In this driver analogy, it would mean the driver (Murray) had been following the pedestrian for a while (meaning he knew the pedestrian was there, in clear sight) and as soon as the pedestrian crosses the street, he runs him over full speed (meaning he had the clear intention from the start to do something reckless - following the pedestrian to run him over - where he couldn't control the outcome - full speed = no monitoring). How many drivers ever do that? And what is that if they do that? An accident?
Latest on MJJC
Jury Selection News and Discussion / Jurors selected
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
In this driver analogy, it would mean the driver (Murray) had been following the pedestrian for a while (meaning he knew the pedestrian was there, in clear sight) and as soon as the pedestrian crosses the street, he runs him over full speed (meaning he had the clear intention from the start to do something reckless - following the pedestrian to run him over - where he couldn't control the outcome - full speed = no monitoring). How many drivers ever do that? And what is that if they do that? An accident?
Ben
Proud Member
Agree. What cm did was not an accident to me. It was reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death. Even if I can understand why this trial is for manslaughter, to me it will always be a murder 2 case.
jaydom7
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,244
- Points
- 0
not an accident to me.. sounds like intentional murder.. :mello: If Murray was following MJ for a while, knew he wanted dangerous meds to 'sleep' and he enabled him and gave them to him willy nilly without watching him, monitoring etc, then that sounds like murder in my opinion.
Trial of Michael Jackson's doctor begins as jury is set
By Alan Duke, CNN
September 24, 2011 -- Updated 0722 GMT (1522 HKT)
Jurors seated in MJ death trial
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The judge must decide if the jury will hear about investigator's failed efforts to reach Murray
The 12 jurors include 5 women, 7 men, including one who once met MIchael Jackson
"It seems like a good jury panel," defense lawyer Michael Flanagan says
Opening statements will be heard Tuesday
Los Angeles (CNN) -- Prosecutors want jurors in Dr. Conrad Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial to hear testimony about investigators' failed efforts to question the doctor in the weeks after Michael Jackson's death.
Defense lawyers have asked the judge to block the testimony, arguing it "would create substantial danger of undue prejudice, undue waste of time, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury."
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor may consider the issue at a hearing Monday morning, a day before opening statements are delivered in Murray's trial.
The selection of a jury Friday officially began the Murray's trial, which is expected to continue until the end of October.
The defense argued in a court filing Friday that the prosecution ignored Dr. Murray's "willingness to engage in various conversations and to take part in lengthy interviews conducted by law enforcement and medical personnel," including two days after Jackson's death when he voluntarily spent two hours answering police questions.
"In fact, it was only after Dr. Murray learned that information was 'anonymously' leaked to the public that Dr. Murray decided to invoke his right to remain silent," the defense said.
A prosecution filing detailed email and phone mail attempts by the county coroner and a police detective to request meetings with Murray after the first interview.
"In actuality, law enforcement never contacted Dr. Murray during this time," the defense filing said. "Law enforcement's 'efforts' consisted merely of a handful of unanswered voice mails and emails that were left with Dr. Murray's counsel and with his office. There is no indication whatsoever that Dr. Murray acted evasively."
Twelve jurors and five alternates will report to court Tuesday morning to hear opening statements in the case against Murray. A sixth alternate juror was dismissed just minutes after she was sworn in Friday.
Judge Pastor sealed the reason for her dismissal, but court spectators overheard the woman acknowledging that she had dealings with one of Murray's lawyers several years ago. She failed to mention that during the jury selection process, but a man who had just been dismissed as a prospective juror gave the information to court officials.
"It seems like a good jury panel," defense lawyer Michael Flanagan said after the jury was seated Friday.
The jury consists of seven men and five women, include six who are white, five who listed their ethnicity as Mexican or hispanic and one who identified himself as African-American.
Flanagan said the defense paid little attention to juror's ethnicity, but instead focused on their answers to the 32-page jury questionnaire.
The court released copies of their answers late Friday, giving a glimpse at the 12 Los Angeles County residents who will decide Murray's fate.
Three of the women said they followed the Casey Anthony trial over the summer. Defense lawyers unsuccessfully used the Anthony case to argue that Murray jurors should be sequestered in a hotel during the trial to shelter them from media reports.
One juror, a retired cartoon animator, said he once met Michael Jackson.
