Conrad Murray: "MJ hired me and HATED AEG"

[crillon]

Re/the restitution issue...I now understand (thank you, Ivy) that had the Jacksons requested restitution, whatever amount ordered by the court would be deducted from whatever they could potentially get from the AEG trial. Clearly, they hoped for a big payday from AEG--40 (obscene) billion dollars. But, they could have asked the court for something--say, $1 million--just to get a restitution order in place and exact some protections for MJ's legacy & against Murray benefiting from Michael's death & symbolically extend the punishment for the rest of the felon's life.

 

[Autumn II]

Not totally sure, but I think it would have been up to the judge to set the amount of restitution, most likely based on Michael's projected future earnings. I don't think the Jacksons would have been allowed to "split the difference" that way.

 

[jamba]

And it's not only that absolutely NO support is given other than an opinion, but that when others do provide links and info, there is never any acknowledgement or shift in the original opinion, but instead a snotty putdown. Not helpful!

 

[Petrarose]

Lord please let's not add any new medical problems to that man. I know people are wondering but certain things are quite simple. Michael did not have tinnitus!!!!!!! Michael liked the light on and music. He explained the feeling being drowned in lights make him feel. (I wish I could give a citation but I can't). The lights make him feel happy and loved because it is when he is on stage where he feels most comfortable, happy & loved, the lights are present. Therefore, in the room when the light is on him he tries to trap that feeling. He loves music. He said he finds classical music soothing. It is like moms putting ear phones with music on their tummies for the baby to hear.

Tinnitus is not easy. You have a constant ringing in your ears.

Lastear I seem to have different information from you. The nurse Did tell Michael no more Red Bulls and made him stop. Maybe he sneaked them back, but she made him stop according to her testimony.

No one here knows that the nurse gave him the vitamin for no reason. People are saying she gave him something he did not need, but we do not know the holistic reason why she gave that to him.

She told him to cut off the music and turn off the light. He said NO that is the way I always sleep. You cannot get Michael to do something he does not want to do.

By the way, my mom sleeps with the light and tv on. She does not have tinnitus, nor is she afraid of the dark. She also has the window halfway open winter or summer. You can see the curtains blowing in the wind when the freezing wind blows, but she keeps that window open, because she claims she can't sleep without fresh air. There are several people who sleep with music on. Some keep prayer music on. Some keep popular music on. Some keep classical music on. Michael is not the only person who does this.

Some people study with loud music. Some people can't and have to have complete quiet.

 

[twinklEE]

I dont see the issue about Michael sleeping with the lights, TV, and music on. It may sound like it was too much but some people having specific sleeping habits and sometimes they need the noise. I HAVE TO sleep with music on for years, I can not sleep any other way, if the bedroom is quiet I wouldn't be able to stop thinking. The music helps me not hear myself think and switch off.

 

[crillon]

Not totally sure, but I think it would have been up to the judge to set the amount of restitution, most likely based on Michael's projected future earnings. I don't think the Jacksons would have been allowed to "split the difference" that way.

Here's the link to CA restitution mandatory fines: http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/docs/forms/victims/restitution/benchguide.pdf

If my memory is correct, after the DA presented the Estate's ballpark figure of Michael's future earnings in court, Judge Pastor ordered a breakdown of those projections. I think the DA suggests a number & the court decides.

I dont see the issue about Michael sleeping with the lights, TV, and music on. It may sound like it was too much but some people having specific sleeping habits and sometimes they need the noise. I HAVE TO sleep with music on for years, I can not sleep any other way, if the bedroom is quiet I wouldn't be able to stop thinking. The music helps me not hear myself think and switch off.

I think in Randy Taraborelli's book, he explains that Michael told him he wanted the lights & music on to simulate being on stage. That if he could "live his entire life on stage" he would be happy. (I'll try to find the page no.)

 

[Petrarose]

^^Crillon that sounds like it about the lights and stage. I did not read that book, but I heard Michael mention this before somewhere. I just can't place it right now.

 

[crillon]

^^Crillon that sounds like it about the lights and stage. I did not read that book, but I heard Michael mention this before somewhere. I just can't place it right now.

