Latest on MJJC

Murray Trial - 6 October - Day 8 - Discussion

lemon662 said:
I hate to say this but it seems really very bizarre and somewhat creepy that there was a porcelan doll in/on MJ's bed. Not sure if he routinely "slept" with such a doll.........or perhaps Murray put it there intentionally (prior to EMS arriving) to make MJ look somewhat "off"?
Click to expand...

That's the least strange thing you'd find in a bedroom of a father of 3. If one doll is creepy, then I would be beyond creepy. My son literally deposits every stuffed animal and toy he ever owned, toy trains and yes, he even put a doll in my sleeping quarters. He once had quite the 'doll' phase and dragged that doll all across the house.

Michael had large scale mannequins in the past= a small porcelain is very harmless. Some people love these types of dolls, one is nothing. Some have entire rooms filled with them.
I know many adults that kept/keep stuffed animals for example. And often people have these items in their bedrooms because that's one room that's private to them.

Considering that we're talking Michael here- I'm surprised at the level of 'ordinary' if you will.
 
wendy2004 said:
There were no records from 2009. Walgren went down the dates of Murray's treatment (exams and whatnot) which dated back to 2006 yet NO 2009 exam sheets or records were submitted for 2009 when we know Murray started spending the night in May 2009. Hopefully, the jury took note of this omission. It shows Murray, to this day, is still hiding info and covering his butt. Where are the records from May and June before MJ died. There should have been some to document the treatments he was giving/doing. He wrote prescriptions for MJ in 2009 and most prescriptions are written based on some sort of examination of the patient...yet Murray submitted zero exam sheets for 2009.
Click to expand...

I say, lets start first by cut NVM
 
Anyone know where I can find ALL of Dan Anderson's testimony from today?? Without any editing?? Because I know people are posting them on Youtube, but some are taking parts out and not posting the trial in its entirety. I totally forgot to set it to record again after I came back home and I missed a good 3 hours :(
 
Autumn II said:
Ah, ok. Good thing Michael's fingerprints weren't on any of them!
Click to expand...

Exactly! And I was a lil surprised to see the meds Murray prescribed on the table cuz I initially thought he had gathered those up for hiding along with the vials of propofol, lidocaine and injectable benzos. Considering all the stuff he had in there it's no surprise he ran out of time to "clean up" more.

I saw that pic of Murray going into the hospital with a watch (or whatever it was) on his wrist and wondered if maybe he hid anything in those cargo pockets of his. :ninja:
 
wendy2004 said:
Exactly! And I was a lil surprised to see the meds Murray prescribed on the table cuz I initially thought he had gathered those up for hiding along with the vials of propofol, lidocaine and injectable benzos. Considering all the stuff he had in there it's no surprise he ran out of time to "clean up" more.

I saw that pic of Murray going into the hospital with a watch (or whatever it was) on his wrist and wondered if maybe he hid anything in those cargo pockets of his. :ninja:
Click to expand...

Which is why I said they can't charge him for corrupting a crime scene because he left so much behind. Even if they never found the bag, the DA would still have a good idea what was going on.

I still don't understand why Murray's defense took a stance that goes against science and can be so easily disproved. They must had known from the tox that the 8 pill story would never hold along with the demerol crap. I can't think of an expert who can agree with them without calling forward questions in their creditability since science is more or less absolute and it's obvious that the guy from the corona's office knows his stuff. Not to mention Michael's prints not being on the table or on those pill bottles.

I just can't understand the defense I think keep thinking I'm missing something. I guess we won't know until it's the defense turn.
 
Ramona122003 said:
Which is why I said they can't charge him for corrupting a crime scene because he left so much behind. Even if they never found the bag, the DA would still have a good idea what was going on.
Click to expand...

Actually, he probably could have been charged with "obstruction," for trying to hide things, and for lying to police.

Ramona122003 said:
I still don't understand why Murray's defense took a stance that goes against science and can be so easily disproved. They must had known from the tox that the 8 pill story would never hold along with the demerol crap. I can't think of an expert who can agree with them without calling forward questions in their creditability since science is more or less absolute and it's obvious that the guy from the corona's office knows his stuff. Not to mention Michael's prints not being on the table or on those pill bottles.

I just can't understand the defense I think keep thinking I'm missing something. I guess we won't know until it's the defense turn.
Click to expand...

The defense doesn't have much material to work with, so I think they are throwing theories at the wall to see if any of them stick? An accused person has the right to a defense -- doesn't mean they are not guilty, or that the defense can even FIND anything in their favor? Best they can probably hope for is to pick small holes in individual testimonies. The substance of the case is unchanging, though. Almost unimaginably gross negligence!
 
Soundmind said:
Only an idiot leaves a syringe inserted into the tube of an IV system at a death scene when the victim is 50 years old and there is no apparent cause of death. How could an investigator leave a bottle of juice at the scene found open near the bed ,what if he was poisoned?
Click to expand...

I'll be blunt and say it - because most probably they treated it as an OD from recreational drugs. All of their actions - not taking all the items, not talking to everyone in detail, not doing securing the location - to me shows that they either treated this as a natural death or an OD.
 