Several jurors described themselves as Michael Jackson fans and two have seen "This Is It," the documentary of Jackson's rehearsals just before his death.
They and their fellow jurors will see clips from the film again since the prosecution is expected to show them during the first day of the trial Tuesday.
Murray could face up to four years in prison if the jury finds him guilty.
The Los Angeles coroner has ruled that Jackson's death on June 25, 2009, was caused by an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol combined with other drugs.
Prosecutors have accused Murray, who served as Jackson's personal and full-time physician at the time, of having a role in the overdose.
They contend Murray used a makeshift intravenous drip to administer propofol intended to help Jackson sleep, a practice they argue violated the standard of care and led to the pop music icon's death.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/24/justice/california-conrad-murray-trial/index.html
By Alan Duke, CNN
September 24, 2011 -- Updated 0722 GMT (1522 HKT)
Jurors seated in MJ death trial
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The judge must decide if the jury will hear about investigator's failed efforts to reach Murray
The 12 jurors include 5 women, 7 men, including one who once met MIchael Jackson
"It seems like a good jury panel," defense lawyer Michael Flanagan says
Opening statements will be heard Tuesday
Los Angeles (CNN) -- Prosecutors want jurors in Dr. Conrad Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial to hear testimony about investigators' failed efforts to question the doctor in the weeks after Michael Jackson's death.
Defense lawyers have asked the judge to block the testimony, arguing it "would create substantial danger of undue prejudice, undue waste of time, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury."
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor may consider the issue at a hearing Monday morning, a day before opening statements are delivered in Murray's trial.
The selection of a jury Friday officially began the Murray's trial, which is expected to continue until the end of October.
The defense argued in a court filing Friday that the prosecution ignored Dr. Murray's "willingness to engage in various conversations and to take part in lengthy interviews conducted by law enforcement and medical personnel," including two days after Jackson's death when he voluntarily spent two hours answering police questions.
"In fact, it was only after Dr. Murray learned that information was 'anonymously' leaked to the public that Dr. Murray decided to invoke his right to remain silent," the defense said.
A prosecution filing detailed email and phone mail attempts by the county coroner and a police detective to request meetings with Murray after the first interview.
"In actuality, law enforcement never contacted Dr. Murray during this time," the defense filing said. "Law enforcement's 'efforts' consisted merely of a handful of unanswered voice mails and emails that were left with Dr. Murray's counsel and with his office. There is no indication whatsoever that Dr. Murray acted evasively."
Twelve jurors and five alternates will report to court Tuesday morning to hear opening statements in the case against Murray. A sixth alternate juror was dismissed just minutes after she was sworn in Friday.
Judge Pastor sealed the reason for her dismissal, but court spectators overheard the woman acknowledging that she had dealings with one of Murray's lawyers several years ago. She failed to mention that during the jury selection process, but a man who had just been dismissed as a prospective juror gave the information to court officials.
"It seems like a good jury panel," defense lawyer Michael Flanagan said after the jury was seated Friday.
The jury consists of seven men and five women, include six who are white, five who listed their ethnicity as Mexican or hispanic and one who identified himself as African-American.
Flanagan said the defense paid little attention to juror's ethnicity, but instead focused on their answers to the 32-page jury questionnaire.
The court released copies of their answers late Friday, giving a glimpse at the 12 Los Angeles County residents who will decide Murray's fate.
Three of the women said they followed the Casey Anthony trial over the summer. Defense lawyers unsuccessfully used the Anthony case to argue that Murray jurors should be sequestered in a hotel during the trial to shelter them from media reports.
One juror, a retired cartoon animator, said he once met Michael Jackson.
Several jurors described themselves as Michael Jackson fans and two have seen "This Is It," the documentary of Jackson's rehearsals just before his death.
They and their fellow jurors will see clips from the film again since the prosecution is expected to show them during the first day of the trial Tuesday.
Murray could face up to four years in prison if the jury finds him guilty.
The Los Angeles coroner has ruled that Jackson's death on June 25, 2009, was caused by an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol combined with other drugs.
Prosecutors have accused Murray, who served as Jackson's personal and full-time physician at the time, of having a role in the overdose.
