Latest on MJJC

I think the family is giving Murray his defense

Hate to have to agree but yes. The interview gave Murray what they have been waiting for. That along with the LAPD dragging their foot making it seem like this is such a difficult case in theory when in fact if this happened to Brad Pitt, Bruce Sprinsteen, Madoona or some other star of MJ's caliber, the murderer would be arrested long ago.

The jury pool is watching and all Janet did in her interview was make MJ seem like a severely drugged out person and saying he was in denial just made it worst. Us fans know the truth but to the passing observer along with how long this investigation is taking, will think he was.

I don't think there will ever be justice for Michael. Though, I do hope along with my prayers, so much to be wrong.
 
This does not give Murray a defense. It was propofol that killed Michael and it was Murray that administered it. Michael's organs were healthy-not a sign of drug addiction. We know that he's had problems with painkillers in the past, its not a secret and Michael himself admitted he had a painkiller dependency. Murray administered himself the fatal dose. 'He kept asking for it' is not a defence. You do not have to give someone what they want. The long period of time before he called 911 raises an alarming point-if you saw someone in distress you call 911 straight away. Whether it was 15 mins or 80 mins it doesn't matter, its irrelevant. There was still a delay and that can prove fatal. Also as a trained doctor why on earth was CPR done on a bed? Murray has no defense in this matter.
 
LuvsMJwithoutcompromise said:
Hate to have to agree but yes. The interview gave Murray what they have been waiting for. That along with the LAPD dragging their foot making it seem like this is such a difficult case in theory when in fact if this happened to Brad Pitt, Bruce Sprinsteen, Madoona or some other star of MJ's caliber, the murderer would be arrested long ago.

The jury pool is watching and all Janet did in her interview was make MJ seem like a severely drugged out person and saying he was in denial just made it worst. Us fans know the truth but to the passing observer along with how long this investigation is taking, will think he was.

I don't think there will ever be justice for Michael. Though, I do hope along with my prayers, so much to be wrong.
Click to expand...



You are aware that cases, any case, that is rush usually become a crap fest. Look at the Blake's case about what happens when law enforcement rushes.

Also, how did Janet give Murray 'exactly' what he needs. What she said was no different than what several other people had already said. Even some fans here, so give me a break about the whole corrupted jury.

You fail to tell me how with all the evident stack against Murray how any defense can be amounted. If the best they can come up with was 'he was an addict', then they are in deep shit. Once again, look at John Belushi's death.

Stop thinking with your emotions and start using the logic and facts in the case. Btw, if all jury's pool were corrupted by the news OJ, Michael, and Blake should all be in jail by your logic.
 
yaazgurl said:
By constantly talking about Michael being on drugs and failed interventions and not making it clear that Michael wasn't apparently on anything other than what Murray gave him when he died. According to the autopsy, his organs were not damaged by years of drug use but the media wants to portray a drug addict and the family goes along with it. They are giving Murray a defense and giving the potential jury reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

yeap agree. no wonder the media laugh at that family so much.who needs the media when you own family are doing their job for them.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaazgurl
By constantly talking about Michael being on drugs and failed interventions and not making it clear that Michael wasn't apparently on anything other than what Murray gave him when he died. According to the autopsy, his organs were not damaged by years of drug use but the media wants to portray a drug addict and the family goes along with it. They are giving Murray a defense and giving the potential jury reasonable doubt.

by Ellusive Moonwalker
Click to expand...
yeap agree. no wonder the media laugh at that family so much.who needs the media when you own family are doing their job for them.
Click to expand...


I agree with 100% with what you all have said:
All Janet Jackson needed to have said last night was
I will love and support Michael Jackson 's children.
 
LuvsMJwithoutcompromise said:
Hate to have to agree but yes. The interview gave Murray what they have been waiting for. That along with the LAPD dragging their foot making it seem like this is such a difficult case in theory when in fact if this happened to Brad Pitt, Bruce Sprinsteen, Madoona or some other star of MJ's caliber, the murderer would be arrested long ago.

The jury pool is watching and all Janet did in her interview was make MJ seem like a severely drugged out person and saying he was in denial just made it worst. Us fans know the truth but to the passing observer along with how long this investigation is taking, will think he was.

I don't think there will ever be justice for Michael. Though, I do hope along with my prayers, so much to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are treating Michaels case any differently than any other. Investigations of this type take a long time to complete.

