Murray Trial - 6 October - Day 8 - Discussion

AllForLove

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
1,489
Points
0
Location
France
not only we can see the facts but mainly EVERYONE can see the facts and not being only informed by biaised medias
 

Samtkaninchen

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
592
Points
0
I hate to say this but it seems really very bizarre and somewhat creepy that there was a porcelan doll in/on MJ's bed. Not sure if he routinely "slept" with such a doll.........or perhaps Murray put it there intentionally (prior to EMS arriving) to make MJ look somewhat "off"?
Just to come back to this: What is bizarre and creepy about that? For those who don't know: MJ is known to have collected artist dolls - just like Richard Simmons (he even has his own line of collectable dolls) or John Wayne, who was an avid doll collector during his lifetime. And there are many more celebrities collecting dolls. Artist dolls are a special kind of ART. So what is your problem? :brow:
 

roomdownstairs

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
114
Points
0
Location
Sydney, Australia
Please somebody tell me again for what reason this trial shoul be on TV? :sad:

And I'm not implying that is hurtful for us but it is for Michael and for those who care the most about him.

And all the vultures out there waiting and then picking on most disturbing aspects.SMH

There are positives and negatives to televising a trial. Obviously it is not generally done and so those positives and negatives are weighed carefully before a decision is made. One of the reasons why it is good for us, from our point of view as lovers of Michael, is that it assists us to directly counteract media bias and misinformation far more easily than otherwise would be the case. Whenever a media outlet publishes an article or story that is heavily pro-defence, misstates facts or only reports parts of facts so as to create a certain innuendo to garner attention, we can provide direct links to footage/transcripts/summaries and so forth that act powerfully against such things. That is a good thing for Michael's legacy - the more non-fans/members of the public who are educated as to Michael's true character and are aware of how the media constructs information to serve their own financial purposes, the better. Knowledge is power. (From the court's perspective I believe it was televised given the high public interest in the case.)

Some of what we have seen has been nothing short of soul-destroying. It is painful and difficult and often means taking a step back for our own emotional well-being. However, if many minds are changed about Michael during this ordeal then I gladly accept any emotional suffering. I want to see justice done and for the truth to be told, once and for all.
 

lemon662

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
192
Points
0
Just to come back to this: What is bizarre and creepy about that? For those who don't know: MJ is known to have collected artist dolls - just like Richard Simmons (he even has his own line of collectable dolls) or John Wayne, who was an avid doll collector during his lifetime. And there are many more celebrities collecting dolls. Artist dolls are a special kind of ART. So what is your problem? :brow:

You know, just because he was Michael Jackson that doesn't mean that some things he did weren't odd/bizarre/beyond eccentric. I'm not about to apologize for feeling it's very bizarre that a grown man has a life-sized doll on his bed. I would think it strange if it were a 50 yr old woman. MJ was the greatest artist and entertainer of all time, without a doubt, but he was not God and it's strange to me how so many of his fans defend every little thing he did, to the absolute extreme. I understand what art is but people don't generally sleep with art. And I highly doubt that John Wayne slept with his doll collection. And Richard Simmons is a flakey fruitloop who wears his shorts too short so I'm not surprised he has a doll collection. And no, I don't have a problem, I merely have a firm grip on reality, thanks.
 
Last edited:

ronia

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Messages
86
Points
0
Location
Germany
About the doll: MJ had lots of mannequinns in his home in Neverland so a doll like that would not surprise me at all.
 

roomdownstairs

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
114
Points
0
Location
Sydney, Australia
I am very much a grown adult still have some stuffed toys on my bed. I like them, that is why I have them. I have no problem with that, so I don't see a problem with Michael having a doll on his bed. It was inside a house he was living in (i.e. his personal, private space) so he didn't have to justify it to anyone. Just my humble opinion.
 

Little_Susie_MJJ

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
8
Points
0
My kids leave their toys all over the house. Even in our bedroom...so...sometimes I find little cars in my bed, stuffed toys etc. Michael was a father;maybe that doll was one of Paris's dolls. It's so easy to jump to conclusions...
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,446
Points
83
I knew from the moment that doll was seen the media would start saying crap bout mj again. What if say mj had a dog in the room just sitting there peacefully? the media i can bet the media would make mean assumptions bout that too! , poor michael can never catch a break!
 

daisy

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
640
Points
0
Location
Poland
There were lots of weird things Michael did, so what, that was Michael.

