Latest on MJJC

Forensic Files

elusive moonwalker said:
id like to know why it was deemed to be murder 2 and one. obviously him doing a runner doesnt help and presumably he didnt claim he was treating her so that adds to the suspicion of murder. what had gone on between the two would five us a good idea to motive etc
Click to expand...
Don't know the details in that case to say why charges were upgraded from Second Degree to First Degree Murder, but at least they say why it was murder and not homicide. (It's in my last quote from the article -no possibility for the victim herself to put all medical evidences into garbage before going back to bed to collapse...).

In Murray's case the "problem" was that he is a doctor and usually one tends to think that a doctor wants the best for his/her patient and that if something wrong happens it is assumed it was unintentionally... and that belief also stopped police from "more complete death investigation" initially (as the coroner investigator testified).
But the hiding of evidence from Murray and the delay in calling Emergencies, among too many other details in this case speak otherwise.
 
I guess it was upgraded to murder one cause he did a runner ontop of any previous history. Between the 2. I dunno.i dont really get the diff betwern murder 1 and 2 in usa law


Like u say murray is a dr.he knew and was hired by mj.theres a connection.a reason for him to be in the house.a connection between the dip mj and murray.unlike the case noted in this thread.u need a smoking gun imo for a jury to see the case as the same as the one in this thread.ie murder 1 and not M.S
 
I've been thinking about this today (and still don't really have any answers) but I think that motive is more for the investigation, so you don't need to know the motive to charge someone with first degree murder, although it would help, you need to show intent. If it was planned then there was intent and of course motive for the criminal, but I don't think we always get to know the motive, sometimes people do things that don't make sense and you never really know why, even if they are convicted.

So I guess if I'm right about what I said above, then they would have to prove that Murray planned to do this, and the big problem is Michael is not here to say otherwise, so it would be hard to prove that Murray was setting the scene by ordering large amounts of propofol and such. It's easy for the defense to say "Michael wanted it" and talk about how there are all these "Hollywood doctors" that will do anything, blah, blah.
 
Motive and intent are the most important things in a muder 1 charge imo.without that u dont have a case as the charge is based around those two things so u find tge intent and motive first and then charge
 
wow interesting when it air again can somebody pls recorded this???????? and upload?? x
 
elusive, that's not how it goes. In fact, I can't understand why motive would be the most imp. thing when it's so easy to just lie about it. And when it's so very easy to hide it based on the reason WHY some murderers even kill.

Investigators can investigate all they want, but can they really say with 100% confidence that, for ex., a poor man killed his rich aunt for money? It does help for the pros. to use that and swing it against the accused since it makes sense. But no one knows 100% that's the motive unless the killer himself admits it.

jilliebean said:
I've been thinking about this today (and still don't really have any answers) but I think that motive is more for the investigation, so you don't need to know the motive to charge someone with first degree murder, although it would help, you need to show intent. If it was planned then there was intent and of course motive for the criminal, but I don't think we always get to know the motive, sometimes people do things that don't make sense and you never really know why, even if they are convicted.

So I guess if I'm right about what I said above, then they would have to prove that Murray planned to do this, and the big problem is Michael is not here to say otherwise, so it would be hard to prove that Murray was setting the scene by ordering large amounts of propofol and such. It's easy for the defense to say "Michael wanted it" and talk about how there are all these "Hollywood doctors" that will do anything, blah, blah.
Click to expand...

You're correct.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that a person can be convicted for murder even if no motive is established as long as there is direct or circumstantial evidence to link the accused to the crime.

In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does assume great importance, but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is giving this one factor an importance which is not due.

Motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy.

However, it can be difficult to understand the motive behind the offence. The issue of motive becomes totally irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the commission of the crime.

In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime."

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/person-can-be-convicted-even-if-motive-not-established-sc/652469/2

This would make sense. The criminal mind can be complex at times. People kill for all kinds of reasons. Some murder because they like it. Some because they want to be noticed. And those motives were only figured out because the murderer them self said so! Some even lie about their motive!
 
