elusive moonwalker
Guests
its not realy as easy as that. in every case u have two sets of theories two sets of evidence. its not like if the defence give their theory of what happened and because that theory makes their client look innocent then the jury has to aquit. if that were the case u would never get a conviction.its about whos more believeable (unless its a case with DNA etc.) its about murray showing he wasnt recklessnes. yes ppl say the pros is the one that has to do the proving. but not in a case like this imo where u arent proving it was murray who committed the crime like with other cases where the person says blatently it wasnt me. this is about whether what he did was neglegent and its upto him to explain why his actions werent and why he did the things he did. just as much as its upto the pros to say they wereBut doesn't all the defense have to do is plant some doubt in the jury's mind?
let them say that to the jury. you realise your statement is an admittance of guilt? u admitted it was reckless. thats the MS charge.whether giving dip is legal is irrelvent to the charge. hes not charged with giving mj an illlegal drugThe defense can say that after all what murray did was not illegal. He was using his professional judgement as a doctor. Yes, it was flawed judgement, reckless even but not illegal. Maybe a juror will start thinking, well, after all he is a doctor and who am I to second guess a doctor...then what happens?