Besides, I guess many people's bedrooms would look weird to others and contain some strange objects if photographed without their knowledge.
 

moodyblue97

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
822
Points
0
Since this wasn´t his bedroom he slept in normally, how do we know that the doll is the only one in that room? At Neverland he had a whole stash of them up on a shelf, I never counted them but it must have been more then 30 at least. They were on the nightstands in the guest rooms too and also in his bedroom. When all the tumult happened in that room that morning, maybe the doll ended up on the bed. It could also have been on the cover, like when you place pillows and stuff like that after you have done the bed, maybe the doll was a part of that. I have it like that on my bed. So when he went to bed maybe they just removed the covers and the doll ended up there.

I don´t see anything strange with this and of course media had to make a deal out of it.
 

Little_Susie_MJJ

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
8
Points
0
Media will always say negative things. Because that's what the general public wants. But it is sad that some fans can say such things about him...They obviously forgot the "before you judge me, try hard to love me..."
 

daisy

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
640
Points
0
Location
Poland
Re lorazepam testing: I am wondering whether this is possible that the toxicologists did not know about lorazepam.
The paramedics told that info (about lorazepam) Cooper immediately after they arrived at ucla med center. So this info should have been followed to toxicologists, I guess.
 

82Thriller84

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
3,110
Points
48
Location
London, United Kingdom
Media will always say negative things. Because that's what the general public wants. But it is sad that some fans can say such things about him...They obviously forgot the "before you judge me, try hard to love me..."

I agree with you Little_Susie!

Like this morning, on Radio 1, they only reported that Fleak "messed up" her investigation. :rolleyes: & not the fact that no drugs that the defence implied, Michael self adminastrated, were NOT detected like Demoral or the '8 pills of Lorazapam'
 

Miche

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
454
Points
0
Location
Sydney Australia
The toxicology reports were interesting but he said some of it is not an exact science so Im not sure they will get an exact truth from them??... just an "educated" opinion.

Also, I wonder if they will bring in the reports of the 2nd autopsy and if that would muddle things up more?

Boy what about Fleak!!... What a mess up I cant believe it, ....or her attitude in the trial!


Also I just got this sent to me today ...


 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
What was found in mj is an exact science. that is not in question
 

Ramona122003

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,447
Points
0
The toxicology reports were interesting but he said some of it is not an exact science so Im not sure they will get an exact truth from them??... just an "educated" opinion.

Also, I wonder if they will bring in the reports of the 2nd autopsy and if that would muddle things up more?

Boy what about Fleak!!... What a mess up I cant believe it, ....or her attitude in the trial!


Also I just got this sent to me today ...




It's overblown. Although the investigation could had been done better, Fleak confirmed the stories of several witnesses, all which she had no contact with before the trial. So, she was not a great witness, but she wasn't as terrible as some people are trying to imply.

Funny how it is this that took the news instead of the tox guy, who murdered the defense's pills and drug addict theory in one go. But, not too surprising.
 

adrianmonk

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,996
Points
0
I was wondering, I thought it was stated yesterday by Walgren when reading the fingerprint analysis that while the presence of fingerprints identified to a person is definitive evidence that that person handled the object, the presence of no fingerprints was not an indication that a particular person never handled the object. So the lack of Michael's fingerprints on the Rx bottles really proves nothing. I think the defense is depending on this fact with their theory :( Please correct me if I misheard :(
 

Autumn II

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
9,210
Points
0
Location
Appalachians in the U.S.
I was wondering, I thought it was stated yesterday by Walgren when reading the fingerprint analysis that while the presence of fingerprints identified to a person is definitive evidence that that person handled the object, the presence of no fingerprints was not an indication that a particular person never handled the object. So the lack of Michael's fingerprints on the Rx bottles really proves nothing. I think the defense is depending on this fact with their theory :( Please correct me if I misheard :(

A trial is like a tapestry with many threads. The prosecution is trying to weave one kind of pattern, and the defense, another. There is no, one, defining smoking gun in this case, OTHER THAN the massive amount of drugs Murray was putting into Michael; the total lack of rescue equipment; the lying to anyone and everyone; the complete lack of medical records during this pre-concert time Murray was treating Michael. And on, and on.

