Conrad Murray: "MJ hired me and HATED AEG"

[Tygger]

So the word 'advertiser' means 'sponsor' and the word 'speculative' means 'zero'--VERY interesting!

There are various forms of sponsorship and yes, Briggs believed Michael would not generate any income working which equates to zero.

I personally don't buy that for a second. Randy just want to remain in the fans' good graces by once again hiding behind his mother. He probably figured the fans won't go after the old grieving mother. He can't fool me. Most fans know he is behind this lawsuit and he's likely the first who makes or agrees with these decisions.

I do not believe any Jackson figures fan concern or reactions into their personal thoughts and actions. Maybe this is what grieves some fans. Randy did indeed support restitution as per a previous tweet.

Right now Murray can do his interviews, his book, get paid, use the money to buy a new car, go to Disneyland, buy a mansion and so on and there's nothing to do but watch him to profit from Michael. Goldmans never gave OJ a free pass. OJ was photographed with a Rolex, Goldmans went to the court to get the watch. OJ wrote a book, Goldmans went to the court and get the control of the book. They never gave OJ a free pass, yes the restitution might not be perfect but Goldmans fought and fought and it did gave them control over OJ's life and actions.

Ivy, somehow I missed this paragraph. You have imagined a very successful life for a convicted killer. Where would these monies come from? Who will support the doctor's fabricated potential products?

I thought we discussed Simpson's faux Rolex previously. The Goldmans had to return the watch to Simpson. The faux Rolex was lower than the legal amount the Goldmans could recoup through restitution. At the time, the Goldmans' lawyer remarked on how difficult it was to collect restitution.

Remember, Simpson was able to keep the advance for the book and the Goldmans had to publish it in an effort to recoup restitution. It caused some in the public to see them as greedy. Restitution only gives one control over another's monies (future income generation), not their lives or actions.

 

[LastTear]

Tygger

Last Tear, yes, I am certain restitution does not prevent indirect profit. If it did, I am sure I would have been corrected quite some time ago

People have been trying! And again you have provided no examples or links. It's all academic anyway, next month Murray is a free man in every sense of the word.

Restitution would be the tie that binds, for me four years in just not long enough I want Murray to be hindered in any way possible. I think this is where you and I are different Tygger, for me restitution has little to do with money in your pocket, I see it as an extension of his sentence and a deterrent to him to try and profit from his crime or at the very least to make it as difficult as possible.

 

[Bubs]

@Tygger
I know you writes to Last Tear. Therefore: sorry but,

this is a complete news for me.
And I ask me wheter you mean LaToya who never tired runs from Talk Show to Talk Show telling from Murray the "fall guy";
or wheter you maybe mean Tito who was saying in 2009 Septemer "I forgive Murray"
or wheter you mean Jermaine who was saying in 2009 September (pure chance?) on a press conferens in Berlin "Nobody is guilty on Michael's dead".
Michael's father has spoken from "fall guy", too and Michael's mother has spoken something religious about humans should forgive because it is God who makes the punishment.

So now: Where can I read about "The Jackson wanted a 1st degree charge."?

LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson's mom is furious over new allegations that her son's doctor was more worried about hiding the drugs he was giving the King of Pop than saving his life.

Katherine Jackson, 79, is demanding an upgraded charge of second degree murder, her lawyer told the Daily News, after a report claiming Dr. Conrad Murray interrupted CPR to conceal drug evidence from paramedics.

"Mrs. Jackson never doubted that this man murdered her son, and these new revelations, if true, mean we need additional charges to fit the severity of his crimes," attorney Adam Streisand said.

