Latest on MJJC

Girlfriend of Michael Jackson's doctor to testify before grand jury, sources say

the man wanted to get some rest , some kind of sleep , it is not ike he was able to sleep without it and insisted on using it .
 
Oceangirl said:
the man wanted to get some rest , some kind of sleep , it is not ike he was able to sleep without it and insisted on using it .
Click to expand...
And there are all kinds of treatments for this problem. I had it in 1997. There are clinics here ( I am sure there places in LA and if not, MJ had the money to get the "right" people). he was WARNED about this stuff but ignore it. He should have thought about his life and family and not risk it. Yes, he put the trust in a doctor but I am sure MJ knew this was not right to do in your home and was turned down by others. Yes, I blame the doctor OVERALL and in the end, but I just wish MJ would have thought about it before he allow this idoit to do it.
 
terrell said:
This is where I get mad with MJ. WHy play with your life like this? He had children, a family, friends, and himself. yes, I blame Murray overall in the end, but I wish MJ would hav used his own head to know "this is not right of me".
Click to expand...

Me too, I still cant fathom why Michael would put his life in the hands of another. To need or want to be relieved of insomnia in this way should set alarms bells ringing. But, if indeed Michael has an addiction to a drug, well, rational thought and logic dont exactly dictate. Especially when a doctor is only too willing to adminster it.
 
i get angry sometimes. i know i shouldnt but its so hard. u dont need to be an expert to know u shouldnt use stuff like that its crazy. even more so when u arent using the correct monitors and have a doctor whos not trained at it. it just hurts so much that this was so unnecessary.
 
terrell said:
And there are all kinds of treatments for this problem. I had it in 1997. There are clinics here ( I am sure there places in LA and if not, MJ had the money to get the "right" people). he was WARNED about this stuff but ignore it. He should have thought about his life and family and not risk it. Yes, he put the trust in a doctor but I am sure MJ knew this was not right to do in your home and was turned down by others. Yes, I blame the doctor OVERALL and in the end, but I just wish MJ would have thought about it before he allow this idoit to do it.
Click to expand...

yeah i agree. it was nothing more than russian roulette i just hope the kids in later years dont feel angered by it. i feel bad for saying this its just so hard


This is where I get mad with MJ. WHy play with your life like this? He had children, a family, friends, and himself. yes, I blame Murray overall in the end, but I wish MJ would hav used his own head to know "this is not right of me".
Click to expand...
yeah thats what i was really trying to say in my post u replied to. i just find it hard to say it outloud.
 
dear god what the hell are you ppl talking about?
its too late to talk about this stuff MJ payed the ultimate price for what happened
now is the time for his killer to pay
please stay on topic
 
I think we've all been angry as to WHY at some point...and some still are. Totally understandable, imo. However, it's not impossible that Michael was lured into a false sense of security and safety by Murray. People don't die from propofol. And it IS safe BUT only under certain conditions. Michael seemed to be aware of this which is why he "allegedly" made provisions to be monitored by a medical professional. If you add his possible experience with the drug in the past (History tour under Dr. Ratner) then it's not unlikely that he genuinely believed this drug could not harm him. And technically, it shouldn't have. If everything had been done properly with a competent doctor/anesthesiologist in charge, Michael might still be here...going to sleep at night with propofol. And in one more week, he would have been free from it for the next 3 months. I'm not saying it would have been right, I'm just saying it could have happened and we'd have been none the wiser.
 
terrel, elusive and emmah I do understand where you are coming from , and I do know mj was aware of how much risky it was since he told those sony executors that the next tour would kill him because on history tour he was hooked to an iv to sleep . but on the other hand you have Dr.Adams who says he administered propofl 6000 times in the last 6 years to people and no one died , i'm sure mj was also aware of that , that's why he thought it was safe . I don't know what to say , I REFUSE TO BLAME HIM it is very hard to blame mike , I don't know any more , all i want now is justice for mj and those three innocent fatherless kids .

sorry Vic, I posted it before I read your post .
 
elusive moonwalker said:
i get angry sometimes. i know i shouldnt but its so hard. u dont need to be an expert to know u shouldnt use stuff like that its crazy. even more so when u arent using the correct monitors and have a doctor whos not trained at it. it just hurts so much that this was so unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Also, for me, it is hard to believe because I remember when he got burned in 1984 that he did NOT want to take a pain killer for the burn but he was in so much pain he had to regardless to his religion. I would have NEVER thought Michael would have died this way. Many people alway said MJ will live to be an old man because he lived such a clean life. Michael was a health junkie (this was why some people including in the media was not buying the "addiction" claim in 1993). It was hard to grab. Michael did not curse, swear,drink, or smoke. Yes, Michael had his problems but we would have never thought it would be this. His death is shocking in more ways than one.
 
