cardiac rhythm appeared to be wide and slow in the 40s.” (did they reintubate at the hospital?
At 13:52 or 1:52 p.m. he had a pulse of 53 beats per minute, with a MAE complex (major arrhythmic event).
24. At 14:05 the physicians inserted an intra aortic balloon pump (mechanical device placed in the
aorta to assist blood flow) to attempt resuscitation and obtain circulation with a spontaneous heart-beat.

The pump was placed in the aorta just above the heart, and his diastolic blood pressure (blood pressure
between heart beats) went from 20 to approximately 40 at times and sometimes to 60 mmHg. Despite these efforts, Michael Jackson did not regain a spontaneous pulse or heart-beat.

Excerpted from the lawsuit of Joe vs murray http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0622_michael_jackson_Preliminary.pdf

So it looks as if something was going on prior to the IAP and that's why it was inserted. But it also seems as if there was no spontaneous heartbeat after the insertion? But the ventricular rhythm was spontaneous, it seems, although not capable of sustaining life.

If his pupils were fixed and dilated as was reported, essentially he was brain dead at the scene. I can't understand how UCLA was able to get any heartrate. And did UCLA assess pupillary status? I haven't read that.


But frankly, the implications of a successful resus. at that point in time just don't bear thinking about. *going away in depression now*
thank you fo posting this.....i just have one question.....are we going by this testimony that says that Michael had a heart rate and a pulse at UCLA? OR..are we going by the prelime testimony that states that Michael had NO heart rate or pulse..as testimony from Dr. Cooper?

part of her tetimony
Dr. Cooper: Correct.

The patient had no sign of life. The pupils were fixed and dilated. The patient was dead on arrival to UCLA. Despite that condition, they attempted to revive the patient. No pulse; no other signs of trauma. Proceeded to administer other drugs. Patient is still being ventilated and CPR is continuing and cardiac monitors on the patient.

DDA Q: Did you ever note or feel or observe a pulse on the patient?

Dr. Cooper: “I did not. There was report of a pulse being felt on the nurse call sheet.”

She lists the “starter drugs” that were additionally given to Michael Jackson. They were not effective. Time spent on the patient, 1 hour, 26 minutes. She made the decision at 2:26 p.m. to call the patient deceased (stop treatment).

Blood was drawn from the patient for later medical testing. When Jackson arrived at UCLA, he was given a medical record number/name to track everything until the patient is formally registered. Gershwin was the name given to Michael Jackson, so that things can be recorded and labeled immediately so they can perform care.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2011/01/dr-conrad-murray-prelim-day-3-part-ii.html

The only other person that said that Michael had a pulse was Murray.....and when they asked at the doctor in testimony she said that Murray was wearing gloves at the time and people think they feel pulses when they actually dont. If we are going by the testimony posted in this thread.....then that's fine. I feel like I was hit by a ton of bricks because this is the first time that I have read that Michael may of had a pulse and a heartbreat at any point in time. It is just so sad. Thank you..
 
Last edited:
I don't quite remember at which point the additional charges of a lesser demeanor were added in Michael's case - was it done at the indictment?
i beleive it was very near the end. they added 4 lesser charges of giving the alcohol to facilitate abuse. athough im sure the judge also gave the option of just finding mj guilty of giving the alcohol without using it to facilitate . in relation to now the only charges i see which could be familar are obstruction of justice. becasue its not a new charge with new evidence so to speak. the evidence that supports an obstruction charge will already have been shown during the m.s part of the trial. so its not like its some new charge and murray doesnt have time to create a defence. thats the same with the alcohol charge in 03-05 the evidence to support it was already shown during the abuse trial. it wasnt something new. butgot added on at the end as another option for the jury to consider

but i fail to understand why obstruction charges arent added now.as the charges evolve around the MS case so its not like u are giving murray anything xtra interms of time to create a defence. evidence to support M.S also supports the obstruction charge. and i defo dont understand why they arent going with a charge of murder 2 with an option for M.S. well we know why....