"Second degree murder requires malice aforethought, which can be implied by the conduct of the defendant," he said yesterday. "The actions alleged suggest that Dr. Murray abandoned his duties as a physician or an ordinary human being to save himself rather than his patient."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...-conrad-murray-article-1.162929#ixzz2dFydQvqf

As that article says, DA couldn't prove malice aforethought, so they settled involuntary manslaughter. Interesting that what KJ says in that article, being furious and be certain that CM killed her son. All that fury toward CM has disappeared, and greedyness settled in. You would think that she knew 4 years is max in involuntary manslaughter, she would have added CM's name to this lawsuit and make him pay, and of course take restitution from criminal trial, but she did none of it.
Jackson's motto, "In Almighty dollar we trust"

 

[Bubs]

Restitution would be the tie that binds, for me four years in just not long enough I want Murray to be hindered in any way possible. I think this is where you and I are different Tygger, for me restitution has little to do with money in your pocket, I see it as an extension of his sentence and a deterrent to him to try and profit from his crime or at the very least to make it as difficult as possible.

I don't think KJ could have squeezed much money out from CM, but like one poster said, it is ethical behaviour and that is what to do for your loved one. You go after killer and make his life as miserable as possible. She said 4 years wasn't enough on CM's sentencing, but didn't think restitution would have added years of misery on top of his sentence, wtf!

 

[Bubs]

When Michael died, I think most fans were compassionate about his mother, and grieved with her. But as time passed, regard for Katherine shifted. That was based on her DECISIONS, choice-by-choice that she made. We all craft our own legacies, choice-by-choice. Walgren fought SO hard for Michael, and he, too, deserved better -- by Katherine's accepting restitution. We really don't know what family pressures she faced, but in the end, our legacies are defined by the accumulation of our choices. Katherine did NOT choose well. .. . .

I agree.

I think Katherine is caught up in the decades-long family dysfunction allowing her cubs to call the shots and there's no excuse for it. She is the matriarch who has been on this earth for a very long time and purports to be a religious woman with values. She needed to step up and do the right thing by Michael and his children, but she failed them and ultimately herself, as a mother and grandmother. I'm another fan who has lost respect for Katherine Jackson because of her behavior--she has shown us who she truly is--and it's a shameful last chapter of her life.

I agree.

 

[serendipity]

I do not believe any Jackson figures fan concern or reactions into their personal thoughts and actions. Maybe this is what grieves some fans. Randy did indeed support restitution as per a previous tweet.

oh I believe they do and very much so. public opinion seems quite important to them. they 've been trying hard to present themselves as this loving caring united family for a reason, even tho at this point no one buys that. They've been talking endlessly about MJ's addiction and presenting themselves as these caring relatives who did everything to help him, without mentioning the stress they put on him for a reason.


That's why Randy was tweeting. He knew that didn't look good and he wanted to wash his hands for the public. He ain't slick.

 

[marebear]

He killed Michael and he will be able to say and do anything he wants like he did nothing wrong. It's disgusting. When he does his book, his interviews, his singing and whatever sick thing he will do I don't want or care to know what the Jacksons think. If anyone wants to assume I hate the Jacksons by what I am saying then go ahead. I don't want to hear or see from Michael's killer.

 

[Mneme]

LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson's mom is furious over new allegations that her son's doctor was more worried about hiding the drugs he was giving the King of Pop than saving his life.

Katherine Jackson, 79, is demanding an upgraded charge of second degree murder, her lawyer told the Daily News, after a report claiming Dr. Conrad Murray interrupted CPR to conceal drug evidence from paramedics.

"Mrs. Jackson never doubted that this man murdered her son, and these new revelations, if true, mean we need additional charges to fit the severity of his crimes," attorney Adam Streisand said.

"Second degree murder requires malice aforethought, which can be implied by the conduct of the defendant," he said yesterday. "The actions alleged suggest that Dr. Murray abandoned his duties as a physician or an ordinary human being to save himself rather than his patient."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...-conrad-murray-article-1.162929#ixzz2dFydQvqf

As that article says, DA couldn't prove malice aforethought, so they settled involuntary manslaughter. Interesting that what KJ says in that article, being furious and be certain that CM killed her son. All that fury toward CM has disappeared, and greedyness settled in. You would think that she knew 4 years is max in involuntary manslaughter, she would have added CM's name to this lawsuit and make him pay, and of course take restitution from criminal trial, but she did none of it.
Jackson's motto, "In Almighty dollar we trust"

Thanks, Bubs, but do you have a lock done on the date? It is from March 23, 2010!!!!
The trial against Murray was to this time circa in the middle.