I've heard it a couple of times--Randy's book and then one of those magazine interviews Michael did--Ebony, maybe?

 

[Tygger]

Again: simply typing the doctor’s name and malpractice in a search engine and reading any one of those countless articles will show the general public preferred a malpractice charge

Last Tear, it is simple: Katherine said why she rejected restitution and her answer did not satisfy those who felt she should have accepted. There is not much more to that conversation than to continually repeat either one does not accept her choice or one does.

Michael Jackson thought AEG were hateful snakes: Conrad Murray's prison rant
23 Aug 2013 11:47
In a detailed answer machine message recorded in prison, Doctor Conrad Murray reveals he was not hired by AEG but by ***** himself

Singer Micheal Jackson thought AEG were "snakes" who were pressurising the star to make more and more money, the man responsible for his death has alleged.

According to Doctor Conrad Murray the Thriller star "despised" AEG staff in the months before his death.

In an explosive answer machine message, recorded from prison, Conrad, who was convicted of administering the fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol to the singer, alleges:

That he was hired by Micheal and not AEG
AEG wanted a different doctor, who was cheaper but Micheal insisted on Dr Murray
Micheal had soaring loans - from AEG, up to $40 million
To the best of Dr Murray's knowledge, AEG had no idea what medical treatment Micheal was receiving
This Is It director Kenny Ortega put unbearable pressure on Micheal
Murray claims during the Jackson 5 reunion project, Joe demanded $1 million. Katherine also wanted $1 million. And each of the brothers wanted $500k.

A crucial part of the Jackson's case is that AEG negligently hired and supervised Murray while the singer was preparing for his 50 comeback concerts in London.

AEG argue that Jackson hired the doctor and that any money the company was supposed to pay the doctor was an advance to the singer.

It is not known when or if Murray will give evidence.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-dead-trail-conrad-2211316#ixzz2dntxTzVU

 

[LastTear]

Maybe I was mistaken on the red bull, I think because CM had also mentioned them that I assumed they were always there. Regarding the lights, music etc, as I said earlier I understand the music or TV because it can switch your mind off - but it needs to be turned off or it will wake you during the night.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that Michael did all those things and couldn't sleep, so all the things he liked didn't work for him, therefore those things should be changed. I don't know whether he had tried changing patterns or not.

Even taking part in late rehearsals wouldnt have helped because he would have been pumped up with adrenaline.

 

[soulmum]

Switching off is always a big problem when you need to sleep. So often I have dozed off in front of the TV only to wake up and retire to bed to find that sleep is elusive. How I wish that Michael had been referred to a sleep clinic and kept up with the treatments etc until he was able to enjoy a peaceful and restorative nights sleep.

 

[qbee]

Again: simply typing the doctor’s name and malpractice in a search engine and reading any one of those countless articles will show the general public preferred a malpractice charge.

Tygger I simply did what you asked and was expecting to find at least a few articles to back your claim.. but not even ONE. I searched Bing as well and even searched for polls and couldn't find anything to support your view that the majority of general public was in favor of a lesser charge. if you cant prove your point its time to concede or at least back off from defending this view. Its such a small concession and the point is not even relevant to this case.

Google: dr conrad murray malpractice (20 top results)

1. Michael Jackson and Conrad Murray: A Cauldron of Malpractice ...
   ‎Nov 29, 2011 - Malpractice becomes manslaughter for Conrad Murray, doc of ... for this doctor to engage in criminal negligence and medical malpractice?
   
   
2. Jackson Trial: When Does Malpractice Become Criminal
   <cite style="white-space: nowrap; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal;">news.discovery.com/human/.../medical-malpractice-jackson-111006.htm</cite>&#8206;Oct 6, 2011 - Find out when does malpractice become criminal in this article. ... Dr. Conrad Murray during his involuntary manslaughter trial at the Los ...
   
   
3. Dr. Conrad Murray's Trial involving the death of Michael Jackson ... <cite style="white-space: nowrap; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal;">medicalmalpracticelawyersite.com/...malpractice/dr-conrad-murrays-trial</cite>Dec 6, 2011 - Michael Jackson's personal physician was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment in an L.A. County jail last month. The sentencing concluded a ...
   
