Latest on MJJC

Ed Chernoff Discusses The Representation Of Conrad Murray

Don't think I can get the time to watch this, but the mentioning above, included in the video, the "murder case" one, wow.. that's an interesting freudian slip, I'd say.
 
Yeah I liked the 'murder case' comment too. I couldn't understand why Texas never suspended Murrays licence, or why his patients felt safe in the hands of a killer, but Chernoff just threw some light on that for me when he said that ( I know the juror in Texas would look at our evidence that we're going to present, and They would Dump this case).

This kind of mindset has to be a minority, but I still find it hard to put that way of thinking into perspective.
 
rita.gibson said:
Yeah I liked the 'murder case' comment too. I couldn't understand why Texas never suspended Murrays licence, or why his patients felt safe in the hands of a killer, but Chernoff just threw some light on that for me when he said that ( I know the juror in Texas would look at our evidence that we're going to present, and They would Dump this case).

This kind of mindset has to be a minority, but I still find it hard to put that way of thinking into perspective.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? is he saying the jury in TX would be for or against the defense?
 
I dont like this guy at all...there is something about him.....that seems very sneaky. Then again any lawyer that would represent Conrad Murray..a "Murderer".......cannot have to much conscience, HE says they would dump this case in Texas....I dont believe that for one second....I think he is just trying to sway opinion.. I didnt like the way he kept throwing out there that they have a limited budget either. If Murray is suppose to be working for poor communities....how can he even afford to pay THESE lawyers??......She asked him is he gonna write a book after this?....He said .no..I will go back to my quiet life. I give him 5 years...he WILL write a book..
 
So he's saying Texas jury would say Murray is not guilty of killing his patient?
 
Glad Murray has a lead attorney that doesn't seem to care about him as a client as much as he cares about his friends and colleagues. It pretty much matches how much Murray cared about MJ as a patient. May they take all the slippery slopes that are available to them and land on their butts.

God, please give them all what they deserve so MJ can rest.
 
My, my did I just hear Chernoff insult California lawyers? Yes, I believe I did: "if the lawyers I see out there (in California) are representative, and they may not be , we clearly have superior and excellent trial lawyers in Texas...clearly. Some of the best trial attorneys I've ever seen have have been in Texas...not just California, any state I go to, that's what I find."
ooh I like that comment about doing my very best for friends and collegues and Texas lawyers...no mention of his client, kind of an odd thing to exclude.

Despite his low opinion of California lawyers, they do have a Ca. atty, Flanagan who he graciously describes as having an "outstanding reputation"

Oh! another jab at California. Poor little us, no money but the prosecutors despite rumors of LA being bankrupt, can afford to spend whatever they want to...
We would like to do more but we just don't have the money...

And that was a nice crack about how in Texas they have a certain independence and self reliance and he hopes that exists in California too?
(implying that what, Californians are sheep?)
I wonder what evidence he was talking about when he said that a Texas jury would 'dump the case' if they heard it. When does he propose to introduce this magical evidence?

I came away with this: we don't have the money to do what we really want to do, we can't afford a jury consultant, a consultant would be nice to help with the demographics of the California jury pool, the prosecution has loads of money to spend as they want, we are on a budget and can't. We are David and they are Goliath. We must do well to uphold the honor of Texas!
Also sounds to me like he went a fair way towards dissing a. any attorney outside of Texas; and b. any potential juror in California.
Bottom line, seems to be setting up reasons why they failed should he not win.

A little humor:
Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a rooster?
When a rooster wakes up in the morning, its primal urge is to cluck defiance.
 
Does Chernoff really believe that Murray is not responsible at all? does he really believe that Murray bears no culpability even though he left his patient alone and drugged him with anesthesia and sedatives?
 
I don't think it matters one itty bitty tiny bit what Chernoff believes. Listening to this interview, it strikes me his ego is going all out for the honor of Texas attorneys and that is what is important to him. He will do what ever it takes to get his client represented most favorably (as he should, that's why he's hired) and I don't think guilt really comes into it. If it mattered, no one would represent a client they felt was guilty.
Did murray tell Chernoff what really happened? Did he tell him some fairy story? Did Chernoff help him concoct the story to the police? *shrugs* who knows.
 
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...-new-attorney-could-present-conflict-interest



EXCLUSIVE: Michael Jackson's Ex-Lawyer Considering Asking Judge To Remove Dr Conrad Murray's New Attorney From CaseEXCLUSIVE: Michael Jackson's Ex-Lawyer Considering Asking Judge To Remove Dr Conrad Murray's New Attorney From Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Feb 15, 2011 @ 12:30PM print it send it
Splash News OnlineThe lawyer who helped win Michael Jackson’s acquittal on child molestation charges is considering asking a Los Angeles judge to stop another attorney from being added to the legal team of the pop star’s former doctor, who is facing charges of involuntary manslaughter.

Nareg Gourjian is joining forces with Conrad Murray’s lawyers Ed Chernoff and Michael Flanagan, who are preparing to defend the doctor at trial, beginning on March 24.

Gourjian is a former of associate of Mark Geragos, a lawyer known for high-profile criminal cases, including Chris Brown's domestic violence charge and the trial of Scott Peterson, who was convicted of killing his wife.

Herein lies the problem, as RadarOnline.com has learned.

Gourijian was also an associate of Geragos' law firm and worked on Jackson’s successful defense during the late singer’s infamous 2005 trial, where he stood accused of seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to a 13-year-old male.

Gregaros is so concerned that a former member of his team, who was privy to the King of Pop’s personal information, is now working to defend the man accused of killing him.

“Mark is concerned about the conflict of interest because Nareg worked on Michael's molestation defense,” the source told RadarOnline.com.

“Nareg was privy to details about Michael Jackson's life that were never made public.

PHOTOS: Michael Jackson's Kids & Elizabeth Taylor

“This is very, very bothersome to Geragos.

“Mark is considering filing paperwork with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael E. Pastor stating he believes there is an obvious conflict of interest.

“Nareg knows that Mark is concerned about this."

Murray is accused of responsibility for the pop icon's death on June 25, 2009 by administering an overdose of the powerful sedative Propofol, with which Jackson was being treated to help him to sleep.

There is a pretrial hearing in Dr. Conrad Murray's case this afternoon, but the embattled doctor won't be there.

Geragos could appear in person at the hearing to detail his concerns to Judge Pastor.
 
It's just more lousy PR thrown to the public, imo.
 
I hope Geragos is successful, if it is true that he is concerned about conflict of interest.
 
I want to know what the judge thinks of all the defense TV interviews and news articles that keep talking about defense strategies and arguments when it's bound to influence potential jurors. There should have been a gag order put in place a long time ago IMO.
 
When I watched the vid, I noticed at about 6:29 that Chernoff said that we have been paid, so I am assuming malpractice insurance kicked in & he said they did not have money for jury consultants.
 
Noticed how he has lots of family pictures in his back plus even the famous pic of the Tiananmen Square in Peking?!
It's all not placed where he would look at it... it's where others are supposed to look and supposed to send a certain message... that says everything to me about what this guy carries in his heart.

I can only shake my head about ppl like that... and wouldn't want them ever in my life.
Same goes for example for Thomé giving interviews with Michaels picture in his back (in my daydreams of that time I literally saw the picture Michael vomitting on him during that interview you know) etc. etc. etc. ... better keep ppl like that out of my life.
 
jrsfan said:
When I watched the vid, I noticed at about 6:29 that Chernoff said that we have been paid, so I am assuming malpractice insurance kicked in & he said they did not have money for jury consultants.
Click to expand...

Wondered about the malpractice insurance and went looking. Found this article from Oct 2010:

Jackson doctor's legal bills issue in Texas court
HOUSTON (AP) - An insurer for the doctor charged in Michael Jackson's death has asked a judge to rule that it is not responsible for the physician's legal bills in two high-profile court cases and fights to retain his medical license.

Medicus Insurance Co. argues that Dr. Conrad Murray's medical malpractice policy doesn't cover his defense costs because the cases stem from alleged criminal wrongdoing, according to documents filed Wednesday in state court in Houston. Murray's policy, which was purchased roughly a month before Jackson's death in June 2009, did not cover incidents involving general anesthesia, the company argues.

Murray faces an involuntary manslaughter charge in Los Angeles, where authorities accuse him of administering a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol to the pop star in the bedroom of his rented mansion.

The criminal case is just one of the legal challenges Murray faces. He has been sued by Jackson's father for wrongful death in federal court in Los Angeles, and authorities have sought to either suspend or limit his medical license in Texas, California and Nevada. One of Murray's clinics is in Houston.

The doctor is relying on four attorneys in California and Texas to defend him in the criminal and civil cases. He has argued that he needs to maintain his medical license to pay for his criminal defense.

Medicus, which is based in Austin, claims it is not required to defend Murray's medical license in the three states. The insurer argues that scrutiny by Texas and California officials came as a result of allegations of wrongdoing in Jackson's death, and that Nevada attempted to suspend Murray's medical license because he was behind on child support payments, not for his medical work.

The court filings do not indicate how much Murray's defense in the various cases may cost.

"We believe Medicus is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law," Murray's attorney, Charles Peckham, said Wednesday. "We believe there should be coverage."

Peckham asked the judge in a court filing Monday to delay the case until after the criminal matter is decided, arguing that defending it would violate the doctor's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

"He simply can't engage in this kind of case," Peckham said, adding that coverage Murray applied for, and the insurer initially accepted, would have covered all the claims.

Medicus filed its case in August, but the legal fees dispute was disclosed in a court filing Wednesday in the wrongful death case.

The company's lawsuit states that Murray's policy only covers the doctor's actions in Texas. The company filed its case after Murray asked the insurer to pay for his defense in the California court cases and medical board hearings in other states, according to the complaint.

Murray is due back in Los Angeles next week for a hearing in the criminal case, and prosecutors are expected to lay out some of their evidence against him during a preliminary hearing in January.

Last week, a federal judge in Houston ruled that Lloyd's of London was not required to pay millions of dollars in legal fees for jailed financier R. Allen Stanford and two former executives charged in a massive Ponzi scheme. The insurer had argued the men's insurance policy did not cover money laundering charges.
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13361006

But I couldn't find any updates. Based on this, it doesn't look as if the insurance would be paying. Also of interest, hewhoshallnotbenamed obtained it 1 month before Michael's death.
 
cinzia said:
Wondered about the malpractice insurance and went looking. Found this article from Oct 2010:

Jackson doctor's legal bills issue in Texas court
HOUSTON (AP) - An insurer for the doctor charged in Michael Jackson's death has asked a judge to rule that it is not responsible for the physician's legal bills in two high-profile court cases and fights to retain his medical license.

Medicus Insurance Co. argues that Dr. Conrad Murray's medical malpractice policy doesn't cover his defense costs because the cases stem from alleged criminal wrongdoing, according to documents filed Wednesday in state court in Houston. Murray's policy, which was purchased roughly a month before Jackson's death in June 2009, did not cover incidents involving general anesthesia, the company argues.

Murray faces an involuntary manslaughter charge in Los Angeles, where authorities accuse him of administering a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol to the pop star in the bedroom of his rented mansion.

The criminal case is just one of the legal challenges Murray faces. He has been sued by Jackson's father for wrongful death in federal court in Los Angeles, and authorities have sought to either suspend or limit his medical license in Texas, California and Nevada. One of Murray's clinics is in Houston.

The doctor is relying on four attorneys in California and Texas to defend him in the criminal and civil cases. He has argued that he needs to maintain his medical license to pay for his criminal defense.

Medicus, which is based in Austin, claims it is not required to defend Murray's medical license in the three states. The insurer argues that scrutiny by Texas and California officials came as a result of allegations of wrongdoing in Jackson's death, and that Nevada attempted to suspend Murray's medical license because he was behind on child support payments, not for his medical work.

The court filings do not indicate how much Murray's defense in the various cases may cost.

"We believe Medicus is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law," Murray's attorney, Charles Peckham, said Wednesday. "We believe there should be coverage."

Peckham asked the judge in a court filing Monday to delay the case until after the criminal matter is decided, arguing that defending it would violate the doctor's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

"He simply can't engage in this kind of case," Peckham said, adding that coverage Murray applied for, and the insurer initially accepted, would have covered all the claims.

Medicus filed its case in August, but the legal fees dispute was disclosed in a court filing Wednesday in the wrongful death case.

The company's lawsuit states that Murray's policy only covers the doctor's actions in Texas. The company filed its case after Murray asked the insurer to pay for his defense in the California court cases and medical board hearings in other states, according to the complaint.

Murray is due back in Los Angeles next week for a hearing in the criminal case, and prosecutors are expected to lay out some of their evidence against him during a preliminary hearing in January.

Last week, a federal judge in Houston ruled that Lloyd's of London was not required to pay millions of dollars in legal fees for jailed financier R. Allen Stanford and two former executives charged in a massive Ponzi scheme. The insurer had argued the men's insurance policy did not cover money laundering charges.
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13361006

But I couldn't find any updates. Based on this, it doesn't look as if the insurance would be paying. Also of interest, hewhoshallnotbenamed obtained it 1 month before Michael's death.
Click to expand...

thank you for posting this...it is very interesting.....especially the bolded part....something doesn't smell quite right...this we have been saying since June 25th.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top