They contend Murray used a makeshift intravenous drip to administer propofol intended to help Jackson sleep, a practice they argue violated the standard of care and led to the pop music icon's death.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/24/justice/california-conrad-murray-trial/index.html
Ben and jaydom7 - yes, if you put it that way with the driver analogy, it does sound like murder or murder 2. But as sad as it is, I know why they had to go with involuntary manslaughter (or why they thought they had to), in my driver example it would be a lot clearer. To me it was clear 2 days after Michael's death that Murray was guilty (of something, I didn't think in legal terms) when I read about the Propofol (I basically knew that it would be the cause of death right there and then, I'm not in the medical field or anything, that was just common sense) and the doctor missing for 2 days, I didn't even need all the details that we know now (all his different stories - which means lies, no equipment, no mention of Propofol to the EMT's or at the hospital, him being on the phone for hours, etc., etc.). Of course he deserves a fair trial, but I don't see how the jury could not find him guilty.
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
I think you are looking to the driver analogy in a too literal format. Think of it like this : Murray's defense will blame Michael by addict, begged for it, self inject / self drink theories. That's the pedestrian walking on to the street without looking to the red / green light.
Prosecution wants to say "so what if any of those was true" , the only reason to Michael's death was Murray having propofol laying around and giving it to Michael in an improper way without monitoring him. That's the drunk driver.
They want to argue no matter how risky was Michael's behavior might be the only reason he's dead is because of Murray. In the car analogy the pedestrian walking on to the street without checking the light might be wrong but the only reason that the pedestrian is dead is the not paying attention and irresponsible drunk driver that failed to stop and hit the pedestrian. Without the driver the pedestrian would be able to cross the street.
no she won't - throwing her out is the punishment. and there's nothing that says one jury knowing one party would make them not suitable to be a jury. the only thing that's interesting is why she would not disclose it. For example in this jury we have a person that met Michael, in 2005 jury there was a guy that has been to Neverland. As you see it's a non issue as long as they disclose it.
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
Ok, I just thought that they are not allowed to lie and that they have to disclose relevant information. How can you enforce that if there is no punishment? A hypothetical question, since she is gone - what would have happened had they found out during or after the trial?
My "literal" version of the driver example was just the other extreme of pedestrians falling out of the sky. But I know what you mean, this case obviously is more complicated.
Does anybody have a link with the jury list for the 2005 trial?
jaydom7
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,244
- Points
- 0
I think the main question the prosecution should ask Murray if they get the chance is would he take propofol for himself if he had insomnia? would he allow another doctor not trained in anesthesia to give him this medication as a sleeping agent? how would he feel if the doctor giving it to him would leave him alone without any monitoring equipment to warn him of any danger? I would like to know Murray's response to this
bluetopez
Proud Member
Cool MJ got fans in the jury but, at the same time we have fans who think he was an addict too.
jaydom7
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,244
- Points
- 0
Shoot, no autopsy is needed because Murray said MJ was healthy too.. Murray told AEG, Kenny Ortega and Lloyd's of London that MJ was healthy and had no illnesses. I can't wait until the testimony shows what Murray told folks about MJ's health.
bluetopez
Proud Member
The autopsy is still needed because that's something you can't call hearsay, or try to spin. It'a proven fact and not bias. But, u make a good point, he told many people MJ was fine, yet his defense is to say he was sick already.
jaydom7
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,244
- Points
- 0
Right and to say he was sick already makes him look even more guilty.. If MJ was sick why didn't he get him help? or take him to the hospital? as a doctor did he think loading him up with sedatives and anesthesia would make him feel better? :blink: He was hired by AEG in charge of MJ's health, so if he was sick why didn't he tell AEG that MJ needed to cancel until he was better? Instead Murray told everyone MJ was fine and healthy.. How will he squirm around that lie?
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
^^Muarry was not hired by AEG. AEG never signed a contract with Muarry. Also, it is not only that he gave him an anesthetic and did not monitor him, but he gave him an overdose and a cocktail of sedatives to put him under. That plus not monitoring, not checking respiration, heart and not having the proper equipment are all part of the problem. And as Blue said the autopsy is needed, in fact it is one of the most crucial pieces of the evidence.
I wonder why Muarry leaned forward to look at the jurors better. What could have been in his mind at that time.
I am hoping that when the defense try to use Karen's evidence of seeing Michael sick, the prosecution link it up to being the same time frame when Muarry was treating him.
I wonder why Muarry leaned forward to look at the jurors better. What could have been in his mind at that time.
I am hoping that when the defense try to use Karen's evidence of seeing Michael sick, the prosecution link it up to being the same time frame when Muarry was treating him.
