^I'm not being condescending, I'm just stating that the article in question is, at least from my perspective, clearly biased. If it were purely informative, or chiefly about Murray's girlfriends in relation to the case, then it would belong here. Since it is about his personal life more than it is about his girlfriends' relation to the case, I think it is misplaced--but that is obviously just my opinion. Your thread's title, however, does not help diffuse that impression.
By common knowledge, it is meant that these are things which other sites/articles/sources have cited, not that everyone in question is knowledgeable or up to date about them. In other words, your article tells us, the readers, nothing new about Murray or the case that other sources haven't already said, in a more objective/case-relevant manner.
However, everything is not without its merit--and your cited article brings forth a good point: Murray's finances. It is pretty much common knowledge that the bloke is drowning in debt from other lawsuits filed against his practice and unpaid child support, and yet here he is spending time and money on extraneous things. This, of course, has no direct importance to the case--however, it does prove that it would have been in Murray's best interest for Michael to remain alive, otherwise, how could he possibly keep fueling this lifestyle? As far as I know, Muzikfactory2 is of the stock who believe in the murder conspiracy theory, from what I remember reading/watching, so this article actually proves Murray's financial need to keep Michael alive, thus invalidating any conspiracy (which involved him, anyway) to murder. Anyway, yet another reason to stack it in the "conspiracy section."
I think it would be far more interesting--and damning to Murray in this specific case-- to further investigate those past lawsuits filed against his practice, which are medical in nature...he owes $400,000 from whatever lawsuits have been filed against him. I wonder how much of that is actual public information. It'd be interesting to see.
Autumn II said:
I think that "compartmentalizing," or somehow dividing one's character, is not healthy, nor accurate in the holistic view of a life. We see this sometimes in religious leaders, who PREACH, but then cheat on their wives, or steal money, or whatever? I think that a "holistic" view of Murray, is entirely relevant. Murray, does NOT, in fact, belong to a culture where more than one wife is standard, or ok. In fact, in the U.S., having "more than one wife," is illegal. Depending on one's spiritual and ethical beliefs, as a foundation for behavior, then NO, "compartmentalizing" a life is dysfunctional. We saw that in Nazi Germany, where a person may have a perfectly acceptable "home-life" and marriage, or whatever, and yet go on to depersonalize others, and KILL them. So no, it is NOT ok, that he lies in one area of life, has children that he does not support, but somehow that is SEPARATE from his depersonalization of Michael, and killing him? It is NOT ok, and it is ALL relevant. IMHO.
Well, fortunately, adherence or lack thereof to a "holistic" view of life, or to a given set of spiritual beliefs is not grounds to convict or acquit in the court of law, nor is it really valid evidence of wrongdoing in relation to a specific case. Plenty of otherwise nasty people have been found to be innocent of crimes they were accused of--and their deviation from what some would consider a "holistic" life was entirely extraneous to the hard facts and evidence (or lack thereof) in their cases.
Moreover, not everyone is in accordance to whatever relative teachings you adhere to (hence why they are not permissible evidence in court of law, thus subject to various objections, making the prosecution look silly and perhaps nosy)--the world has relatively unanimous stances on things like murder, which make sense, but the outlook towards "romantic" relations is relative at best--and although a set culture may agree on one view, another differs, so on and so forth--proving the entire thing absolutely a subject of pure speculation (certainly with no support from biology, which would have us all being polygamous mammals).
Compartmentalization is not in and of itself unhealthy--it can be, however, it is not by definition unhealthy. It is often a required mechanism in high-stress professions (i.e. policemen), or in those which require confidentiality (i.e. therapists/doctors). You're good at bringing the worst-case scenario, but comparing Conrad Murray to Nazis? :no: C'mon now, the Nazis were neither reckless nor
that stupid. In fact, they were pretty methodical, and actually of average to above average intelligence if we go by Nuremberg Trial records. They're two different kinds of animal, clearly, and you're flattering Murray and insulting the Nazis by comparing each to the other, lol.
Whether he has children he doesn't support or not is irrelevant to his actions as a medic, therefore, any decent court would object to the parading of such extraneous information. Notable wrongdoing while in the medical field, on the other hand, would be a strong indicator of his lack of character and respect for his profession, not to mention previous negligence/failure to adhere to standards of care--which are, of course, transgressions punishable by law in the medical profession.
Conclusively, I'm not arguing whether or not it is "OK" for Murray to cheat on his wife (I could really care less--the idiot cow knows and she has failed to take action, so why should I get my panties in a bunch over it), or to abstain from paying child support to his children (seeing that my father owes me about 10 years worth of C.S., I'm pro-child support). However, I'm arguing the relevance of the non-case related tidbits of this article in specific relation to the trial. We already know Murray is a sleaze bag, and the jury will see that from his conduct on 6.25.2009 as well as whatever relevant testimony his hoes give.
Therefore, his personal life outside the case is extraneous and irrelevant, and any objective jury/decent lawyer would see that. It's a pretty desperate move to drag someone's name through the mud in things entirely unrelated to what the person is in court for--usually, a move pulled by those whose evidence is insufficient to sway a jury towards their position. We're in excellent shape as of now--my stance is that we don't need to do this.
The only thing exposing his personal life would achieve is to paint him in an unfavourable light--but in such an equally low way, which makes us appear desperate, in my opinion. Why take such a petty avenue to do that, when we have ample evidence in things that matter to this case and his career to achieve the desired effect? Were Murray on trial for refusal to pay child support, it would make sense to bring these things to court--but the fact of the matter remains that he is on trial for transgressions committed in the medical field, not in domestic court.
)