   
4. Malpractice & Sanctions Information for Dr. Conrad R. Murray, MD ...
   <cite class="bc" style="white-space: nowrap; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal;">www.healthgrades.com &#8250; ... &#8250; Nevada (NV) &#8250; Las Vegas</cite>&#8206; Las Vegas NV - &#8206;Internal Medicine
   
   
5. Conrad Murray - The New York Times
   <cite>topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/.../m/conrad_murray/index.html</cite>&#8206;
   NBC's morning program will show exclusive interviews on Thursday and Friday with Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the ...
   
   
6. Dr. Conrad Murray Case Highlights Criminal vs. Civil Medical ...
   <cite class="bc" style="white-space: nowrap; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal;">www.legalpad.com &#8250; Medical Malpractice</cite>&#8206; Nov 14, 2011 - Dr. Conrad Murray Case Highlights Criminal vs. Civil Medical Malpractice Issues :: San Diego Injury Law Blog.
   
   Conrad Murray&#8211; A Smooth Criminal? | Notes From The Heart
7. <cite style="white-space: nowrap; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal;">aamerj.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/conrad-murray-a-smooth-criminal _</cite>Oct 5, 2011 - The trial of Dr. Conrad Murray, the physician involved in the death of pop ... This is clearly an egregious case of medical malpractice, a civil
   
   
8. Dr. Conrad Murray acted with 'gross negligence' in treatment of ...<cite style="white-space: nowrap;">www.cleveland.com/.../index.../dr_conrad_murray_acted_with_gr.html</cite>&#8206;_ Oct 13, 2011 - The experts, a cardiologist and a sleep expert who both practice emergency medicine, said Murray should have never been giving Jackson ..
   
   
9. Dr. Conrad Murray's guilty | iCitizenForum<cite style="white-space: nowrap;">www.icitizenforum.com/
   </cite>Nov 10, 2011 - The legal case regarding the death of Michael Jackson ended. The verdict was involuntary manslaughter, and it was in contrast to the death being an act of malpractice.
   
   
10. Michael Jackson doctor Conrad Murray found guilty in pop stars death
    <cite style="white-space: nowrap;">www.hitfix.com/.../michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-found-guilty...</cite>&#8206;Nov 7, 2011 - Prosecutors depicted Dr. Conrad Murray as a reckless physician who ... and it was in contrast to the death being an act of malpractice. Basically ...
    
    
11. The Trial of Dr. Conrad Murray--A Lesson in Recklessness and ...
    
    
12. r. Conrad Murray and Medical Malpractice Insurance? | Hoag Law ...
    
    
13. Conrad Murray Trial: Malpractice by Dr. Murray | BackstageOL.com
    
    
    
14. Dr. Conrad C. Murray, Jackson's Doctor, IDENTIFIED - Huffington Post
    
    
    
15. Murderer or Medical Malpractice: The Verdict of Dr. Conrad Murray ...
    
    
    
16. Conrad Murray's Guilty Verdict to Be Followed by Civil Suits - ABC ...
    
    
    
17. Kingston, Medical Malpractice Attorney Discusses the Conclusion of ...
    
    
    
18. Dr. Murray Lawyers Up for Wrongful Death Suit | TMZ.com
    
    
    
19. Legal woes mount for convicted Jackson doctor &#8211; USATODAY.com
    
    
20. Local Law Firms: Dr. Conrad Faces Conviction: News

 

[crillon]

@Tygger, I'm hoping you will concede a discussion when it's clear the facts don't align with your point-of-view, or at least off a few sources to support your opinion. I think Qbee made that point convincingly above, don't you think?

 

[Autumn II]

Qbee made a sincere effort with that list, so I'm hoping that we an put that topic to rest now? (not likely, though . . . . )

 

[Tygger]

My view is the general public supported a malpractice charge over a criminal charge. Qbee&#8217;s list shows no less than 20 links of articles stating the doctor should have been charged with malpractice and NOT a criminal charge.