Ben
Proud Member
Personally, I wasnt referring to the analogy with the driver. Just the way things happened, what cm agreed to do, the way he did it, and the risks he took with Michael's life. He knew it was dangerous and irresponsible, he played with Michael's life, knowingly. But I agree with T-Mez, I think he was focusing on fame and fortune.
I was too tired yesterday, but wanted to reply to this post in more detail.
Yes - but that would equal a pedestrian asking a driver to run him over. No driver would do that. That's why the pro's example works, but the example given by the defense doesn't. It's just interesting how a simple example like this one basically gives all the answers.
And then there is the fact that he gave Michael benzos. See this tweet again:
Liesrunsprints Karen
Benzodiazepines can temporarily affect your coordination and REASONING SKILLS...for 24 hours after taking them
23 Sep
But even without the benzos ... if you say "please, doctor, hit me over the head with a sledgehammer", is the doctor allowed to do that?
There was no drunk driver in the example.
It was a reckless driver running a red light and the pedestrian wasn't looking either (but the pedestrian didn't have to since the driver had a red light and wasn't supposed to be driving). And this example actually works. Analogies usually don't work all that well (like my example, because the driver in my example had the clear intent to harm, while I don't think Murray had the clear intent, only that as a doctor he should have known better, etc. - that's why I said this case is more complicated than my analogy), but this one does. Murray was running several red lights - giving Propofol in the first place (and ordering tons of it, showing the intent of wanting to use it for at least months), no monitoring, leaving the room/being on the phone and not paying attention. And, of course, the patient "not looking" can be explained with someone just trusting his doctor, an expert.
Yes - but that would equal a pedestrian asking a driver to run him over. No driver would do that. That's why the pro's example works, but the example given by the defense doesn't. It's just interesting how a simple example like this one basically gives all the answers.
And then there is the fact that he gave Michael benzos. See this tweet again:
Liesrunsprints Karen
Benzodiazepines can temporarily affect your coordination and REASONING SKILLS...for 24 hours after taking them
23 Sep
But even without the benzos ... if you say "please, doctor, hit me over the head with a sledgehammer", is the doctor allowed to do that?
There was no drunk driver in the example.
It was a reckless driver running a red light and the pedestrian wasn't looking either (but the pedestrian didn't have to since the driver had a red light and wasn't supposed to be driving). And this example actually works. Analogies usually don't work all that well (like my example, because the driver in my example had the clear intent to harm, while I don't think Murray had the clear intent, only that as a doctor he should have known better, etc. - that's why I said this case is more complicated than my analogy), but this one does. Murray was running several red lights - giving Propofol in the first place (and ordering tons of it, showing the intent of wanting to use it for at least months), no monitoring, leaving the room/being on the phone and not paying attention. And, of course, the patient "not looking" can be explained with someone just trusting his doctor, an expert.thrillerchild
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,787
- Points
- 63
If something was worth more to you (i.e. Murray being employed at a high level wage by Michael) then you would run a few red lights if it meant that high volume stream would still be coming in. I'd compare it to Murray being an Organ courier who jumps reds so that that organ doesn't fail and reaches the patient in time. But Murray disregarded his code of ethics and made one mistake after another.
I just found this:
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-02-24/...jury-jury-selection-thomas-mesereau?_s=PM:LAW
That's how I remembered it, but I wanted to make sure ... this jury covered all ages.
I think it's interesting how in the jury for the Murray trial the jurors are either around Michael's age or the younger ones are still old enough to "remember" the 80's. Apart from juror #44, we don't know his age.
InSession In Session
Today jurors will hear testimony of how investigators' efforts to question #ConradMurray failed following #MichaelJackson's death.
5 minutes ago
InSession In Session
There will be a hearing today at 1230et in the #ConradMurray trial.
8 minutes ago
Today jurors will hear testimony of how investigators' efforts to question #ConradMurray failed following #MichaelJackson's death.
5 minutes ago
InSession In Session
There will be a hearing today at 1230et in the #ConradMurray trial.
8 minutes ago
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Yeah must be the judge. wonder if he will rule on the chile report press con etc aswell
Yes, I know, tomorrow. That's what I meant, since when does the jury "hear" anything before the opening statements.
Oh, and stupid question, 12:30 ET, that would be 9:30 California time?