Latest on MJJC

Conrad Murray: "MJ hired me and HATED AEG"

Tygger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tygger, I hate to belabor the point...You seem to think the media represents the opinions of the "general public" when they do not. Journalists are either reporting the facts or giving opinions about the facts and those opinions change as more facts become known. Unless a media outlet commissioned a survey or opinion research from a randomized sample of citizens in a specific geographic area, there is no such data on what the "general public" thought. What you're saying is speculative at best.

As for California law--what I posted are the three ways to be convicted of 1st degree murder. There are not 4 ways, or 5 ways...so there is nothing more to add. However, if you want to provide a link to what you think is missing, go right ahead.
 
Crillon, the general public felt the doctor was overcharged. There are numerous articles stating that for your review if you choose to seek those articles.

It is interesting that when I say pundits discussed the involuntary manslaughter charge against the malpractice charge, you would prefer a survey be done to verify that was indeed the general public's opinion. I wonder if any surveys were done when the media wrote all of those negative articles about Michael before he passed? Could it be the general public, who purchased those articles and created the demand for them did not truly exist? Could it be those articles were written solely to express the view of those particular outlets? How did those outlets arrive at that negative view of Michael that generated guaranteed profit? Indeed!

As for California law, reread you own post; one option does not include premeditation.
 
Last edited:
Tygger said:
Crillon, the general public felt the doctor was overcharged. There are numerous articles stating that for your review if you choose to seek those articles.
Click to expand...

On what basis do you make such a conclusion? Do you have proof of what the "general public" felt? and Who is the "general public"?

As Crillon said, articles are not representative of what the "general public" thinks. they represent at the very best the opinion of the author. when Alan Duke writes, he writes his opinion and not that of the "general public". ditto Anthony McCarthy and so many other reporters.
This is precisely what Crillon is trying to explain to you. unless you have proof of a survey, everything you say is mere speculation and as such has nothing to do with the "general public"
 
passy001 said:
On what basis do you make such a conclusion? Do you have proof of what the "general public" felt? and Who is the "general public"?

As Crillon said, articles are not representative of what the "general public" thinks. they represent at the very best the opinion of the author. when Alan Duke writes, he writes his opinion and not that of the "general public". ditto Anthony McCarthy and so many other reporters.
This is precisely what Crillon is trying to explain to you. unless you have proof of a survey, everything you say is mere speculation and as such has nothing to do with the "general public"
Click to expand...

Right. Many of us here watched the entirety of Murray's trial, and read the numerous articles about it. We know to differentiate between tabloid writers and more credible news sources. I do recall some debate about Murray's charges -- but that centered around the charges being TOO LIGHT. There were petitions circulating before the trial, to INCREASE the charges. I don't recall reading anything from any "pundits" that the charges were too harsh. Anyone, feel free to post links, though? There were no surveys that I know of that indicated what the "general public" thought about the charges. In sentencing the judge gave Murray the maximum -- which is a pretty clear indication of what the judge thought?

At the time Murray was charged, there were statements from the various members of the Jackson family saying that they thought "the charges were too light."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/people/2010-02-03-jackson-family-wants-tougher-charge_N.htm

I don't recall any statements at all, from anyone, saying the "charges were too harsh." Links, please?

I can't think of a single reason why the Jacksons gave up restitution -- other than -- they wanted more money. Restitution from Murray would have made a lawsuit seeking damages -- such as this one with AEG -- pointless. The lack of a Son of Sam law in California made restitution even MORE important because it would have the only remedy preventing Murray from profiting from murdering Michael. If Murray had tried to conceal profits from his crime by setting up bogus companies, bank accounts, or having "other people" paid, that could have been fraud. OJ's case gives us clear examples of the benefits of restitution.
 
Last edited:
^^

you are asking for links from the wrong person.
 
Tygger said:
Crillon, the general public felt the doctor was overcharged. There are numerous articles stating that for your review if you choose to seek those articles.

It is interesting that when I say pundits discussed the involuntary manslaughter charge against the malpractice charge, you would prefer a survey be done to verify that was indeed the general public's opinion. I wonder if any surveys were done when the media wrote all of those negative articles about Michael before he passed? Could it be the general public, who purchased those articles and created the demand for them did not truly exist? Could it be those articles were written solely to express the view of those particular outlets? How did those outlets arrive at that negative view of Michael that generated guaranteed profit? Indeed!
Click to expand...

Tygger, you go around and around in circles ignoring what many of us are saying. (I'm feeling Ivy's pain...) The mainstream media (not tabloids) do not represent, nor are they the mouthpiece or PR reps, for the "general public." They don't reflect in their reporting what a majority of their audience thinks because unless they do opinion research, they don't know what their audience (who you call the "general public") thinks. In fact, studies show it's the media who influences the opinions of the general public, not the other way around.
 