How can Qbee's list be realistically and logically spun to support the majority argument that the general public actually supported the criminal charge????? One would have to find no less than 20 links of articles stating malpractice was NOT the preferred charge and that is NOT what happened with Qbee&#8217;s post.

This futile argument is not old enough for anyone to forget what side they originally supported or express confusion about what the original argument was.

Adding: I recently read the unreleased Victory Tour footage thread on this forum and at least two posters used the term general public. Not one poster responded with a request for them to define that term or support it with statistics, charts, graphs, etc. Interesting indeed.

 

[Autumn II]

I looked at the links, and couldn't actually find ONE that supported a charge of medical malpractice over a criminal charge. What those articles are actually saying is that indeed, there was malpractice, but it was so egregious that it crossed the line into manslaughter.

Here is a quote from just ONE:

"The technical answer is although there was much medically related testimony, the case did not involve medical malpractice. Rather, it involved criminal homicide, which is death caused at the hand of another with reckless disregard."

 

[ivy]

@ Tygger

general principle on this board (and any board) is to source & reference information and differentiate between an opinion /speculation versus a confirmed fact. This is helpful for the rest of the people participating in discussion because they can look to the sources and references and determine the credibility of the information / argument presented and they know if something written is an opinion / speculation or a fact.

For example : you might seen me source the testimony summaries and you might have seen me provide screencaps from documents when asked / challenged. you might have seen me provide links, examples, quotes from websites, laws etc. to show and explain my point of view. And I'm not alone, almost everyone does it too.

Providing sources / references / links can only make a person's argument stronger. For example we might argue till the end of time about what is negligent hiring based on our perceptions & opinions but a jury instructions from CA law triumphs it all.


The issue here is that majority of your posts are written and read like you are writing factual statements when probably they are nothing more than your opinions or perceptions (they might be strong opinions but still opinions). The tone of your messages ( you rarely discuss anything, you just make statements / declarations) and how you make them sound like facts makes people ask you for a source or reference. You refuse to provide such for whatever reason and it not only hurts your argument but starts this never ending discussion circles. Also telling people to google and find it themselves is not proper etiquette. Nobody is working for you or taking orders from you or required to spend time to confirm your claims. If you care about this discussion, it is expected that you verify your statements. It shouldn't be this hard for you to add 1-2 links to your posts.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, interesting response. No comment on the voice message or malpractice; instead the usual weird attempt to reprimand an adult who does not agree with you and others.

Ivy, it is your perception of my posts and not my posts that is your (and others) issue. When I say "it is my view" or "I believe" and you (and others) decide to debate that as a factual statement it is your decision to do so and to view it as such. I have no control over your (and others) reaction to my posts which has become conditional over these months. If Tygger posts, you will most likely respond in defense of the opposite view even if it may lack reason and logic.

As for links, as you stated, it is not a MJJC rule and for good reason. Links do not automatically support a view or belief just because they are posted. At times links are used to pad an argument or disguises it if one does not read the linked information thoroughly.

Look how Qbee's links are being used to defend the opposite view. Autumn II may believe it supports the opposite view as Autumn II posted a paragraph out of 20 articles. No mention that those 20 links was most likely the first of several pages of links regarding the doctor and malpractice.

Question please: why is the discussion about malpractice? Only because I as opposed to any other mentioned it? The general public are not Michael Jackson fans. The general public has and continues to be suspicious of Michael. However, I am supposed to believe the general public was so concerned with his killer getting justice they supported a criminal charge for the killer of the man they were suspicious of? Try again.

Do not grieve yourself much longer. This civil trial is near its end and you (and others) will not have to concern yourself with conditionally trying to prove my views and beliefs wrong.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ The conversation abt malpractice has continued not because anyone has a vendetta against you but because you post certain views as fact, granted the post before your last one you did say 'I believe' . I enjoy debate and learning others view points and how they reached their views - but I am unable to do this with you because you won't give any background. It is not a rule that you include links but if there is a disagreement and proof of 'facts' have been requested then in order to prevent endless pages of circles links should be provided.

You should re-read Qbee's comments after the links. I guess asking you to pull quotes from those links to show how it supports your beliefs is out of the question?