In the case of Elvis Presley read this:

" Although Dr. Nichopoulos was exonerated with regard to Presley's death, "In the first eight months of 1977 alone, he had [prescribed] more than 10,000 doses of sedatives, amphetamines, and narcotics: all in Elvis' name. On January 20, 1980, the board found [against] him... but decided that he was not unethical [because he claimed he'd been trying to wean the singer off the drugs]." His license was suspended. In July 1995, it was permanently revoked after it was found he had improperly dispensed drugs to several patients including Jerry Lee Lewis.[201]

In 1994, the autopsy into Presley's death was re-opened. Coroner Dr. Joseph Davis declared: "There is nothing in any of the data that supports a death from drugs [i.e. drug overdose]. In fact, everything points to a sudden, violent heart attack."[201] However, there is little doubt that polypharmacy/Combined Drug Intoxication caused his premature death.[275]"

Look how long it takes things to happen.
 
CherubimII said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaazgurl
By constantly talking about Michael being on drugs and failed interventions and not making it clear that Michael wasn't apparently on anything other than what Murray gave him when he died. According to the autopsy, his organs were not damaged by years of drug use but the media wants to portray a drug addict and the family goes along with it. They are giving Murray a defense and giving the potential jury reasonable doubt.



I agree with 100% with what you all have said:
All Janet Jackson needed to have said last night was
I will love and support Michael Jackson 's children.
Click to expand...


Agree with everything here.

Murray's defense is "the drug addict who's my boss made me do it, I was afraid to say no" story. And statements like the one Janet made yesterday (as much as I love her) help Murray.

HOW?

It will help Murray fight a 2nd degree murder charge (which could mean a life sentence) and get a lesser degree of involuntary manslaughter which the maximum penalty is 18 months - by claiming MJ forced him to do so.

All the evidence points at a 2nd degree murder charge, because MJ was healthy, not showing any signs of "addiction" per se, and there were massive and abnormal amounts of propofol, which normally metabolizes within 10 minutes. So there was gross negligence & malice.

But if the family keeps talking, the defense smiles.
 
Sirena said:
Agree with everything here.

Murray's defense is "the drug addict who's my boss made me do it, I was afraid to say no" story. And statements like the one Janet made yesterday (as much as I love her) help Murray.

HOW?

It will help Murray fight a 2nd degree murder charge (which could mean a life sentence) and get a lesser degree of involuntary manslaughter which the maximum penalty is 18 months - by claiming MJ forced him to do so.

All the evidence points at a 2nd degree murder charge, because MJ was healthy, not showing any signs of "addiction" per se, and there were massive and abnormal amounts of propofol, which normally metabolizes within 10 minutes. So there was gross negligence & malice.

But if the family keeps talking, the defense smiles.
Click to expand...



That is like saying an eye witnesses trumps DNA evident. If there is no evident of addiction, it makes no different what people claim. It would be the same of several witnesses say that John Smith was not at the crime scene, but physical evident said that he was. Juries believe physical evident over eye witnesses, since they can be wrong in what they saw or observe.

Also, a person begging for drugs is not excuse for a doctor. So, he force me to do it does not fly, because he is the flipping doctor and you are not suppose to give in to patient demands. Unless they can prove that Michael had him at gun point, no jury is going to believe that. If anything, he would get it worst for given medicine to an addict.

Not to mention the fact all the crap he did after Michael stopped breathing. Also, even without the addict charge, I doubt he would had been given 2nd degree murder anyway, because there was no intent.
 
MJs siblings are being honest when asked. I don't know why people refuse to take it for fact that Michael did drugs. Do you think Janet is lying too? St Janet accorrding to people here. My goodness he had a problem, alot of people did. His death was Dr Murrays fault because nobody should have been administering that regularly. But MJ had his part in it to.
 
LuvsMJwithoutcompromise said:
The jury pool is watching and all Janet did in her interview was make MJ seem like a severely drugged out person and saying he was in denial just made it worst. Us fans know the truth but to the passing observer along with how long this investigation is taking, will think he was.
Click to expand...


Another good point in bold, the defense can also claim a mistrial based alone on Janet's interview - that Murray can't possibly get a fair trial based on all the media exposure.

What is the saving grace of the situation is the evidence & the coroner's report.