This concept that the general public felt it was justice to charge a doctor with a criminal charge instead of malpractice is not true and repeating it will not make it true; not that it will hinder anyone. If anyone prefers to ignore the countless articles stating the doctor was overcharged just so I can seem wrong, be my guest.

Caution Autumn II; you are suggesting what I suggested. There were those, including the Jacksons, who wanted a heavier charge than manslaughter and that is not a popular concept here. Please note a heavier charge would be a murder charge.

Crillon, believe what you like. The media did not post negative articles of their own volition; they pandered to their paying audience. I wonder if Michael knew all these years it was the media that detest him and not all of those who brought those fabricated, negative articles. Indeed.
 
Tygger said:
This concept that the general public felt it was justice to charge a doctor with a criminal charge instead of malpractice is not true and repeating it will not make it true; not that it will hinder anyone. If anyone prefers to ignore the countless articles stating the doctor was overcharged just so I can seem wrong, be my guest.

Caution Autumn II; you are suggesting what I suggested. There were those, including the Jacksons, who wanted a heavier charge than manslaughter and that is not a popular concept here. Please note a heavier charge would be a murder charge.

Crillon, believe what you like. The media did not post negative articles of their own volition; they pandered to their paying audience. I wonder if Michael knew all these years it was the media that detest him and not all of those who brought those fabricated, negative articles. Indeed.
Click to expand...

This is so typical of you tygger. You are incapable of substantiating your allegations. worse you are likening your thinking to the "general public".
 
Passy001, no less typical than any other poster who repeats, twists, repeats and twists, and when all else fails, defies all reason and logic.

AutumnII, last I checked I did not see opposing links either.
 
IN 24 hours, a petition that was circulated here and on other fan boards, generated 2400 signatures. The goal of the petition was to increase Murray's charges to second-degree murder. Not sure of the final count, but it was many thousands who signed. I think it's fair to say that the majority here wanted the charges increased. For those who didn't, the reason was caution about gaining a conviction. . .. which was a reasonable position to take. I don't think it was a majority, though, that wanted lighter charges.

I hope we can move on from this soon, because we haven't seen an iota of substantiation that the "general public wanted lighter charges." Nor have there been any credible "reasons" given why the Jacksons denied restitution, other than the greater amount of money that potentially could be gained from suing AEG.
 
Tygger said:
AutumnII, last I checked I did not see opposing links either.
Click to expand...

Here. This implies that "many" thought the charges weren't strong enough. (as opposed to "some" who thought the charges should be in terms of malpractice). But, this CNN article isn't claiming to know with certainty what the "general public" was thinking about this issue. Because they didn't know, and neither does anyone here, with certainty.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/10/17/should-conrad-murray-be-trial-murder

The difference is, I'm not asserting that I KNOW what the "general public" thought about the charges, because no surveys were taken and reported on, and there is no data on that issue. What many here are saying is that we do not KNOW, and that it's not possible to assert with any validity what the "general public" wanted in terms of charges. What we DO know is that the Jackson family wanted the charges to be higher. And that's IT.

The point here is that you say that you know what the "general public" was thinking. I'm certainly not debating what the "general public wanted" because NOBODY has that information.
 
Last edited:
This concept that the general public felt it was justice to charge a doctor with a criminal charge instead of malpractice is not true and repeating it will not make it true; not that it will hinder anyone.
Click to expand...
I don´t think that anyone would want the doctor to walk free if one of their familymembers or friends were given anesthesia by a doctor who ignore to monitor the patient and the patient dies.

Most people knows a person who get anesthesia can stop breathing and needs to be monitored all the time.If a familymember or friend dies like this I think people would think it was murder.
 
Autumn II;3896127 said:
What we DO know is that the Jackson family wanted the charges to be higher. And that's IT.
Click to expand...

now, everybody has his own sight to that.
I never heard or read of members from Michael's birth-family they wanted the charges higher. At least not in the time until the beginning that trial. There were members who were saying nothing to this subject and there were other members who called Murray a (poor) fall guy or als graet philosopher were saying such important sentences as 'Nobody is guilty' or als religous teacher with 'Only God has the right to punish.'.
I remember how that was beyond me and that I aked me 'What is the reason of this speaking of them?'.


This "family wanted to be higher" was coming approximately in the middle of the trial. Namely when the media articles were doing a 180° spin for Michael and against Murray.


Sorry, but this is my perception of that.
 