Oceangirl said:
terrel, elusive and emmah I do understand where you are coming from , and I do know mj was aware of how much risky it was to use since he told those sony executors that the next tour would kill him because on history tour he was hooked to an iv to sleep . but on the other hand you have Dr.Adams who says he administered propofl 6000 times in the last 6 years to people and no one died , i'm sure mj was also aware of that , that's why he thought it was safe . I don't know what to say , I REFUSE TO BLAME HIM it is very hard to blame mike , I don't know any more , all i want now is justice for mj and those three innocent fatherless kids .
Click to expand...
The doctor is the blame at the end of day But I wish Michael would not have use this method. The mere fact that this med does NOT suppose to be used in the home this way is proof that these doctors knew they were doing something wrong.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
yeah i agree. it was nothing more than russian roulette i just hope the kids in later years dont feel angered by it. i feel bad for saying this its just so hard................
Click to expand...
Hard, but true. After these nearly 3 months I have to say I still feel like this: Murray has the majority of the blame. After all, he's the one who should have said no, he's the one who obviously didn't know what the f*** he was doing (!) and chose to do it anyway, he's the one who Michael was trusting with his life and he's the one who f***ed up beyond all belief. But I also know Michael has part of the blame... for pursuing such a dangerous path (WTH??!) and then entrusting someone who wasn't an anesthesiologist to administer something as hardcore as anesthesia. But I also hold another group partly responsible and that's any doctor who did this in the past, especially if there was one who introduced Michael to this crazy idea of propofol for insomnia. Those docs also should have known better and unfortunately must have given him the feeling of safety, that yeah it's dangerous, but not sooo dangerous, wink-wink. If you've been awakened repeatedly without incident it would be pretty easy to blow off the warnings. Pardon me now while I bang my head against the wall in futile frustration...
 
wendy2004 said:
I think we've all been angry as to WHY at some point...and some still are. Totally understandable, imo. However, it's not impossible that Michael was lured into a false sense of security and safety by Murray. People don't die from propofol. And it IS safe BUT only under certain conditions. Michael seemed to be aware of this which is why he "allegedly" made provisions to be monitored by a medical professional. If you add his possible experience with the drug in the past (History tour under Dr. Ratner) then it's not unlikely that he genuinely believed this drug could not harm him. And technically, it shouldn't have. If everything had been done properly with a competent doctor/anesthesiologist in charge, Michael might still be here...going to sleep at night with propofol. And in one more week, he would have been free from it for the next 3 months. I'm not saying it would have been right, I'm just saying it could have happened and we'd have been none the wiser.
Click to expand...
I understand but why use that kind of med for a sleep aid. It is NOT a sleep aid. That is what mean by Michael should have known better. I know a shot will deliever pain medication faster than a pill that has to dissolve but I do not want a shot everytime my head hurt.
 
mjbunny said:
Hard, but true. After these nearly 3 months I have to say I still feel like this: Murray has the majority of the blame. After all, he's the one who should have said no, he's the one who obviously didn't know what the f*** he was doing (!) and chose to do it anyway, he's the one who Michael was trusting with his life and he's the one who f***ed up beyond all belief. But I also know Michael has part of the blame... for pursuing such a dangerous path (WTH??!) and then entrusting someone who wasn't an anesthesiologist to administer something as hardcore as anesthesia. But I also hold another group partly responsible and that's any doctor who did this in the past, especially if there was one who introduced Michael to this crazy idea of propofol for insomnia. Those docs also should have known better and unfortunately must have given him the feeling of safety, that yeah it's dangerous, but not sooo dangerous, wink-wink. If you've been awakened repeatedly without incident it would be pretty easy to blow off the warnings. Pardon me now while I bang my head against the wall in futile frustration...
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
so who else beside me think the charges are gonna be filed very soon since there is an investigative GJ now listening to witnesses? and is this stripper the first witness ? I'm sure the GJ will hear from many other witnesses not only her . would they call murray ? the GJ in 2003 did not meet mj so could they ask for murray to come?
 
i guess they could ask for murray but he would refuse after all a GJ is about incriminating evidence, murray wont incriminate himself. tmz mentioned charges second week of october and who reported the GJ the other week,that it could take place. i guess they got a heads up from someone
 
I'm really surprised TMZ isn't reporting on this since they seem to have their photogs everywhere if it's MJ related. Nothing at all being shown or mentioned anywhere.
 
i doubt there will be any update GJ are private there maybe paps hanging around (do they know the location) but other than that
 
well, then the girlfriend could also refuse since a GJ is about incriminating evidence. MJ was already charged in 2003 , sneddon wanted to avoid a preliminaryhearing and even in GJ the defence has the right to be heard , remember mj's case and Geragos .
 