Im going to be very cheeky and of course you don't have to answer but I am so curious as to why you are only interested in this section of the forum and are hinting you will be gone once the trial is over. I don't know how that reads but it is a genuine interest, nothing rude meant.

 

[Petrarose]

Lastear ^^I have been studying this behavior since 09, and I find it interesting. Some people join the forum during or months before a big event takes place. For instance, some joined during the summer kidnapping, focused on that thread, and then left once the situation was contained.

Some joined months before the AEG trial, and then will leave once the trial is over and all debate is exhausted. When they join right before a major event, they tend to focus on threads that coincide with the group they are going to advocate for when the major event thread starts. Once the big event starts, such fans usually post mainly in the thread of the big event. Also, when Autumn had a thread about the exploitation of the children, people joined and only commented in that thread. Once the thread died down, they left.

Pay attention, and you will see this behavior if that other trial takes place.

 

[ivy]

instead the usual weird attempt to reprimand an adult

It wasn't to reprimand but a good faith effort to explain. If you were willing to listen and perhaps make some changes it could only make your time here and discussion is a lot more pleasant for everyone involved. given how quick you are to accuse people - mainly me- I can't say I'll miss you if you choose to leave.

 

[jamba]

Ivy, interesting response. No comment on the voice message or malpractice; instead the usual weird attempt to reprimand an adult who does not agree with you and others.

Ivy, it is your perception of my posts and not my posts that is your (and others) issue. When I say "it is my view" or "I believe" and you (and others) decide to debate that as a factual statement it is your decision to do so and to view it as such. I have no control over your (and others) reaction to my posts which has become conditional over these months. If Tygger posts, you will most likely respond in defense of the opposite view even if it may lack reason and logic.

As for links, as you stated, it is not a MJJC rule and for good reason. Links do not automatically support a view or belief just because they are posted. At times links are used to pad an argument or disguises it if one does not read the linked information thoroughly.

Look how Qbee's links are being used to defend the opposite view. Autumn II may believe it supports the opposite view as Autumn II posted a paragraph out of 20 articles. No mention that those 20 links was most likely the first of several pages of links regarding the doctor and malpractice.

Question please: why is the discussion about malpractice? Only because I as opposed to any other mentioned it? The general public are not Michael Jackson fans. The general public has and continues to be suspicious of Michael. However, I am supposed to believe the general public was so concerned with his killer getting justice they supported a criminal charge for the killer of the man they were suspicious of? Try again.

Do not grieve yourself much longer. This civil trial is near its end and you (and others) will not have to concern yourself with conditionally trying to prove my views and beliefs wrong.

The first sentence gave me an extended belly laugh b/c it's so predictable and in character!!


Here is an example where an edit would be helpful:

Question please: why is the discussion about malpractice? Only because I as opposed to any other mentioned it? The general public are not Michael Jackson fans [edit: IMO]. The general public has and continues to be suspicious of Michael [edit: IMO]. However, I am supposed to believe the general public was so concerned with his killer getting justice they supported a criminal charge for the killer of the man they were suspicious of? Try again.

NO ONE KNOWS DEFINITELY what the general public thought re the charges b/c, as several people have indicated, no polls were done that we know of. What the journalists choose to write about is separate from what the general public thinks.

Journalists=individuals who write articles in the media (such as newspapers, magazines)

general public=people who may or may not read the articles written by journalists

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, again, I have no control over others&#8217; perception that my views are stated as fact. Michael sang &#8220;You tell me I'm wrong, then you better prove you're right.&#8221; As simple as it could be for me to post a link, it is even more so for others. As the party that needs to be corrected, this thread should have been overflowing with links showing the general public preferred a criminal charge just to prove me wrong!

I find your question about my interest in this section of the forum to be quite incredible. I was not aware that, as an adult, I had to participate in every area or any other area of the forum if it is not my wish. If you review my posts, you will see I did not join shortly before this trial as has been erroneously and ridiculously suggested. I have posted in other areas of this forum and have enjoyed those discussions yet, I received the most resistance when I post in the trial subforums. The views are not as diverse and I do not agree with the majority regarding the trial. I believe I can safely assume that when the trial ends, I and other posters will not discuss the trial in the trial subforum. At that time, those of us who do not agree do not have to converse with one another on an almost daily basis.