But if Michael's mother would been a co-plaintiff she would have the right to enlarge the claim.
And even that she has not wanted.


There is nothing mit "The Jacksons wanted a 1st degree charge.
How much will be twisted in the future from the Jacksons and their chearleaders?

 

[crillon]

Tygger



People have been trying! And again you have provided no examples or links. It's all academic anyway, next month Murray is a free man in every sense of the word.

Restitution would be the tie that binds, for me four years in just not long enough I want Murray to be hindered in any way possible. I think this is where you and I are different Tygger, for me restitution has little to do with money in your pocket, I see it as an extension of his sentence and a deterrent to him to try and profit from his crime or at the very least to make it as difficult as possible.

I totally agree with you--the restitution is NOT about the money. It is symbolic and punitive. To not ask for it, is to give Murray--who is remorseless--a break. It is to show him mercy, when he deserves none. It is to allow him to walk out of jail a free man in every sense of the word after serving only 2 years. It is to allow him to benefit from his crime, to make as much money as he wants and to rub it in, to revise history, to rehab his image, to victimize Michael Jackson all over again.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ He is only serving 2 years, half of his sentence.

I'm certain that in the UK you have to show remorse for your crime in order to get probation, I don't know if it's different in the US.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, if others have failed to provide links then, how would I be successful where others failed?

Yes, the doctor will be released and the State deserves gratitude for that. The State was aware the doctor would only serve half his sentence if convicted when the charge was levied. The State’s actions can be reasoned and accepted but, the Jacksons rejection of restitution cannot which is interesting. I accept that others do not agree with me and I have already given several reasons and examples as to why I support the Jacksons’ decision. I have accepted others reasons why they do not support the rejection. What I argue against is erroneous reasons to support rejection such as it prevents indirect profit.

Mneme, the Jacksons had discussions with Walgren BEFORE the charge of involuntary manslaughter was decided on. Bubs’ article does not mention that California law does not require premeditation with first degree, only the intent to do the fatal act. Bubs’ article also does not mention that the general public felt the doctor was overcharged and should have received a malpractice charge. I was not a MJJC member during the doctor’s criminal trial so I do not know if I am repeating what was discussed at that time.

Serendipity, it is your view. I personally have seen no evidence that the Jacksons consider fans’ concerns and reactions before finalizing their personal thoughts and actions.

 

[crillon]

^^^^ He is only serving 2 years, half of his sentence.

I'm certain that in the UK you have to show remorse for your crime in order to get probation, I don't know if it's different in the US.

Forgotten that atrocity. Edited my post--thanks.

 

[crillon]

Last Tear, if others have failed to provide links then, how would I be successful where others failed?

Yes, the doctor will be released and the State deserves gratitude for that. The State was aware the doctor would only serve half his sentence if convicted when the charge was levied. The State’s actions can be reasoned and accepted but, the Jacksons rejection of restitution cannot which is interesting. I accept that others do not agree with me and I have already given several reasons and examples as to why I support the Jacksons’ decision. I have accepted others reasons why they do not support the rejection. What I argue against is erroneous reasons to support rejection such as it prevents indirect profit.

I think there's a big difference there. The State of CA/DA's Office had a significant risk that Murray would be acquitted if they over-charged the case. The most they could push the charges to, based on the evidence they had, was 2nd degree. The Jacksons, however, had ZERO risk in asking for restitution. None. Zilch.

 

[LastTear]

Last Tear, if others have failed to provide links then, how would I be successful where others failed?

Yes, the doctor will be released and the State deserves gratitude for that. The State was aware the doctor would only serve half his sentence if convicted when the charge was levied. The State’s actions can be reasoned and accepted but, the Jacksons rejection of restitution cannot which is interesting. I accept that others do not agree with me and I have already given several reasons and examples as to why I support the Jacksons’ decision. I have accepted others reasons why they do not support the rejection. What I argue against is erroneous reasons to support rejection such as it prevents indirect profit.