Autumn II said:
Actually, there was quite a bit of media coverage of their statements. Here's one article:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/entertainment/BO134713/
Not sure, though, which Jacksons were speaking, or if all were in agreement.
Click to expand...

really: not much and not enough, too.
Because Oxman is not a family member. And Oxman has spoken often his own meaning.
In this article from his statement there are merely quoted "just a slap on the wrist," and all the other text is lyric from 7News.

But let us end with this, Autumn...
 
^^Joe will always be different from the family. He is more blunt.
 
Autumn II;3896206 said:
I’m hardly a family supporter, but here is Joe Jackson saying the charges were too light. (but I agree, let's move on. . )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDoNWmqtwlw
Click to expand...

hmmm... och, Autumn!: That video also is from the time as the trial was!
No, I mean the time BEFORE the trial. And from this time I do not know a single media article or interview with a demand for a high charge.

But now end with this....
 
Mneme said:
hmmm... och, Autumn!: That video also is from the time as the trial was!
No, I mean the time BEFORE the trial. And from this time I do not know a single media article or interview with a demand for a high charge.

But now end with this....
Click to expand...

Sure, that's fine. I thought the question was that the Jacksons didn't protest the low charges, and of course they did. Doesn't matter to me one way or another when they did it, actually. I doubt it would have made a difference, anyway. (I think the decision about charges was made as "insurance" so that they were certain to gain a guilty verdict.)
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Michael knew all these years it was the media that detest him and not all of those who brought those fabricated, negative articles.

Yes, MJ WAS VERY aware that it was the media that detested him--that's why he said 'stop filthy press" "burn all tabloids"--"it's junk food, it's garbage, don't read it" and so on. That's why he wrote "Why You Wanna Trip on Me," "Scream," and "Tabloid Junkie" ("it's the hounding media in hysteria." "Scandal/With the words you use/You're a parasite in black and white/Do anything for news"). He knew his opponent was not the general public but the "parasites in black and white" who liked to "Speculate to break the one you hate."
 
Autumn II said:
IN 24 hours, a petition that was circulated here and on other fan boards, generated 2400 signatures. The goal of the petition was to increase Murray's charges to second-degree murder. Not sure of the final count, but it was many thousands who signed. I think it's fair to say that the majority here wanted the charges increased. For those who didn't, the reason was caution about gaining a conviction. . .. which was a reasonable position to take. I don't think it was a majority, though, that wanted lighter charges.

I hope we can move on from this soon, because we haven't seen an iota of substantiation that the "general public wanted lighter charges." Nor have there been any credible "reasons" given why the Jacksons denied restitution, other than the greater amount of money that potentially could be gained from suing AEG.
Click to expand...

I am unsure why you are aligning fans with the general public's perception of Michael and his killer in the beginning of your post.

Opposing links would show the general public, who was not concerned with Michael, would find a criminal charge like involuntary manslaughter to be more justifiable than malpractice. Simply typing the doctor's name and malpractice in a search engine gives an abundance of articles stating the opposite. The general public preferred a malpractice charge however, because I posted such, it will be questioned endlessly and several attempts have been made and may continue to be made in an effort to prove me wrong.

I did warn you about discussing the family wanting a higher charge did I not? The family had discussions with Walgren before the charges were levied. The media and as a result fans were told after the family the charge would be involuntary manslaughter. Logic may suggest the family preferred a higher charge before the trial commenced however, logic is unnecessary and that information does exist.

jamba said:
I wonder if Michael knew all these years it was the media that detest him and not all of those who brought those fabricated, negative articles.

Yes, MJ WAS VERY aware that it was the media that detested him--that's why he said 'stop filthy press" "burn all tabloids"--"it's junk food, it's garbage, don't read it" and so on. That's why he wrote "Why You Wanna Trip on Me," "Scream," and "Tabloid Junkie" ("it's the hounding media in hysteria." "Scandal/With the words you use/You're a parasite in black and white/Do anything for news"). He knew his opponent was not the general public but the "parasites in black and white" who liked to "Speculate to break the one you hate."
Click to expand...

Jamba, please do not piecemeal Michael's lyrics and overlook his understanding of not only the media but, those in the general public who purchase those fabricated articles, listened to those negative tales by pundits, and believe those fabrications:

And you don't have to read it, read it
And you don't have to eat it, eat it
To buy it is to feed it, feed it
So why do we keep foolin' ourselves


And you don't go and buy it, buy it
And they won't glorify it, 'fy it
To read it sanctifies it, 'fies it
Then why do we keep foolin' ourselves

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
See, but everybody wants to believe all about it
 
I'm leaving the discussion of "the general public wanted lower charges" behind now, since not ONE link/credible source has been provided to substantiate that idea. . . . . . There is really NO way to know what the "general public" wanted, since no surveys were done, or opinion polls, and so on. There is no data on that, at all.

I would expect that the family would have wanted higher charges. No disagreement there, although I think the lower charges was a decision that was made to be more assured of a conviction (despite the family's preferences, or when they made those preferences known).
 
^^^ Personally I think it's futile to discuss what the Jacksons wanted because I don't think they are all in agreement themselves! I have heard some Jacksons saying the sentence was not enough and then we have others with their conspiracy theories.

For what it's worth. @Tygger
Opposing links would show the general public, who was not concerned with Michael, would find a criminal charge like involuntary manslaughter to be more justifiable than malpractice. Simply typing the doctor's name and malpractice in a search engine gives an abundance of articles stating the opposite. The general public preferred a malpractice charge however, because I posted such, it will be questioned endlessly and several attempts have been made and may continue to be made in an effort to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

It is only questioned endlessly because you don't provide any background source for your opinions..........but you already know that.
 
^^^ Exactly. I think expressing opinions is fine, but that becomes problematic when opinions are presented as facts. For those of us trying to understand a complex situation (AEG trial, in this instance), that is not at all useful. (That's commonly done in political rhetoric, i.e. someone saying "Democrats think that. .. " Or, "Republicans want to. . " Unless that is part of a party platform, or the result of an opinion poll, it's just speculation and not that useful for someone trying to understand.)

For example, I posted a link of Joe Jackson on the Larry King show, where he expressed that he thought the charges against Murray were too light. That's a "primary source" (somebody speaking directly, and not being quoted), and what we get from that is that ONE member of the Jackson family has that opinion. Others may have that same opinion, but to verify we'd need direct statements or quotes that could be validated - i.e. tweets from authentic Twitter accounts, and so on. (personally, I don't think that issue matters very much now. The charges were what they were. . . . )

I find the AEG/Jacksons trial very troubling, and am not following it that much on the news, although the transcripts posted here are VERY useful, as is "some" of the discussion. We may never know all of it, but personally, I'm still trying to piece together WHAT, exactly, happened to Michael -- and who knew, and who failed him, and so on. I still find Cheryln Lee to be problematic. I think she knows a LOT more than she's saying.
 
I am always suspicious of anyone who goes to the media first rather than the authorities, it could simply be that she bit off more than she could chew and ended up under the spotlight in a courtroom, perhaps that created a lot of stress for her. I didn't actually realise until just a few days ago that she had been with Michael over a couple of months, during that time she was giving him vitamins he didn't need and made him bedtime tea....... He was still drinking red bull and sleeping with a lot of stimulates in the room, I just can't get my head around that Michael was so desperate for sleep and yet no one could reason with him for what a bad idea it is to sleep with lights on, music, TV and to drink energy drinks. I love Michael to pieces but it makes me question whether he simply enjoyed propofol in some way and AEG gave him the means to be able to get it. I hate that this trial makes me question those things.

What I don't understand is that if KJ thinks that Murray should have had a stiffer sentence why not continue punishing him via restitution?
 
He was still drinking red bull and sleeping with a lot of stimulates in the room, I just can't get my head around that Michael was so desperate for sleep and yet no one could reason with him for what a bad idea it is to sleep with lights on, music, TV and to drink energy drinks.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Michael suffered from tinnitus.
Tinnitus is a physical condition, experienced as noises or ringing in the ears or head when no such external physical noise is present. Tinnitus is usually caused by a fault in the hearing system; it is a symptom, not a disease in itself.
Click to expand...

A major cause of tinnitus is EXPOSURE TO EXCESSIVE NOISE, e.g. chain saws, machinery, rock concerts. Noise destroys!
Click to expand...
http://www.tinnitus.asn.au/tinnitus.htm

Michael was in showbusiness for 45 years and used to play his music loud.
If you have tinnitus the sound in the ear could somehow be drowned in other sounds during the day, but at night when it gets quiet you can hear the sound in the ear and it makes it more difficult to sleep.
It´s annoying to have a mosquito in the room when you want to sleep, try to think you hear that sound in your ear.
The sound can be from the size of a little mosquito to much worse.
What you can do is to hide it in other sounds.
If Michael had tinnitus it could explain to me why he wanted music and the sounds from cartoons when he wanted to sleep.

Í don´t know about energydrinks , maybe you can get dependent on them
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735818/
Just like some have to have coffee every day

I don´t understand why he wanted lights on.
Maybe he was scared of the dark
 
^^^CL said he wasn't scared of the dark. I can understand having TV or music to help fall asleep as it helps switching the mind off if you are worrying about something, but it should either be on timer or something. I'm actually impressed that he could fall asleep with someone in the room - but perhaps that's just me.

Don't know if he had tinnitus or not, I had it once and it drove me crazy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top