Last edited:
well the GF has been subpeoned (cant spell that word) and the GJ isnt investigating her.shes there to give evidence to incriminate murray. mj was already arrested the GJ deicded the actual indictment i thought the indictment changed from the initial arrest accusations in 03.the alcohol wasnt mentioned originally i think. the GJ was different then aswell cause it was used instead of a prelim.
 
oh yes I remember now , completely different set of accusations, completely different timeline of the events .
 
Last edited:
Who must testify before a grand jury?
  • A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination.
Can a lawyer be called to testify about his or her client?
  • A lawyer might be called; but the lawyer/client privilege shields him or her from being compelled to testify about a conversation with a client unless the conversation related to an ongoing or future crime or fraud of the client.
Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?
  • In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.

    Can a witness refuse to appear before the grand jury?
    • Not without risking being held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena to compel their testimony.
    What happens if a witness is found in contempt?
    • A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury.
    If the grand jury refuses to return an indictment, can the prosecutor come back and try again, or is that barred by double jeopardy?
    • Double jeopardy does not apply to the grand jury. In practice, however, it is uncommon for a prosecutor, having failed once, to try again without good reason. The Department of Justice requires the prosecutor to obtain permission of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to present the case again.
    Can a grand jury target offer evidence of his or her own?
    • For the most part, the subject of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify unless subpoenaed, nor any right to compel the grand jury to hear certain witnesses or evidence. Often, however, if a target requests an opportunity to testify, he or she will be permitted by the prosecutor to do so but without a grant of immunity.
      The prosecutor may refuse to present evidence submitted by a target. In federal grand juries, exculpatory evidence need not be presented, although in many states exculpatory evidence must be submitted for the grand jury's consideration. Prosecutors have the right in federal grand juries to introduce hearsay and to otherwise utilize evidence that would not be admissible in a regular trial.
    Is there a judge in the grand jury room when testimony is being taken?
    • No. Normal rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury investigation, and a judge is generally needed only to rule on privilege issues or issues relating to contempt.
    What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?
    • None. The target's only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony.
 
How are grand jurors selected?
  • In most jurisdictions, grand jurors are drawn from the same pool of potential jurors as are any other jury panels, and in the same manner. The pool generally consists of names culled from various databases, such as national voter lists, motor vehicle license lists and public utilities lists.
Does anyone screen grand jurors for biases or other improper factors?
  • No. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for biases or other improper factors.
How independent is the grand jury?
  • The grand jury is independent in theory, and although the instructions given to the grand jurors inform them they are to use their judgment, the practical realities of the situation mitigate against it.
    The grand jury hears only cases brought to it by the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor on a theory he or she articulates. The grand jury members are generally permitted to ask questions at the end of a witness's testimony. The prosecutor generally decides if he or she has enough evidence to seek an indictment. Occasionally the grand jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so.
    The prosecutor drafts the charges and reads them to the grand jury. There is no requirement that the grand jury be read any instructions on the law, and such instructions are rarely given.
Why are grand jury proceedings secret?
  • Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to ensure that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a subsequent trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak freely, and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he or she was under investigation.
Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?
  • In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.


    http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html
 
ok i believe in POST 96 vic asked y'all to get back ot.....mj paid the ultimate price. he died and im sure if he felt or thought at all that this was dangerous, he would not have done it. his children meant the world to him. those that knew him know that.

so let's get back on topic please.
 
RT: Wonders if a Federal Grand Jury has any plans to be convening anytime soon? :ermm: -_-
 
I believe that charges are gonna be filed very soon, the DA wants for sure to avoid a preliminary hearing because of the media coverage . he will use the GJ to get an indictment against murray . I do believe that .
 
u would think so.there was an article saying that the other week.i guess they got a heads up?
 
Oceangirl said:
I believe that charges are gonna be filed very soon, the DA wants for sure to avoid a preliminary hearing because of the media coverage . he will use the GJ to get an indictment against murray . I do believe that .
Click to expand...

:angel::angel::angel::angel::angel:

From you mouth to God's ears!

I think that the Grand Jury is definitely a smart decision by the DA to compel Nicole to deliver the goods.

But I have a question for our MJCC Legal Eagles:

Would a preliminary hearing be necessary if a Grand Jury finds probable cause & evidence against Murray and his accessories to the crime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top