But frankly, the implications of a successful resus. at that point in time just don't bear thinking about. *going away in depression now*
yes that would have been even worse than the postion we are in now. and thats saying something. i dont even want to think about it. can u imagine how the family would be acting
 
xthunderx2;3199230 said:
thank you fo posting this.....i just have one question.....are we going by this testimony that says that Michael had a heart rate and a pulse at UCLA? OR..are we going by the prelime testimony that states that Michael had NO heart rate or pulse..as testimony from Dr. Cooper?

part of her tetimony
Dr. Cooper: Correct.

The patient had no sign of life. The pupils were fixed and dilated. The patient was dead on arrival to UCLA. Despite that condition, they attempted to revive the patient. No pulse; no other signs of trauma. Proceeded to administer other drugs. Patient is still being ventilated and CPR is continuing and cardiac monitors on the patient.

DDA Q: Did you ever note or feel or observe a pulse on the patient?

Dr. Cooper: “I did not. There was report of a pulse being felt on the nurse call sheet.”

She lists the “starter drugs” that were additionally given to Michael Jackson. They were not effective. Time spent on the patient, 1 hour, 26 minutes. She made the decision at 2:26 p.m. to call the patient deceased (stop treatment).

Blood was drawn from the patient for later medical testing. When Jackson arrived at UCLA, he was given a medical record number/name to track everything until the patient is formally registered. Gershwin was the name given to Michael Jackson, so that things can be recorded and labeled immediately so they can perform care.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2011/01/dr-conrad-murray-prelim-day-3-part-ii.html

The only other person that said that Michael had a pulse was Murray.....and when they asked at the doctor in testimony she said that Murray was wearing gloves at the time and people think they feel pulses when they actually dont. If we are going by the testimony posted in this thread.....then that's fine. I feel like I was hit by a ton of bricks because this is the first time that I have read that Michael may of had a pulse and a heartbreat at any point in time. It is just so sad. Thank you..

I. don't. know. what to think. I remember reading when this was reported and I think, but am not sure, that it was Dr Cooper who was reported as the source so I am at a loss to even hazard any kind of a guess. The specifics cited in Joe Jackson's law suit are so, so specific that I think that rates more than 'report ...on the nurse call sheet'. Whenever a patient is resuscitated in the hospital, everything is documented, or should be. Meds, rate, rhythm, defib joules and times, IVs, who did what. So I have to think there must be some foundation for what is in Joe's suit. And supposedly they got medical records from UCLA.

IF what is recorded in the legal papers is accurate, then why the discrepancy between then and now in Dr. Cooper's testimony? If it's all a fabrication, then I don't know. There's also a disconnect between what Dr. Thao Nguyen testified and what is recorded in the intent to file papers esp regarding the IAP. I can't reconcile the two. They can't both be accurate. (And I've totally lost track of what has happened with that suit of Joe's.)
 
i beleive it was very near the end. they added 4 lesser charges of giving the alcohol to facilitate abuse. athough im sure the judge also gave the option of just finding mj guilty of giving the alcohol without using it to facilitate . in relation to now the only charges i see which could be familar are obstruction of justice. becasue its not a new charge with new evidence so to speak. the evidence that supports an obstruction charge will already have been shown during the m.s part of the trial. so its not like its some new charge and murray doesnt have time to create a defence. thats the same with the alcohol charge in 03-05 the evidence to support it was already shown during the abuse trial. it wasnt something new. butgot added on at the end as another option for the jury to consider

but i fail to understand why obstruction charges arent added now.as the charges evolve around the MS case so its not like u are giving murray anything xtra interms of time to create a defence. evidence to support M.S also supports the obstruction charge. and i defo dont understand why they arent going with a charge of murder 2 with an option for M.S. well we know why....

yes that would have been even worse than the postion we are in now. and thats saying something. i dont even want to think about it. can u imagine how the family would be acting

I don't think it was done this late. I think it really was added at the indictment, 'cause I think I remember that the indictment was kind of a chock for everybody 'cause nobody was expecting it.
 
I don't think it was done this late. I think it really was added at the indictment, 'cause I think I remember that the indictment was kind of a chock for everybody 'cause nobody was expecting it.
I remember that too. I think it was when the conspiracy charge was added. But I believe the judge also made some changes to the alcohol charges at the end of the trial.
 