A good DA (calling Jack McCoy!) will pound it in the jury's face that regardless of the opinion that Murray and his defense team has, the forensic evidence says that MJ was a healthy 50 year old male with no signs of addiction of any kind internally or externally - and was killed by acute propofol intoxication at the hands of another.

And I wish the DA would put a gag order on all the Jacksons, or people associated to them - because whatever they say can ruin the case.
 
LisaU123 said:
MJs siblings are being honest when asked. I don't know why people refuse to take it for fact that Michael did drugs. Do you think Janet is lying too? St Janet accorrding to people here. My goodness he had a problem, alot of people did. His death was Dr Murrays fault because nobody should have been administering that regularly. But MJ had his part in it to.
Click to expand...


The thing is he was not an addict and his organs show he did not have a serious drug problem. So, while Janet may not be lying, she may not have all the facts and just assume he was doing something because of habits he developed like not eating alot, sleeping occasionally, and locking himself in his recording studio and not being seen for hours without being seen. Janet admitted several time that she had to do Michael's chores and take care of him when their mom was away because he went into the recording studio and would not been seen for hours.

Given his health history, he may had occasional problems with drugs, but nothing that bad.
 
Ramona122003 said:
That is like saying an eye witnesses trumps DNA evident. If there is no evident of addiction, it makes no different what people claim. It would be the same of several witnesses say that John Smith was not at the crime scene, but physical evident said that he was. Juries believe physical evident over eye witnesses, since they can be wrong in what they saw or observe.

Also, a person begging for drugs is not excuse for a doctor. So, he force me to do it does not fly, because he is the flipping doctor and you are not suppose to give in to patient demands. Unless they can prove that Michael had him at gun point, no jury is going to believe that. If anything, he would get it worst for given medicine to an addict.

Not to mention the fact all the crap he did after Michael stopped breathing. Also, even without the addict charge, I doubt he would had been given 2nd degree murder anyway, because there was no intent.
Click to expand...

DNA evidence is clearly stronger than an eyewitness report, obviously.

My point is that they can use Janet's statement to go for a lesser charge: instead of 2nd degree murder, the defense will try to get involuntary manslaughter - and statements like Janet's could support the involuntary manslaughter charge.

Murray can be given 2nd degree murder because of the amount of propofol found in MJs body - regardless of intent. The gross negligence in the way Murray administered over 7 medications, plus the phone calls and none to 911, the botched CPR, the manner which Murray fled when MJ was declared dead can bring him a 2nd degree murder charge and life in prison - if the DA pushes for it. The evidence sure calls for it.
 
steve demon said:
But it wasn't a 'cocktail' of drugs that killed him, it was strictly the propofol, which Murray supplied and injected Michael with.
Click to expand...

*~MJ Loves MJ~* said:
True, the media just flashed that word around to get more viewers... pathetic.
Click to expand...

The LA Times quoted the official coroner's report:
"manner of death has been ruled homicide. Cause of death was established as acute propofol intoxication. Other conditions contributing to death: benzodiazepine. The drugs propofol and lorazepam were found to be the primary drugs responsible for Mr. Jackson’s death. Other drugs detected were midazolam, diazepam, lidocaine, and ephedrine. The final coroner’s report includes a complete toxicology report that will remain on security hold at the request of the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office."
Click to expand...

Let's not change the evidence to fit our preferred viewpoint. I'm just setting the record straight here, not making a point.

I disagree with the original post. If it's determined that MJ was dependent on Propofol and/or benzodiazepines, it might go even worse for Murray, as doctors are not supposed to give drugs to addicts.

In either case, Murray should easily go down REGARDLESS of MJ's previous drug history. There is NO situation in which administering Propofol in a home setting, or for insomnia, is acceptable, even if the patient begs for it, so Murray must surely be found at minimum criminally negligent.

Don't flame me -- I'm not saying MJ was an addict. I'm just saying the "discussing it gives Murray a defense" premise may not be correct and may not be a reason to criticize MJ's family.
 
Last edited:
Sirena said:
Another good point in bold, the defense can also claim a mistrial based alone on Janet's interview - that Murray can't possibly get a fair trial based on all the media exposure.

What is the saving grace of the situation is the evidence & the coroner's report.

A good DA (calling Jack McCoy!) will pound it in the jury's face that regardless of the opinion that Murray and his defense team has, the forensic evidence says that MJ was a healthy 50 year old male with no signs of addiction of any kind internally or externally - and was killed by acute propofol intoxication at the hands of another.