Mneme, the Jacksons had discussions with Walgren BEFORE the charge of involuntary manslaughter was decided on. Bubs’ article does not mention that California law does not require premeditation with first degree, only the intent to do the fatal act. Bubs’ article also does not mention that the general public felt the doctor was overcharged and should have received a malpractice charge. I was not a MJJC member during the doctor’s criminal trial so I do not know if I am repeating what was discussed at that time.

Serendipity, it is your view. I personally have seen no evidence that the Jacksons consider fans’ concerns and reactions before finalizing their personal thoughts and actions.

So you have no proof, it is simply your opinion.

What do you mean by 'the states actions can be reasoned and accepted'?

ETA Don't worry, I see from Crillon what you meant.

 

[Bubs]

Thanks, Bubs, but do you have a lock done on the date? It is from March 23, 2010!!!!
The trial against Murray was to this time circa in the middle.

But if Michael's mother would been a co-plaintiff she would have the right to enlarge the claim.
And even that she has not wanted.


There is nothing mit "The Jacksons wanted a 1st degree charge.
How much will be twisted in the future from the Jacksons and their chearleaders?

Sorry that was the only article I could find in relation to "Jacksons wanting higher charge". The only one was about 2nd degree. It really doesn't matter what they want, its about what can be proven, a bit like this case.
The point was that at that time KJ was furious what she heard CM did to her son, and wanted higher charge, but that fury against CM has disappeared and greedyness settled in.

 

[Tygger]

I think there's a big difference there. The State of CA/DA's Office had a significant risk that Murray would be acquitted if they over-charged the case. The most they could push the charges to, based on the evidence they had, was 2nd degree. The Jacksons, however, had ZERO risk in asking for restitution. None. Zilch.

Crillon, again: the general public thought the doctor was overcharged. Others felt there was enough evidence for 1st degree murder. Again, I am assuming this was already discussed on this board during the criminal trial so I do not want to repeat if it was already discussed.

Last Tear, again: it is not my opinion that restitution does not protect against indirect profit it is a fact. You want me to provide links that restitution does protect against indirect profit when others have shown those links do not exist.

 

[crillon]

Crillon, again: the general public thought the doctor was overcharged. Others felt there was enough evidence for 1st degree murder. Again, I am assuming this was already discussed on this board during the criminal trial so I do not want to repeat if it was already discussed.

Tygger, I don't understand how you are arriving at these blanket statements. How do you know what the "general public" thought? Is there some survey backing that up? And, no one who knows anything about U.S. law thought there was any evidence for 1st degree murder which requires the element of pre-meditation. Second degree was a stretch. Even Tom Mesereau thought that after seeing what evidence the DA had.

My point still stands--the DA had risks and needed to be certain they got a conviction. The Jacksons had no risk in asking for restitution.

 

[LastTear]

Last Tear, again: it is not my opinion that restitution does not protect against indirect profit it is a fact. You want me to provide links that restitution does protect against indirect profit when others have shown those links do not exist.

No, I want you to provide links to show that restitution does not protect against indirect profiting. Why would I ask you to provide links to the opposite of what you claim as fact?

 

[AliCat]

It is hard to wrap your head around why Katherine Jackson didn't legally stop (restitution) Conrad Murray from profiting off of his crime.

It is Conrad Murray's responsibility to provide Child Support to his children, not Michael Jackson's. Katherine Jackson's husband, Joe, had a child out of wedlock and did Katherine believe it was Joe Jackson's responsibility to provide for that child? I know Katherine, in 1979, physically assaulted her husband's latest sex partner, so I can't see the justification of the child support claim.

The coincidence of the AEG Live trial and now Conrad Murray comes out with his allegation's of how Michael Jackson hated AEG Live and why Katherine didn't want to legally put a cork in Conrad Murray's mouth, so that Conrad Murray could not earn his keep by making a living off of his crime or at least the victim of his crime, who is deceased and Conrad Murray was found guilty for causing the death.