Last edited:
its important for any crime where intent and motive is needed. And its hugely important if u want to convict s dr of murder rather than IM negligence when they were treating a paitent.hence why they charged him with IMS and not VMS let alone murder 1. First question for the pros before they charge and the jury is what is the motive for the crime.was there intent is easier to prove in a murder case as the action speaks for itself most of the time. yes sometimes the motive may be debatable.but if there isnt a smoking gun then it moves to it been a circumstantial case where of course convictions are gained from that.but we are talking about normal murder 1 charge cases. Murray is not a normal case.there is so much info,the whole situation that makes this very different from a box standard murder 1 case.so without smoking gun evidence it makes it pretty imposs to prove because of the circumstances of the case

As already said things are diff in this case because he is a dr.he was treating mj theres a connection between the two.a reason for him to be in the house etc etc unlike the case talked about in this thread.so unless theres a smoking gun ie intent and motive ontop of other things to commit murder 1.then the pros aint gonna go there cause theres no real circumstantial evidence either to support a lack of motive and intent.and no jury is gonna convict a dr in this sort of case with the info we have without intent and motive evidence let alone circumstantial because he had a reason to be in the house a reason to be treating mj.

If u have some smoking gun evidence that would make a jury convict om murder 1 then lets discuss it but without that it makes the discussion go round in circles cause evidence is what matters in a court of law

dr shipman in the uk is a good example.lots of his paitents started dieing in his surgery or when he went to see them.normal u may think after all hes a dr.but when the police looked into it a huge amout of paitents were dieing.then look again many of those were dieing of the same thing overdoses (they exhumed bodies to test) as he has signed the death certificate as natural cases so no p.m. many of those that died had money and had been putting him in their will etc.he was killing off old paitents to get their money.theres alot of smoking gun evidence there and he was convicted.thats the sort of evidence u need against drs if u wanna convict for murder 1
 
Last edited:
Well think of the Casey Anthony trial (if you are familiar) I don't know if she is guilty or not the trial is on going, but I bet you anything if they convict her, we will never know why she killed her daughter. You hear it all the time that "why" is the big question when crimes are committed. I think motive is very important to a case because of course if a crime was committed there was a motive, but I don't think it's necessary. Intent on the other hand is extremely important, because it would prove it wasn't an accident.

I agree with you elusive that this case is unique, but I think we should be discussing it, for Michael. Even if we all talk round and round, there are a lot of us, and you never know what someone might discover. I guess it also depends for a lot of fans if you think Michael was actually murdered. If fans believe it was an accident than Murray's charge is 100% correct, but I for one don't think it was an accident, I don't have any great theories like some other people on here, but in my gut, things just don't add up and when someone admits to an accident and tells all, it should all make sense. Maybe I will feel different when the trial starts.

So is there motive or intent with Murray?
 
How can people say there is no intent when he gave him sedatives every hour on the hour plus propofol and the added another medication on top of that? No one does that unless they intend to overdose someone. And he can clearly have motive if his contract was not signed yet.
 
How can people say there is no intent when he gave him sedatives every hour on the hour plus propofol and the added another medication on top of that? No one does that unless they intend to overdose someone. And he can clearly have motive if his contract was not signed yet. I really would not rationalize what this DA chose to charge with because clearly Murray was under charged.
 
yaazgurl said:
How can people say there is no intent when he gave him sedatives every hour on the hour plus propofol and the added another medication on top of that? No one does that unless they intend to overdose someone. And he can clearly have motive if his contract was not signed yet.
Click to expand...


i guess it depends on whether u think that was intent for murder or just a dr messing up and a jury would only go with murder if theres some smoking gun evidence to support it.also is it documented what was given and when.not including what murray claims but i mean medically provern from the A.R.cos diprivan with loraz is on the C.O.D nothing else so the defence would argue the other stuff given was irrelevent as it wasnt a C.O.D or a contributing factor.sorry for playing devils advocate but in a court everything is gonna get picked

also re the contract.it had been re negotiated.murray signed the final agreement on the 24th.mj did not got chance to sign it. That is easily argued by the defence.what u would need is for example a letter saying murray wasnt going to london.he was sacked which then could be used to show motive and intent.but for all the talk of mj and aeg stalling murray was still going to lon and was gonna get his money

To me the only way a murder 1 would have a chance of standing on its own is if the pros went down the road of murray was broke he needed the job he gave mj all this crap to make sure mj would need him and mj wasnt really aware.he asked for big money.mj decided that he didnt want murray anymore sacked or there was proof mj was about to sack him.murray found out he was gonna get sacked so killed mj in revenge.