CrazyVegasMJ said:
Idk why exactly but I really kinda like Jane Valez Mitchell.. I remember her during the 2005 trial an even now she seems very fair about what she reports and how she covers both sides.. Plus this interview she just did with one of MJ's friends from the Partridge Family was really nice and it seemed like she and he were trying to convince people that he could not have committed such acts with kids and how he was always misunderstood..
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, Jane Velez-Mitchell is the enemy, don't be fooled by her, she's Nancy Grace's puppet in training!

Anyway, did they choose to not air the part of the recording of MJ describing his family as greedy as reported by ABC yesterday? I really want to know if there's any truth to that.
 
Last edited:
Autumn II said:
Actually, he probably could have been charged with "obstruction," for trying to hide things, and for lying to police.



The defense doesn't have much material to work with, so I think they are throwing theories at the wall to see if any of them stick? An accused person has the right to a defense -- doesn't mean they are not guilty, or that the defense can even FIND anything in their favor? Best they can probably hope for is to pick small holes in individual testimonies. The substance of the case is unchanging, though. Almost unimaginably gross negligence!
Click to expand...

The obstruction is kind of vague since he did tell the polices about the bag and lying to police opens another set of worms. I know the lawyers on TruTV said he could be charge with taping Michael while he was drug because it's against CA wiring tapping laws to record someone without their permission, but it's a hard charge to use because the only two people who would really know are Michael and Murray.

I think the DA went with one charge to keep thing simple for the jury. If they put too much, some things could be lost in translation. One of the many factors that killed Sneddon's case in 05 is that he put too many freaking charges and made things too complicated.

As for the defense, we shouldn't count them out yet until we see their side. As T-Mez said, things should look bad for the defense at this point otherwise the DA shouldn't had brought the case to court in the first place. Although, given some of the things they have been doing, I'm not sure what kind of reasonable doubt they can use. They seemed to have been shot down at every point.

I don't know. I maybe over thinking this, but the defense's plan has been bothering me ever since Murray has been charge because I don't think he would had pleaded not guilty if he didn't think he had some kind of wiggle room.
 
ForeverKOP said:
Anyone know where I can find ALL of Dan Anderson's testimony from today?? Without any editing?? Because I know people are posting them on Youtube, but some are taking parts out and not posting the trial in its entirety. I totally forgot to set it to record again after I came back home and I missed a good 3 hours :(
Click to expand...

there should be a court transript but I'm not sure if it's available. Someone here may know. Ivy?
 
Ramona122003 said:
I think the DA went with one charge to keep thing simple for the jury. If they put too much, some things could be lost in translation. One of the many factors that killed Sneddon's case in 05 is that he put too many freaking charges and made things too complicated.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think what killed Sneddon's case is that there was NO credible evidence, at all. Plus some of the scenarios were so absurd that they must have offended the jury's intelligence? Hot air balloons????? A lot like some of Murray's initial statements? "No phones were working in the house." Uhm, NO? He had "no idea what time it was; he had no sense of time?" Photos of Murray at the hospital show him wearing a WATCH, for cripes sake! I really wouldn't discount the jury's capacity to know bull-dung when they see, and smell it?

Sneddon was well-known for stacking charges, and it had worked to his advantage often in the past.
 
ExoticPrincess said:
Make no mistake, Jane Velez-Mitchell is the enemy, don't be fooled by her, she's Nancy Grace's puppet in training!

Anyway, did they choose to not air the part of the recording of MJ describing his family as greedy as reported by ABC yesterday? I really want to know if there's any truth to that.
Click to expand...

Who was to report this piece?
 
I believe Conrad Murray injected dangerous drugs into Michael Jackson with the intention of killing him,
and he did just that. The evidence laid out in court fits this scenario.
Why would he do this to Michael Jackson?
I believe Conrad Murray has become a highly paid corporate hit man.
 
Autumn II said:
Actually, I think what killed Sneddon's case is that there was NO credible evidence, at all. Plus some of the scenarios were so absurd that they must have offended the jury's intelligence? Hot air balloons????? A lot like some of Murray's initial statements? "No phones were working in the house." Uhm, NO? He had "no idea what time it was; he had no sense of time?" Photos of Murray at the hospital show him wearing a WATCH, for cripes sake! I really wouldn't discount the jury's capacity to know bull-dung when they see, and smell it?

Sneddon was well-known for stacking charges, and it had worked to his advantage often in the past.
Click to expand...

Sneddon stack charges hoping one of them would stick as well as scare the defended into a plead bargain. There's a reason why they called him bull dog.

On subject, I still not sure how well the charges are going to stack. Juries can be really smart or really dumb depending on how the case is presented.
 
ExoticPrincess said:
Make no mistake, Jane Velez-Mitchell is the enemy, don't be fooled by her, she's Nancy Grace's puppet in training!

Anyway, did they choose to not air the part of the recording of MJ describing his family as greedy as reported by ABC yesterday? I really want to know if there's any truth to that.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. I don't recall hearing anything in Murray's secret recording of MJ where MJ speaks to his family being "greedy".....does that mean we didn't hear the ENTIRE recording and that there was stuff we didn't hear him say re: his family? If so, how is it that others have heard it? How are things like this released to the media? If this recording was obtained during the investigation when Murray's phone was forensically examined, how would ABC get a copy of the entire recording -- why would investigators release it to the media?
 
Autumn II said:
Actually, I think what killed Sneddon's case is that there was NO credible evidence, at all.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Ramona, I have to ask this: do you REALLY think that overcomplicating things was what killed Sneddon's case? Not that he didn't have a case at all? Not that Michael was innocent? Actually that's the excuse that people like Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace used when they were trying to communicate why Michael was found innocent. But it's anti-MJ BS. He was found innocent because he was innocent! Sneddon wasn't overcomplicating anything. He simply did not have a case. Period. He had no credible witnesses. He had no evidence. In fact, people about whom prosecution witnesses claimed that they saw MJ molesting them, came to the stand for the defense and testified MJ never touched them. Of course, all those prosecution witnesses who claimed to see things had an axe to grind against Michael after he sued them in the 90s and they were ordered to pay him millions.

Sorry for the off, but I found that comment about Sneddon losing just because he was overcomplicating things very offensive.
 
respect77 said:
Exactly!

Ramona, I have to ask this: do you REALLY think that overcomplicating things was what killed Sneddon's case? Not that he didn't have a case at all? Not that Michael was innocent? Actually that's the excuse that people like Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace used when they were trying to communicate why Michael was found innocent. But it's anti-MJ BS. He was found innocent because he was innocent! Sneddon wasn't overcomplicating anything. He simply did not have a case. Period. He had no credible witnesses. He had no evidence. In fact, people about whom prosecution witnesses claimed that they saw MJ molesting them, came to the stand for the defense and testified MJ never touched them. Of course, all those prosecution witnesses who claimed to see things had an axe to grind against Michael after he sued them in the 90s and they were ordered to pay him millions.

Sorry for the off, but I found that comment about Sneddon losing just because he was overcomplicating things very offensive.
Click to expand...

If you actually read my post, I clearly said 'part' of the reason. Even if you wanted to believe the molesting charges, the whole conspiracy story killed it. Maybe if the supposed victims spent more time getting their basic story together instead of making this complex story from hell, they may of stood a chance.

Really, if you're going to be insulted by my post, at least get what I said right.
 
CherubimII said:
I believe Conrad Murray injected dangerous drugs into Michael Jackson with the intention of killing him, and he did just that. The evidence laid out in court fits this scenario. Why would he do this to Michael Jackson?
I believe Conrad Murray has become a highly paid corporate hit man.
Click to expand...

Cheribum. With all respect I understand that you may feel that way and I would really like to discuss this with you. But we dont want to go into conspiracy theories in the trial discussions. Even though it may be your opinion. AEG SONY or anyone else is not on trial here. Only Dr Murray is. So Please take conspiracy discussions to the controversy forum. State the evidence you see that shows how DR Murray's actions implicate a corporate plan. I would and maybe others would be interested in discussing that with you in the appropriate forum. Thanks
 
Mod Note Please stay on topic -
a few posts to the side are fine but please dont turn this thread into a debate or argument about the 2005 Trial
You are more than welcome to start a thread and continue your debate in the controversial forum _ Thanks
 
Ramona122003 said:
If you actually read my post, I clearly said 'part' of the reason. Even if you wanted to believe the molesting charges, the whole conspiracy story killed it. Maybe if the supposed victims spent more time getting their basic story together instead of making this complex story from hell, they may of stood a chance.
Click to expand...

The conspiracy charges had to be brought in because without them the molestation charges would have made even less sense. Sneddon had to explain somhow why the family kept praising Michael even after the molestation allegedly happened.
It's not a case of "overcomplication" - it's that Sneddon HAD to explain this.

qbee, I'm sorry. It rubs me in a wrong way when someone suggests Michael "got off" because of bad prosecution. Even if it's cited as just "one of the reasons". No. The reason why Michael was acquitted was that he was totally, 100% innocent. Period.
 
Personally, I don't like it at all that we still can't get a clear picture of what happened to Michael. There is something really wrong when the story keeps changing. In the first nine months after Michael died, the story changed four or five different times according to all the different articles published in the media. The shifting stories involved everything from no phones working in the house to call 911 becoming Murray being distracted because he was on the phone down to all the different times he claimed for when he found Michael in distress. Not to mention all the new defense theories that keep popping up even during this trial. All of this really bothers me. To me, if Murray had been telling the truth from the very beginning, there would be no need for all of these " But what ifs" and switch-ups. This is all just my opinion.
 
Please somebody tell me again for what reason this trial shoul be on TV? :sad:

And I'm not implying that is hurtful for us but it is for Michael and for those who care the most about him.

And all the vultures out there waiting and then picking on most disturbing aspects.SMH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top