That is just wrong to allow the person who caused the death of your loved one to be able to make a living off of his crime. What is Katherine Jackson thinking? It all boils down to greed and keeping your eye on the prize, winning this lawsuit against AEG Live, no matter what the cost, even if it is damaging your loved one, as long as other's benefit. This is what Michael Jackson would have wanted? I don't think Michael Jackson and Katherine Jackson were all that close, because Michael Jackson was a principled man and protecting the rights of children, so that adults don't profit off of them, that children have rights and Michael Jackson was a child of Katherine Jackson's. Sad!

We pray for our fathers, pray for our mothers
Wishing our families well
We sing songs for the wishing, of those who are kissing
But not for the missing

[CHORUS 1]
So this ones for all the lost children
This ones for all the lost children
This ones for all the lost children, wishing them well
And wishing them home

When you sit there addressing, counting your blessings
Biding your time
When you lay me down sleeping and my heart is weeping
Because Im keeping a place

[CHORUS 2]
For all the lost children
This is for all the lost children
This ones for all the lost children, wishing them well
And wishing them home

Home with their fathers,
Snug close and warm, loving their mothers
I see the door simply wide open
But no one can find thee

[CHORUS 3]
So pray for all the lost children
Lets pray for all the lost children
Just think of all the lost children, wishing them well
This is for all the lost children
This ones for all the lost children
Just think of all the lost children
Wishing them well, and wishing them home

 

[Autumn II]

California does not have a Son of Sam law; it was struck down in 2002. Restitution would have filled that gap.


http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15773

The Son of Sam laws in other states include the following:

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/SonOfSam/

18 USCS § 3681 (2000)
§ 3681. Order of special forfeiture
(a) Upon the motion of the United States attorney made at any time after conviction of a defendant for an offense under section 794 of this title or for an offense against the United States resulting in physical harm to an individual, and after notice to any interested party, the court shall, if the court determines that the interest of justice or an order of restitution under this title so requires, order such defendant to forfeit all or any part of proceeds received or to be received by that defendant, or a transferee of that defendant, from a contract relating to a depiction of such crime in a movie, book, newspaper, magazine, radio or television production, or live entertainment of any kind, or an expression of that defendant's thoughts, opinions, or emotions regarding such crime.

A Son of Sam law in California would have had the same result as restitution – preventing Murray from profiting from his crime. “Direct” or “indirect” profits don’t matter. As stated above, “proceeds received by . . a transferee of that defendant.” Which means that his girlfriend (or whatever that relationship is?) couldn’t receive money from a tabloid for a Michael-related story, for example, due to her relationship with Murray. Murray either gains payment for his “efforts” in some way, or he does not. If Murray were to sell a story to TMZ, but have a third party do the transaction (“indirect?&#8221 if that profit found its way to Murray or to his “transferee,” that would be PROFIT and would not be allowed. Period.


If the Jacksons had chosen restitution, it would have had the same effect as a Son of Sam law. That option was available to them, and they did not take it. The result will be a whole lot of Murray, up to the eyeballs. Didn’t have to happen, but now, it WILL.

 

[crillon]

^^^The Son of Sam Law would have taken care of the profiting side, but even in states where that law is valid, victims STILL ask for a restitution order from the court. That way, if it's violated, it's an easier redress with the court to get the violations stopped through a court order. The other legal route (Son of Sam) is lengthy and time-consuming.

Katherine's lawyers must have advised her about the consequence of not asking for restitution, right? It verges on malpractice if they didn't and she sure has enough of them on her payroll (or shall I say the Estate's payroll.)

 

[Petrarose]

Bubs I just realize that article was years ago. I thought this was a new article.

Crillion even if they advised her about the repercussions of not taking the restitution, it would not matter, because the lawyers knew the key purpose of the AEG case was to get money. The lawyers themselves did not want a restitution, which would harm the money THEY would GET AS WELL.