And I wish the DA would put a gag order on all the Jacksons, or people associated to them - because whatever they say can ruin the case.
Click to expand...



No charges have been brought filed, so how can you put a gag order.

Also, word of mouth does not beat physical evident so it really does not matter. If they are called by the defense, any lawyer will asked them for specific times for these interventions and why they thought Michael was on drugs. Especially, since none of them ever saw him take drugs.
 
Ramona122003 said:
No charges have been brought filed, so how can you put a gag order.

Also, word of mouth does not beat physical evident so it really does not matter. If they are called by the defense, any lawyer will asked them for specific times for these interventions and why they thought Michael was on drugs. Especially, since none of them ever saw him take drugs.
Click to expand...

EDIT: The police/DA can request the family not to mention or talk to the media.

You're right, but remember: a defense attorney doesn't have to prove their client is innocent. What they have to do is cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution to the jury. And Murray's lawyers can do this. Not prove it, but cast a shadow of doubt.
 
Sirena said:
DNA evidence is clearly stronger than an eyewitness report, obviously.

My point is that they can use Janet's statement to go for a lesser charge: instead of 2nd degree murder, the defense will try to get involuntary manslaughter - and statements like Janet's could support the involuntary manslaughter charge.

Murray can be given 2nd degree murder because of the amount of propofol found in MJs body - regardless of intent. The gross negligence in the way Murray administered over 7 medications, plus the phone calls and none to 911, the botched CPR, the manner which Murray fled when MJ was declared dead can bring him a 2nd degree murder charge and life in prison - if the DA pushes for it. The evidence sure calls for it.
Click to expand...



Not true, to get 2nd degree murder you have to have intent of committing another crime. Without intent, it would be criminally negligent manslaughter.


Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of wilful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako).


United States Law

In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder.


Second Degree Murder

The first few elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of second-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
Many jurisdiction divide murder by degrees. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally second degree murder is common law murder with first degree being an aggravated form. The aggravating factors that distinguish first degree murder from second degree are first degree murder requires a specific intent to kill and premeditation and deliberation.
 
Sirena said:
EDIT: The police/DA can request the family not to mention or talk to the media.

You're right, but remember: a defense attorney doesn't have to prove their client is innocent. What they have to do is cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution to the jury. And Murray's lawyers can do this. Not prove it, but cast a shadow of doubt.
Click to expand...



That is usually only true about the case, not someone's drug habit. Especially if you have already have a counter for it.

Also, what shadow of a doubt are you talking about? That he gave drugs to an addict and he is a doctor. He also had personal medical files on the guy and he knew him for about 3 years, so he knew what he was getting into. That hardly makes things better. Especially since he gave him drugs that are for hospiltes.
 
Murray can scream all he wants that he didn't mean to kill MJ - and the defense can claim he didn't mean to kill MJ...

...but the evidence proves otherwise. The ridiculous amounts of propofol in MJs body can call for a second degree murder charge, and not just gross/serious negligence.





Ramona122003 said:
Not true, to get 2nd degree murder you have to have intent of committing another crime. Without intent, it would be criminally negligent manslaughter.


Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of wilful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako).


United States Law

In many jurisdictions such as California, malice may be found if gross negligence amounts to wilful or depraved indifference to human life. In such a case, the wrongdoer may be guilty of second degree murder.


Second Degree Murder

The first few elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of second-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
Many jurisdiction divide murder by degrees. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally second degree murder is common law murder with first degree being an aggravated form. The aggravating factors that distinguish first degree murder from second degree are first degree murder requires a specific intent to kill and premeditation and deliberation.
Click to expand...
 
Sirena said:
Murray can scream all he wants that he didn't mean to kill MJ - and the defense can claim he didn't mean to kill MJ...

...but the evidence proves otherwise. The ridiculous amounts of propofol in MJs body can call for a second degree murder charge, and not just gross/serious negligence.
Click to expand...


Read the script, if they was no ill intent you cannot carry a second degree murder charge. If he gave him morphine or other illegal drugs perhaps, however propofol is not a control substance and you cannot be arrest for just given it. Unless they can prove malice or intent, you cannot carry second degree murder. Even if there was a large amount of drugs in his body does not prove that point.