Jamba, I do not speak or write as you do and I do not agree with the majority as often as you and others. I am not going to change my speech patterns or my views in an effort to be accepted or acceptable to the posters of this trial subforum. I am free to post my views as is everyone else. I am actually quite proud that I can support my views freely and independently without the endorsements of the majority.

 

[jamba]

I am actually quite proud that I can support my views freely and independently without the endorsements of the majority.

Keep on keeping on!!! I am starting to enjoy this, believe it or not (am I going crazy or what? Or maybe it's late and I am getting silly). In any case, I don't think there is a remote chance you will change one iota so I have accepted that as inevitable.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger Actually you are the only one who can control whether your views are read as fact. If you bring a concept here that you strongly believe in then I would be of the impression that some information has led you to your conclusion, therefore it is actually easier for you to provide the information you have to hand.

The reason I have hinted at whether you enjoy standing out is because you do very little to educate others on your opinions, you seldom expand on it, which is a shame because when you have I have found it interesting.

Of course you are absolutely free to post in whatever section you wish to, I don't post in every thread that is here. It honestly wasn't meant to be a rude question, I apologise if you took it that way.

 

[Autumn II]

Last Tear, again, I have no control over others&#8217; perception that my views are stated as fact. Michael sang &#8220;You tell me I'm wrong, then you better prove you're right.&#8221; As simple as it could be for me to post a link, it is even more so for others. As the party that needs to be corrected, this thread should have been overflowing with links showing the general public preferred a criminal charge just to prove me wrong!

I'll try to be as clear as I can possibly be. I don't think ANYBODY here is suggesting that "the general public preferred a criminal charge." That is the POINT, that nobody here (except for your assertion) is claiming to know WHAT the general public thinks on that issue. Nobody here is going to provide links supporting "the general public preferred a criminal charge" because that information does not exist. I doubt you can provide links supporting "the general public preferred malpractice" because those links do not exist, either. The problem is simple -- and lies in stating an opinion as fact, without supporting the argument. That's all that is being asked -- to differentiate between opinion and fact, and to provide sources for those facts, as a courtesy to others in the thread.

The opposite of "the general public preferred a malpractice charge is actually," "We do not KNOW what the general public preferred. We do not know, because no surveys or polls were taken and there is no data to support WHAT "the general public preferred." Nobody here has said or suggested that "the general public preferred a manslaughter charge," because there is no evidence at all to support that statement. There is also no evidence at all to support the statement "the general public preferred malpractice."

The problem is that there are many interesting points to consider in this thread, but "what the general public preferred" is not one of them," cannot be proven, and has caused the thread to become STUCK. So, the question is, for anyone, "how do you know what you say that you know?" That's a reasonable question, to ask of anyone. I don't see any "reprimands" here, but just continuing appeals to not state opinions as facts. That applies to anyone.

I have posted in other areas of this forum and have enjoyed those discussions yet, I received the most resistance when I post in the trial subforums. The views are not as diverse and I do not agree with the majority regarding the trial. I believe I can safely assume that when the trial ends, I and other posters will not discuss the trial in the trial subforum. At that time, those of us who do not agree do not have to converse with one another on an almost daily basis.

There is no problem with "not agreeing." That's what keeps a conversation lively. The problem is -- that in a more technical forum such as the AEG/Jacksons trial -- one builds one's position with supporting materials and their links, i.e. quoted trial testimony, transcripts, statements in interviews, and so on. One provides links so that others can evaluate the worthiness of a particular source, as in, is it a "sources say" tabloid, or a more credible source of information?

In another sort of thread, it's perfectly ok to say, "Michael looked great in purple." And someone else says, "He looked better when he wore red." Those are OPINIONS, and in those sorts of "opinion forums" that's ok, and expected. But here, we are all engaged with trying to understand a trial that is VERY complex, and providing sources is a courtesy that helps build understanding and moves the discussion along in a lively way. Or, the result will be to ignore the repeated statements of opinions-as-facts, and try to work around that somehow? It's all about CREDIBILITY, and anyone's statements have more credibility if support is provided for a particular position. (and, I realize what I just wrote is an exercise in futuility. :no: . . . .)