Both Katherine & her lawyer's interests are aligned. The lawyer's interest in the AEG case is money because his firm has to spend a lot of cash. Katherine's interest in the AEG case is Money, so she had to weigh the importance of justice for Michel through restitution vs Money for me via the AEG case. Money won. Since No one had Micheal's interest in the Muarry trial, she chose the Money, denied restitution and went with the AEG case.

Katherine's attorney had a conflict of interest. He could not advise Katherine to take the restitution, because he knew his money would be reduced too, so he could not advise her ethically on the best course of action that would help her son. Because he needed the money from the AEG case, he advised her in a manner to help his own cause. She needed a lawyer who had no ties to the AEG case. Anyway, Randy would simply tell her to fire the lawyer, if the lawyer tried to make Katherine take the restitution.

 

[Autumn II]

Enforcement of a Son of Sam law is automatic, in the states that have that law, and is a matter of the state vs. the convicted party. And yes, restitution can be awarded on top of that.

 

[8701girl]

I know Katherine, in 1979, physically assaulted her husband's latest sex partner,

She did?? wow

 

[crillon]

Crillion even if they advised her about the repercussions of not taking the restitution, it would not matter, because the lawyers knew the key purpose of the AEG case was to get money. The lawyers themselves did not want a restitution, which would harm the money THEY would GET AS WELL.

Both Katherine & her lawyer's interests are aligned. The lawyer's interest in the AEG case is money because his firm has to spend a lot of cash. Katherine's interest in the AEG case is Money, so she had to weigh the importance of justice for Michel through restitution vs Money for me via the AEG case. Money won. Since No one had Micheal's interest in the Muarry trial, she chose the Money, denied restitution and went with the AEG case.

Katherine's attorney had a conflict of interest. He could not advise Katherine to take the restitution, because he knew his money would be reduced too, so he could not advise her ethically on the best course of action that would help her son. Because he needed the money from the AEG case, he advised her in a manner to help his own cause. She needed a lawyer who had no ties to the AEG case. Anyway, Randy would simply tell her to fire the lawyer, if the lawyer tried to make Katherine take the restitution.

Petrarose, I'm not understanding why Katherine couldn't do both--request restitution and sue AEG. Why would seeking restitution reduce the amount of money potentially gained from the trial?

 

[ivy]

Petrarose, I'm not understanding why Katherine couldn't do both--request restitution and sue AEG. Why would seeking restitution reduce the amount of money potentially gained from the trial?

there are two types of damages, financial and non financial. Non financial are stuff like loss of love, companionship etc and it's determined by jurors arbitrarily. the financial damages are the lost income, they need to be calculated in some way and cannot be speculative. there's also law that says you can't double recover.

so for example a server at a restaurant accidentally spills hot water on you and burns you. you suffer medical damages + missing work which is around $10,000. what you can recover as financial damages is that $10,000. regardless of how it is divided among the server and the restaurant , the financial damages are $10,000.

so if there was a restitution and Murray was ordered to pay the lost income from TII (which was reported as $100 Million) that would have to be subtracted from any financial damages AEG ordered to pay to make sure that there's not double recovery.

So restitution would have reduced any damages that could have gotten from AEG. Obviously the goal was truth and justice, the money you can collect should not matter. but that's not how Jacksons operate.

 

[Tygger]

Crillon, this information was discussed by several media outlets covering the criminal trial. I do not know if any of this was discussed here at MJJC; I suspect it was not. The general public thought the doctor was overcharged with involuntary manslaughter as many thought it was a malpractice case.

First degree in California does NOT require premeditation; only the intent to commit the act that leads to the fatality.

Autumn II, Last Tear and I discussed the Son of Sam law previously as Last Tear posted a link regarding it. Ivy posted something about the Son of Sam law previously as well. Again, the Son of Sam law does not protect against indirect profit and is NOT valid in California.

You are referring to the Son of Sam law with that link. It refers to the convict profiting from their crimes directly. Members of family may or may not be covered in California. Nicole Alvarez’ status as the mother of one of the doctor’s children may not be eligible here.