Now this is a theory that we have talked about and yes in talking about it on a mess board u coukd think thats a good theory there could be truth to it.and if the police did charge murder one thats the sort of allegation i think they would go with.but if u wanna accuse a dr of that and convict then u need smoking gun evidence cause without that its all theory and circumstance and no jury is gonna convict a dr in that way even more so when u bring in the mj\murray relationship and all the other factors
 
Last edited:
well within the past two years since MJ's death more doctors are on trial and having their licenses revoked so sorry I do not believe being a doctor equals being a god. Also especially because of Murrays supposed knowledge it rises above a simple mistake and this isn't just about a murder one charge its not murder one or involuntatry manslaughter. There are other charges in between and just on what we know Murray was undercharged.
 
Yes murray could have been charged on murder 2 based on gross disregard.which doesnt require the evidence that u would need in a standard murder case.ie intentional killing.that is a charge id say the majority on here supported. But this thread was based on a murder 1 case of someone been killed with dip.hence how it got into a convo about murray and him commiting murder one.and theres also the obstruction of justice charge aswell which shoukd have been added

No one on here thinks drs are god but at the end of the day it is hard to convict them because general consensus is ppl think drs are good ppl who want to help ppl hence why they are drs and if somthing goes wrong its just an accident rather than a crime with
intent and motive.so it makes it harder to convict.


If u have info on drs that have been put on trial/convicted or had licences revoked within the last two years based
on cases similar to murray id be intrested to read and the figures showing how more drs have been prosecuted in the last two years than pre 09
 
yaazgurl said:
How can people say there is no intent when he gave him sedatives every hour on the hour plus propofol and the added another medication on top of that? No one does that unless they intend to overdose someone. And he can clearly have motive if his contract was not signed yet. I really would not rationalize what this DA chose to charge with because clearly Murray was under charged.
Click to expand...

You know you would think that the fact that he is a doctor would hurt him in this situation instead of helping him, because your right he knew exactly what he was doing. I think his intention was to kill him, but even if it wasn't he obviously was up to something and taking a great risk with someone's life, 4 years is nothing. Makes me sick.

His contract was not signed?? I thought they were leaving in a week for London? Do you know why his contract wasn't signed?
 
jilliebean said:
You know you would think that the fact that he is a doctor would hurt him in this situation instead of helping him, because your right he knew exactly what he was doing. I think his intention was to kill him, but even if it wasn't he obviously was up to something and taking a great risk with someone's life, 4 years is nothing. Makes me sick.



His contract was not signed?? I thought they were leaving in a week for London? Do you know why his contract wasn't signed?
Click to expand...

his contract had been renegotiated.murray had signed the new one on the 24th
 
I guess the contract was changed cause of money issues.dileo said he wanted huge amounts of $ and didnt he say he changed things when he came on board.so im presuming that might have been one of the issues.mj hadnt signed it and i dont think aeg had although im not sure on that one.maybe someone else can confirm
 
jilliebean said:
I don't think Michael knew either.



Sad but true, except that there are plenty of cases without important key evidence that have gotten a conviction. Murder cases without the body or murder weapon - that is huge. I guess with Murray they want to make sure they get him for something, and they are playing it safe. I personally think that if what we know is true, it is enough to charge him with second and maybe even first degree, but if he walks everyone (fans) will be pissed, so like I said they are probably playing it safe unless they come across some really damaging evidence. Makes me sad for Michael and his children :(
Click to expand...

This story was made public and Michael may have even heard about it. As Lee was saying, "Michael you don't want to o this this, It's too dangerous". This all happened about the same time he was communicating with Lee.
 
jilliebean said:
Well think of the Casey Anthony trial (if you are familiar) I don't know if she is guilty or not the trial is on going, but I bet you anything if they convict her, we will never know why she killed her daughter. You hear it all the time that "why" is the big question when crimes are committed. I think motive is very important to a case because of course if a crime was committed there was a motive, but I don't think it's necessary. Intent on the other hand is extremely important, because it would prove it wasn't an accident.