 

[jamba]

I'll try to be as clear as I can possibly be. I don't think ANYBODY here is suggesting that "the general public preferred a criminal charge." That is the POINT, that nobody here (except for your assertion) is claiming to know WHAT the general public thinks on that issue. Nobody here is going to provide links supporting "the general public preferred a criminal charge" because that information does not exist. I doubt you can provide links supporting "the general public preferred malpractice" because those links do not exist, either. The problem is simple -- and lies in stating an opinion as fact, without supporting the argument. That's all that is being asked -- to differentiate between opinion and fact, and to provide sources for those facts, as a courtesy to others in the thread.

The opposite of "the general public preferred a malpractice charge is actually," "We do not KNOW what the general public preferred. We do not know, because no surveys or polls were taken and there is no data to support WHAT "the general public preferred." Nobody here has said or suggested that "the general public preferred a manslaughter charge," because there is no evidence at all to support that statement. There is also no evidence at all to support the statement "the general public preferred malpractice."

The problem is that there are many interesting points to consider in this thread, but "what the general public preferred" is not one of them," cannot be proven, and has caused the thread to become STUCK. So, the question is, for anyone, "how do you know what you say that you know?" That's a reasonable question, to ask of anyone. I don't see any "reprimands" here, but just continuing appeals to not state opinions as facts. That applies to anyone.



There is no problem with "not agreeing." That's what keeps a conversation lively. The problem is -- that in a more technical forum such as the AEG/Jacksons trial -- one builds one's position with supporting materials and their links, i.e. quoted trial testimony, transcripts, statements in interviews, and so on. One provides links so that others can evaluate the worthiness of a particular source, as in, is it a "sources say" tabloid, or a more credible source of information?

In another sort of thread, it's perfectly ok to say, "Michael looked great in purple." And someone else says, "He looked better when he wore red." Those are OPINIONS, and in those sorts of "opinion forums" that's ok, and expected. But here, we are all engaged with trying to understand a trial that is VERY complex, and providing sources is a courtesy that helps build understanding and moves the discussion along in a lively way. Or, the result will be to ignore the repeated statements of opinions-as-facts, and try to work around that somehow? It's all about CREDIBILITY, and anyone's statements have more credibility if support is provided for a particular position. (and, I realize what I just wrote is an exercise in futuility. :no: . . . .)

Beautiful!! (And futile) )--it's laugh or cry about that, so I am going for

 

[Tygger]

Repeating: I have NO control over how any other poster perceives my posts. Posters have to ask themselves why they perceive my views as facts and have decided to participate in a weird group reprimand or weird intervention of sorts over a course of several days resulting in no benefit to any participant.

Autumn II, I find it intriguing that you characterized the trial subforum as a technical subforum compared to others at MJJC. I have participated in the trial subforum as you have and I disagree.

 

[jamba]

"Posters have to ask themselves why they perceive my views as facts and have decided to participate in a weird group reprimand or weird intervention of sorts over a course of several days resulting in no benefit to any participant."


I have benefitted--humor is a good way to break the tension. Maybe we are all going bonkers after months of this--or is it just me?

 

[Autumn II]

"Posters have to ask themselves why they perceive my views as facts and have decided to participate in a weird group reprimand or weird intervention of sorts over a course of several days resulting in no benefit to any participant."


I have benefitted--humor is a good way to break the tension. Maybe we are all going bonkers after months of this--or is it just me?

It's not just you.

And for Tygger, it has nothing to do with "perception" at ALL. Either the supporting facts are there, or they are not.

There is much technical information in this subforum, about the law, and medical practice. Citing sources is especially useful here (and in some other more fact-based subforums.) That makes it very different from an opinion-based sub-forum that may involve polls about song preferences, or Michael photos, and so on.

There are some posters here who have quite a bit of legal and medical knowledge, and that's very appreciated. :yes: