elusive moonwalker
Guests
Fingerprints were found but it could not be established whos they were. thats different to ruling out someone altogether
Latest on MJJC
Jury Deliberations - Discussion thread as we wait
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
- Status
elusive moonwalker
Guests
I guess the fact the jury have asked for nothing but a highlighter could be seen as a good thing.interms of there are no arguments so no need to ask fo read backs or evidence to defend an opinion. implies they are just reading through stuff and hopefully using the highlighter to highlight murrays lies
Autumn II
Proud Member
I don't think it's said anywhere in the jury instructions that "they have to agree on a theory," is it? They have to agree that Murray acted with extreme negligence, and he was a significant contributing factor in Michael's death, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why the prosecution case stressed "seventeen points of egregious failures of standard of care." With Murray not testifying, it would be almost impossible to develop a credible theory, anyway.
Problem is, that the jury must AGREE. The verdict must be unanimous. I thought it was very possible we'd get a verdict on Friday, but that didn't happen. I see two primary possibilities now. One is that they are going through all the evidence with a fine-toothed comb, and that's taking time. The other possibility is that they took a straw vote, but they are not unanimous.
I don't think there will be an acquittal. The prosecution's case was very strong, and the defense case was not. A negative outcome at this point would more likely be a "hung jury," i.e. they can't reach an agreement. Trying the case AGAIN would be possible, if that happens.
Last edited:
it does appear like that
Weren't Michael's and Murray's fingerprints specifically ruled out? As well as Alberto's? Or was that stipulation regarding the Propofol bottles only?
As for the person claiming people want a quick verdict to ''move on in their lives'' WTH?! I find this insulting and offending on SO MANY LEVELS.
If you want to ''move on with your life'' as you accuse others of, then there is nothing wrong, but let me just state this, for me having a quick verdict has NOTHING to do with 'moving on', I want a quick verdict because the odds of Murray getting away are higher the longer this deliberation takes. And there is many more members who share the same concerns, and these concerns have NOTHING to do with selfish motives such moving on with our lives. So stop throwing around accusations.
Last edited:
everyone please relax and wait. please consider this from jury's perspective
We - for 2 years from every bit of information on media tried to follow and solve Michael's death
Jury - they said they didn't follow the case and even if they did they need to put everything they know aside
We- everyday during/ after testimony discussed what we heard that day in detail
Jury - they weren't allowed to talk anything and told to wait till the end
We- based on our previous information and following had already made our decisions about what might have happened and who is guilty
Jury - they need to start with innocent and then find the guilt or innocence.
as you can see what seems as obvious to as is something new and to be determined to a jury.
and also as I said before this is a case with a lot of medical factors included. That's not easy. And this is a high profile case they might not wanted to rush the decision.
T-mez had said he believed the jury would get the case by friday - and he was right. and he said a mid-week verdict kinda like tuesday - wednesday.
-------------------------------------------------------------
If I was the jury I would start with 2 main theories presented : Murray put Michael on a drip versus Michael self injected. And decide on what I believe to be the case. It would require to evaluate the medical evidence / testimony which would be hard for layman and would take time.
If I believe Murray put Michael on a drip and that caused him death - I would stop and come with a guilty verdict as Murray was the direct cause.
If I believed Michael self injected (or couldn't decide between the two alternatives and followed the one that assumed not guilt on Murray's part per jury instructions), the next task would be to go over the 17 violations of standard of care and to see if I think they significantly contributed to Michael's death.
As you can see it's not a that easy and quick task to do
We - for 2 years from every bit of information on media tried to follow and solve Michael's death
Jury - they said they didn't follow the case and even if they did they need to put everything they know aside
We- everyday during/ after testimony discussed what we heard that day in detail
Jury - they weren't allowed to talk anything and told to wait till the end
We- based on our previous information and following had already made our decisions about what might have happened and who is guilty
Jury - they need to start with innocent and then find the guilt or innocence.
as you can see what seems as obvious to as is something new and to be determined to a jury.
and also as I said before this is a case with a lot of medical factors included. That's not easy. And this is a high profile case they might not wanted to rush the decision.
T-mez had said he believed the jury would get the case by friday - and he was right. and he said a mid-week verdict kinda like tuesday - wednesday.
-------------------------------------------------------------
If I was the jury I would start with 2 main theories presented : Murray put Michael on a drip versus Michael self injected. And decide on what I believe to be the case. It would require to evaluate the medical evidence / testimony which would be hard for layman and would take time.
If I believe Murray put Michael on a drip and that caused him death - I would stop and come with a guilty verdict as Murray was the direct cause.
If I believed Michael self injected (or couldn't decide between the two alternatives and followed the one that assumed not guilt on Murray's part per jury instructions), the next task would be to go over the 17 violations of standard of care and to see if I think they significantly contributed to Michael's death.
As you can see it's not a that easy and quick task to do
christy
Proud Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,223
- Points
- 48
Exactly, opinions are already formed.
The jury are just trying ADHERE to Judge Pastor's handed down instructions to a T.
17 deviations of standard of care, and throw in CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. ( Murray trying to hide evidence)..how else would'nt the prosecution have proven their case beyond reasonable doubt Dr. Conrad Murray is guilty.
IM is the lowest charge for his manslaughter case. This is not 2nd degree murder.
Just one deviation is enough to find him guilty.
With 17, & Consciousnes of Guilt is enough to nail him in the coffin 18 times over.
Yes, we discussed it, we rewatched parts on youtube, etc. I remember the thing with "the EMT's found him on the bed" and Alberto saying they put him on the floor during the 911 call. I got confused and was wondering why either Senneff or Alberto would lie and that they don't have a reason to lie. Or if one of them just got it wrong after almost 2 1/2 years. I really wanted to have this cleared up (it wouldn't have been all that relevant, especially with later testimony about the violations of standard of care, but it was still confusing and I really wanted to know what's going on there). And then somebody posted Senneff's report where it says that they found him on the floor. EMT's also said that they had to move him to a different part of the floor, because they needed more space, which wouldn't make sense if they found him on the bed. Because in that case they probably would have put him on the floor where they have enough space in the first place, they do this every day, they know how much space they need for their equipment and to do their work. And moving him to a different part of the floor could also be the reason why Senneff remembered it wrong, because they actually did move him, but probably not from the bed. That was my conclusion.
And the conversation took a while, as far as I remember, it wasn't a 2 minute thing.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
walgren should have cleared that up re the medic as the defence are trying to discredit alberto and thats one of the things they will use against him.it hapoened in the prelim and walgren had yo set the nedic straight with his report.why they didnt do that again i dont know.
sorry for the negatvity im having a really bad day today
sorry for the negatvity im having a really bad day today
no need for apologies, I can relate to your feelings, this deliberation continuing to next week just makes us anxious, and ur right elusive he should have done it again. Now I dont know about that paramedic, but imo he came across weird saying he didn't recognize Michael when the other one did immediately, at first saying he doesn't know how murray looked, when he got back to the room where he caught him putting things in a bag, but when Walgren read back his prelim testimony about the 'deer caught in headlight' part, he agreed that Murray looked surprised.
All this is just too tough
All this is just too tough
Yeah, I don't know why they didn't clear that up. Maybe because the report is in evidence anyway and was shown. Or maybe he just didn't want to make Senneff look like either a liar or somebody who doesn't remember things correctly.
qbee
Proud Member
^^ That is correct becuase each persom might be focusing on different things at the time of the event they are describing. One might see something the other doesnt. So there can be 2 seemingly different version of the same story. Also remembering everthing exact is very difficult especially after some time has passed.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Yes thats very true but when one of those ppl is been attacked by the defence as a liar you dont give them something else to be used against them
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Yeah 0830
Yes, I know. But back then at the beginning of the trial we also didn't have the jury instructions (although I'm sure that they are pretty much the same or very similar in all cases, but unless you followed tons of trials, you wouldn't know). But even with the instructions, if I was a juror, I'd still want to discuss this with the other ones to understand why that happened. Like I said, I'd think he is guilty from the start after everything I have heard in the trial and would also vote guilty, but would say that I don't want to rush this and have a couple of things that I want to look into. And would probably drive the other ones crazy.
That's also why I said we don't know what they are talking about and if it takes them longer, it could mean some think he is not guilty, but it could also mean that some are just very "correct". Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
What I mean is just that getting very nervous after only one day or getting upset about the jurors is not really necessary. Of course we all would have wanted a quick verdict, because when we hear they reached a verdict, we still have to wait 2 hours and a quick verdict would mean they probably found him guilty and that would have made those 2 hours a little bit easier.
Vici
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,758
- Points
- 48
Im not that of a spiritual person but if someone here is fond of the number 7 then take a look here 
Monday is the 7th november. It is also the beginning of the 7th week of the trial. On Monday, the 7th hour of deliberations will continue.
So if the jury will reach a verdict on Monday, im sure alot of people will see a symbolic value in it...
Monday is the 7th november. It is also the beginning of the 7th week of the trial. On Monday, the 7th hour of deliberations will continue.
So if the jury will reach a verdict on Monday, im sure alot of people will see a symbolic value in it...
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
hummmmm. there it is then lolIm not that of a spiritual person but if someone here is and fond of the number 7 then take a look here
Vici
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,758
- Points
- 48
LOL right??
You can see signs in a lot of things and want them to mean something but yeah Im guessing a lot of people will like this - assuming a verdict will be reached on monday mjjangel2002
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 685
- Points
- 18
guys stop attacking ing ok she is a sweet person let he say what she feels ok i love all of you angels be nice
absolutely correct. if you have 100 people witness the same event you'll get 100 different versions of the events.
actually I think if you add Alberto with Senneff and Blount , it shows that he wasn't lying. You have Alberto saying he asked him to collect some items. You have Senneff saying he put items in a trash bag and you have Blount saying he saw 3 vials which later disappeared. To me it's apparent that Murray was collecting items.
Ingelief
Proud Member
agree elusive
Ingelief
Proud Member
Ive got another question if its ok by everybody me asking questions? If there is a hungjury, but only by 1 person. Is that going to count? OR is even a 1 person stubbern make the case a hungjury?
I dont know but there are alternate jurors. Can they come in if there is only 1 person disagree with the rest? OR is that not allowed?
Sorry i just dont know much about US legal system. I couldnt sleep last night because of the stress around the verdict.
I dont know but there are alternate jurors. Can they come in if there is only 1 person disagree with the rest? OR is that not allowed?
Sorry i just dont know much about US legal system. I couldnt sleep last night because of the stress around the verdict.
Ingelief
Proud Member
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Yeah.thats the issue i was talking about.the collecting of vials was defo shown to be true and helps AA credibility
elusive moonwalker
Guests
A hung jury is a hung jury regardless of the numbers. spector case was 10-2 i believe. alternates only come in if a jurror is taken off the case say cause of illness
Yes, it does. They tried to call Alberto a liar, but there are other witnesses who confirm a lot of important points of his testimony.
it was good that those who confirmed Alberto's version where independent witnesses, that had nothing to do with Michael, Chernoff and Co. would have gone on about the big security conspiracy otherwise (they still did but still)
- Status