I agree with you elusive that this case is unique, but I think we should be discussing it, for Michael. Even if we all talk round and round, there are a lot of us, and you never know what someone might discover. I guess it also depends for a lot of fans if you think Michael was actually murdered. If fans believe it was an accident than Murray's charge is 100% correct, but I for one don't think it was an accident, I don't have any great theories like some other people on here, but in my gut, things just don't add up and when someone admits to an accident and tells all, it should all make sense. Maybe I will feel different when the trial starts.

So is there motive or intent with Murray?
Click to expand...

Good points. I've been watching the Anthony trial, too. The evidence there is almost entirely circumstantial, as is motive. (Casey is not going to testify, and it's doubtful that Murray will, either.) It's been speculated that motive was that Caylee was "interfering with Casey's social life!" In a trial, there is a body of evidence, of actual material and statements, phone records, documents, and so on. But mostly, a trial is story-telling, i.e. presenting different narratives about what happened. The defense in the Anthony case is trying to spin the story that Caylee died in a pool, and for some reason, her grandfather hid her body in the woods! The prosecution's story is that Casey intentionally killed her daughter with chloroform. My POINT is, there are two competing sides, with different narratives, with evidence used to back up each story. Barring an eye-witness, that's all most trials have.

In the "Needle in the Haystack" situation, clearly the fact that the apparatus and medication were outside, by a trashcan, shows that the propofol couldn't have been self-injected.

The prosecution in the Anthony case actually has LESS to go on than in the Murray case, and for a higher charge.

The defense narrative in the Murray case is likely to be in terms of speculations (doubtful that Murray will testify). They will speculate that Michael was a drug-crazed diva (character assassination) and somehow FORCED Murray to give him the propofol. OR, they will say that Murray left the room and Michael self-injected. OR, that Michael had some underlying medical condition that he didn't tell Murray about, and that made him more fragile when given the propofol. The prosecution doesn't have to go with just ONE of these. They are trying to establish "reasonable doubt."

The prosecution will probably tell the story that Murray was a bumbling fool who made a series of errors in judgment.

BUT, if the charges were Murder One or higher, different stories will be told. It's not necessary to firmly establish motive, but suggest it. So at that higher charge, they most likely would have spun a story such as: An unsigned contract was in Murray's car. Michael had not signed it, nor had AEG. Only Murray had signed the contract, and time was short. Murray had a history of violence (domestic abuse arrest). So, Michael told him he wouldn't sign the contract; Murray was stressed for money, and he SNAPPED, attacked Michael and killed him with the propofol. Different narrative, for the higher charge. RAGE would be "motive."

OR, with a higher charge, the prosecution could have gone with the Jackson's (some of them) narrative, that Murray was the "fall guy" for a more sinister plot, i.e. he was an assassin. That would be "premeditated," and VERY serious, and also very hard to prove without concrete evidence.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that trials are about STORIES that are "likely," and then attorneys use evidence to flesh out the stories. And ultimately, the jury decides. In the Anthony trial there is no evidence that directly links Casey to her daughter's murder, but the bits and pieces of evidence add up to the concept that she intentionally killed her daughter, and then concealed the evidence and the body. It's a risky charge, given that the stakes are, she could WALK. Or, not. WILL she "walk?" Probably not. She's guilty as sin.

It remains my position that the prosecution in the Murray case should have/could have gone for a higher charge. Clearly, there was admission of some sort of guilt, because Murray tried to hide the evidence. Murray was under a lot of financial pressure. It's unclear WHO hired Murray, actually. Murray LIED to police, multiple times. He had a history of violence (domestic abuse arrest). And there is much more. The current charges will be easier to prove, and get a conviction, but the punishment will be, IMHO, too light. It's all about who you believe, and how much risk the prosecution is willing to take? And how you connect the dots? (There is MUCH less concrete evidence in the Anthony trial, but the prosecution is going for the highest charge.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top