What he did was gross/serious negligence, so he would most likely be charge with criminally negligent manslaughter.
 
The TRINI group was also giving Murray his defense. A past history of drug abuse is not what killed him. Murray's lawyers can make that claim in court but any competent prosecutor can shoot that down.

The problem for me is the thought that the city will prosecute Murray when they've spent decades trying to bring Michael down. How hard are they going to fight for a conviction?
 
Sirena said:
Murray can scream all he wants that he didn't mean to kill MJ - and the defense can claim he didn't mean to kill MJ...

...but the evidence proves otherwise. The ridiculous amounts of propofol in MJs body can call for a second degree murder charge, and not just gross/serious negligence.
Click to expand...

We don't know the amount of Propofol. Sticking to the absolute facts will still get Murray accused.
 
Ramona122003 said:
That is usually only true about the case, not someone's drug habit. Especially if you have already have a counter for it.

Also, what shadow of a doubt are you talking about? That he gave drugs to an addict and he is a doctor. He also had personal medical files on the guy and he knew him for about 3 years, so he knew what he was getting into. That hardly makes things better. Especially since he gave him drugs that are for hospiltes.
Click to expand...

The shadow of doubt lies in whether Murray was forced to administer the propofol because he feared of getting fired by MJ - therefore strengthening the "drug addict made me do it" defense.

The defense can cast a shadow of doubt (which they will), claiming that MJ forced him to give him propofol, which - if the defense creates a convincing picture that MJ made Murray do it, the jury could find Murray guilty for involuntary manslaughter instead of gross negligence or 2nd degree murder.

And I don't think what Murray did is worth 18 months prison- maybe 7-8 months based on good behavior. I would like to see him do 15 years to life prison. But that's just me.
 
yaazgurl said:
By constantly talking about Michael being on drugs and failed interventions and not making it clear that Michael wasn't apparently on anything other than what Murray gave him when he died. According to the autopsy, his organs were not damaged by years of drug use but the media wants to portray a drug addict and the family goes along with it. They are giving Murray a defense and giving the potential jury reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it should not matter one way or the other...

As a professional (Doctor) Murray has an OATH/ DUTY to care for his patient (s)...in the utmost "professional" manner..!

Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct one expects from the proverbial "reasonable man". By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross".

Therefore, in a court of law he must prove that he done every thing that is/was medically possible to protect, and care for his patient (s) health and well being.

:angel:Heal The World...WE Are The World...Education IS The Key~~~
 
ReneeM said:
The TRINI group was also giving Murray his defense. A past history of drug abuse is not what killed him. Murray's lawyers can make that claim in court but any competent prosecutor can shoot that down.

The problem for me is the thought that the city will prosecute Murray when they've spent decades trying to bring Michael down. How hard are they going to fight for a conviction?
Click to expand...


If you are a victim of a crime, it does not matter if you are like or a monster. People who are in prison get charge with murder if they kill an inmate. Same goes for the prison guards, so this is hardly an issue.

Also, TINI is more dangerous than the Jackson family since they are trying to say that not only was he drug out, but overwork and control by people. It is more graphic than that, but I will not get into that here.
 
ReneeM said:
The TRINI group was also giving Murray his defense. A past history of drug abuse is not what killed him. Murray's lawyers can make that claim in court but any competent prosecutor can shoot that down.

The problem for me is the thought that the city will prosecute Murray when they've spent decades trying to bring Michael down. How hard are they going to fight for a conviction?
Click to expand...

I worry about the LAPD too. The TINI group has not exactly helped either, by painting a picture of an obvious drugged out sick and weak man. They make Michael 'look' like a man totally out of control.

We can all discuss till the cows come home. It doesn't change facts though.
 
Sirena said:
The shadow of doubt lies in whether Murray was forced to administer the propofol because he feared of getting fired by MJ - therefore strengthening the "drug addict made me do it" defense.

The defense can cast a shadow of doubt (which they will), claiming that MJ forced him to give him propofol, which - if the defense creates a convincing picture that MJ made Murray do it, the jury could find Murray guilty for involuntary manslaughter instead of gross negligence or 2nd degree murder.

And I don't think what Murray did is worth 18 months prison- maybe 7-8 months based on good behavior. I would like to see him do 15 years to life prison. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

He can't present a case saying he was forced and afraid of being fired. He took an oath that overrides that. If he tried to present that he would ruin his case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top