Last edited:
I. don't. know. what to think. I remember reading when this was reported and I think, but am not sure, that it was Dr Cooper who was reported as the source so I am at a loss to even hazard any kind of a guess. The specifics cited in Joe Jackson's law suit are so, so specific that I think that rates more than 'report ...on the nurse call sheet'. Whenever a patient is resuscitated in the hospital, everything is documented, or should be. Meds, rate, rhythm, defib joules and times, IVs, who did what. So I have to think there must be some foundation for what is in Joe's suit. And supposedly they got medical records from UCLA.

IF what is recorded in the legal papers is accurate, then why the discrepancy between then and now in Dr. Cooper's testimony? If it's all a fabrication, then I don't know. There's also a disconnect between what Dr. Thao Nguyen testified and what is recorded in the intent to file papers esp regarding the IAP. I can't reconcile the two. They can't both be accurate. (And I've totally lost track of what has happened with that suit of Joe's.)
Thank you for taking the time to reply...I know it i all so confusing....I think the truth is in their somewhere..I think it is left up to us to decipher it..
 
You're welcome, xthunderx2 ! The truth, yes, indeed. It is out there, somewhere. Where's Sherlock Holmes when you need him, eh?
 
Giving propofol in a HOME without the proper rescue equipment would qualify? Giving a general anesthetic in a home is unheard of, but if a doctor does it anyway, having additional personnel AND the capacity to intubate, and to defibrillate, would be essential. As would oxygen, be essential? The tank was EMPTY! All this (to say nothing of the other concerns) would seem to qualify as "great probability of causing harm or death?" With those conditions, "great harm or death" seem inevitable?

that's a question for people with medical knowledge.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn II
Giving propofol in a HOME without the proper rescue equipment would qualify? Giving a general anesthetic in a home is unheard of, but if a doctor does it anyway, having additional personnel AND the capacity to intubate, and to defibrillate, would be essential. As would oxygen, be essential? The tank was EMPTY! All this (to say nothing of the other concerns) would seem to qualify as "great probability of causing harm or death?" With those conditions, "great harm or death" seem inevitable?

The O2 tank could have been empty because he had used it on Michael. I remember Kai Chase saying early on that she would see murray carrying in oxygen tanks, although this hasn't come up yet in testimony that I have seen.

The defense could argue that Michael had been given the propofol over many weeks without any apparent harm. However, that bit 'great probability' certainly would seem to encompass this situation. Common sense would seem to indicate that this was a disaster just waiting to happen.

Remember, too, there's no law against administering such an agent at home. And of course it is madness to even consider giving a general anesthetic outside of a hospital setting. Obviously it doesn't conform to medical standards of care but that that doesn't make it illegal. Medically unsound, medically contraindicated, stupid as hell, yes, but illegal?
 
The defense could argue that Michael had been given the propofol over many weeks without any apparent harm. However, that bit 'great probability' certainly would seem to encompass this situation. Common sense would seem to indicate that this was a disaster just waiting to happen.

Right. And what I'm hoping here is that "common sense" will prevail with the jury. We don't know exactly when or on what occasions Michael was given propofol in the past, but giving it at home, without rescue equipment, does, indeed, sound like "a disaster waiting to happen." And, as it turns out, it WAS.

Remember, too, there's no law against administering such an agent at home. And of course it is madness to even consider giving a general anesthetic outside of a hospital setting. Obviously it doesn't conform to medical standards of care but that that doesn't make it illegal. Medically unsound, medically contraindicated, stupid as hell, yes, but illegal?

That's true. There is no law against it. Maybe because it's SUCH madness it's never come up before? I'm sure this will set some sort of legal precedent, just because it's so unheard of? But yeah, "common sense" among the jury could very well prevail. As in, "What WAS Murray thinking?" If he was thinking, at all?
 
I remember that too. I think it was when the conspiracy charge was added. But I believe the judge also made some changes to the alcohol charges at the end of the trial.

ok. yeah that makes sense cause as i said above he also gave the jury the option of covicting of just giving alcohol to a minor. so that happened at the end and the facilitating abuse charges were added at the GJ?
 
Back
Top