Laws are written explicitly, deliberately, and purposefully to prevent multiple interpretations of one law. Since it has been posted, I would ask that the below bolded statement is not ignored or spun.

18 USCS § 3681 (2000)
§ 3681. Order of special forfeiture
(a) Upon the motion of the United States attorney made at any time after conviction of a defendant for an offense under section 794 of this title or for an offense against the United States resulting in physical harm to an individual, and after notice to any interested party, the court shall, if the court determines that the interest of justice or an order of restitution under this title so requires, order such defendant to forfeit all or any part of proceeds received or to be received by that defendant, or a transferee of that defendant, from a contract relating to a depiction of such crime in a movie, book, newspaper, magazine, radio or television production, or live entertainment of any kind, or an expression of that defendant's thoughts, opinions, or emotions regarding such crime.

This circular conversation has lasted for months.

sigh.

 

[crillon]

Crillon, this information was discussed by several media outlets covering the criminal trial. I do not know if any of this was discussed here at MJJC; I suspect it was not. The general public thought the doctor was overcharged with involuntary manslaughter as many thought it was a malpractice case.

First degree in California does NOT require premeditation; only the intent to commit the act that leads to the fatality.

Tygger, I don't understand how you are arriving at these blanket statements. How do you know what the "general public" thought? Is there some survey backing that up? And, no one who knows anything about U.S. law thought there was any evidence for 1st degree murder which requires the element of pre-meditation. Second degree was a stretch. Even Tom Mesereau thought that after seeing what evidence the DA had.

My point still stands--the DA had risks and needed to be certain they got a conviction. The Jacksons had no risk in asking for restitution.

Tygger, if the media outlets discussed it at all (I watched most of the coverage), it was brief and before they knew the facts of the case. So, to equate the fleeting opinions of media pundits as representing the "general public" is an overstatement. As I said before, unless you have a survey representing the opinions of the "general public" your statement won't fly.

As to 1st degree murder in CA, this is what the DA's office had to consider:

1.1. First-degree murder in California law


Under California law, there are three ways to be convicted of first-degree murder:

1. by committing the murder
   1. using a destructive device or explosive, weapon of mass destruction, ammunition primarily designed to penetrate metal or armor, or poison, or
   2. by lying in wait or by inflicting torture pursuant to Penal Code 206 PC California's torture law,
2. by killing in a way that is willful, deliberate, and premeditated, OR
3. by way of the felony-murder rule (that is, by committing a specifically enumerated felony that automatically turns any logically related death into first-degree murder, discussed below).[SUP]5[/SUP]

Examples of first-degree murder include (but are not limited to):

• going to someone's house intending to kill him/her, and
• lying in wait for someone to return to his/her car in order to kill that individual, and
• any murder that is perpetrated using a destructive device or explosive.

 

[Autumn II]

I've seen no indication that the "general public thought Murray was overcharged." Links? Perhaps a survey? I do know that there were petitions circulating to INCREASE the charges.

Son of Sam laws do, indeed, protect against "indirect profit," as was explained at the link regarding the term "transferee." Respectfully agree to disagree. The lack of a Son of Sam law in California made restitution all-the-more important, but that particular ball was dropped by the Jacksons.

 

[Tygger]

Crillon, if you missed the discussions by the pundits, the articles are still available to be read. The general public saw the doctor as being overcharged with involuntary manslaughter. I believe you and others here know that California law is just a bit more detailed than what you posted. However, the overview you posted did include murder without premeditation.

Autumn II, the Son of Sam law is not valid in California as your post verified. Be that as it may, an example of a legal transferee would be the criminal trial lawyers that received monies for the doctor's documentary, not Alvarez. Monies going directly to the doctor were instead paid directly to his criminal trial lawyers. If you and other believe the Jacksons dropped the ball by rejecting restitution, all the more reason for fans to claim some responsibility in thwarting the financial success of the doctor if by chance he self-publishes.