If Michael's fingerprints had been found on ANY of the bottles, that would weave another kind of tapestry -- one more favorable to the defense. But, they WEREN'T found there.
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Yes thats true. but it goes the other way aswell. they cannot prove mj touched anything and u cant presume that mj for example did touch them. it cannot be used against mj in that aspect.of course someone touched them at one point. murray admits he touched stuff.so thats a provern point.the major issue is murrays print on the diprivan bottle in the saline bag.also murray wore gloves. That doesnt mean he didnt touch the bottles etc. that to me is what walgren is saying
 
Last edited:

AllForLove

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
1,489
Points
0
Location
France
My thought is that if the vials were totally cleaned there could be a doubt, but there are many fingerprints on them, some unknown, but not those of Michael, for me it really proves that Michael never touched them, it's just a logical thought.
 

Milka

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
1,354
Points
0
Location
Austria
I'll be blunt and say it - because most probably they treated it as an OD from recreational drugs. All of their actions - not taking all the items, not talking to everyone in detail, not doing securing the location - to me shows that they either treated this as a natural death or an OD.

Yes, I agree. Especially with the OD part. Which is tragic, now that we have the toxicology results. And one also has to wonder why they treated it that way when there was a doctor present, there was an IV-stand (how many drug addicts have a doctor there and an IV-stand? Where did their common sense go?), the doctor went into hiding the same day, etc., etc., etc.
 

Milka

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
1,354
Points
0
Location
Austria
My thought is that if the vials were totally cleaned there could be a doubt, but there are many fingerprints on them, some unknown, but not those of Michael, for me it really proves that Michael never touched them, it's just a logical thought.

I was just thinking ... the list of the people they compared the fingerprints with but couldn't find a match ... that's a pretty long list of a lot of people who worked in the house, etc., who did touch all those things if they didn't? Or could they be from the pharmacists, etc.?
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Jacksons. the untrained women in his office where the stuff was sent to
 

wendy2004

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
5,456
Points
0
I'll be blunt and say it - because most probably they treated it as an OD from recreational drugs. All of their actions - not taking all the items, not talking to everyone in detail, not doing securing the location - to me shows that they either treated this as a natural death or an OD.

I said the same thing earlier in this thread....

Some of these flaws were recognized earlier (like not collecting the I.V. stand on the 25th) but I tried to give LAPD some slack seeing as they had no way of knowing this was a homicide case when MJ died and had no reason to suspect as much. I've always said they more than likely took MJ's death as another celebrity overdose case and for this reason probably slacked in the way they collected evidence. I remember being at the hospital to pick up my Mom on that day and it wasn't too long after word came that MJ had died ppl like Deepak Chopra was on CNN talking about Michael asking him for drugs and crap like that. The police was probably at Carolwood then collecting evidence and thinking MJ's death was far from being a homicide so why worry that a bottle of flumazenil is on the floor. Just pick it up and put it on the table for the pix of the drugs on the nightstand. It was a matter documenting the drugs in the room versus documenting and preserving a possible crime scene. That was a bad call...but at the same time, what can one expect. I loathe that people jumped to conclusions about how MJ died and this is one of the reasons why. And now the defense, with their backs in a corner otherwise, is probably salivating over these missteps. So annoying. Walgren has his work cut out for him on cross with Fleak, but hopefully the pathology results will be exceptional enuf to overshadow this. Blah.


Yes, I agree. Especially with the OD part. Which is tragic, now that we have the toxicology results. And one also has to wonder why they treated it that way when there was a doctor present, there was an IV-stand (how many drug addicts have a doctor there and an IV-stand? Where did their common sense go?), the doctor went into hiding the same day, etc., etc., etc.

WHY did they treat it that way? Let's have a 'round of applause for Deepak Chopra and Brian Oxman who were ALL over CNN and any network that would have them less than an hour after Michael was pronounced dead. Stories of Oxycontin and demerol and Brian's predictions that he'd die of drugs, yada yada permeated the airwaves, most likely WHILE LAPD was at Carolwood trying to collect evidence and take pix that day. THEY, IMO, put Michael's cold body on the path of the self-medicated OD...even tho a doctor was present. Plus, Murray was smart. Getting the paramedics to continue working on MJ and get him to a hospital kept the house from being deemed a crime scene. Had Michael been pronounced dead in that house, it MAY have increased the level in which the scene was treated and protected.

So, between Murray lying and disappearing, Deepak and Brainless Oxman popping off at the mouth, ad nauseum, LAPD thought they had this covered...open and shut...probably wasn't even expecting this to turn into a court situation where all their work would be put into question or scrutinized. Imma go out on a limb and say LAPD prolly didn't even get suspicious until the next day when Murray wouldn't talk to them without a lawyer and the autopsy was performed with NO pills found in Michael's stomach.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
There is no, one, defining smoking gun in this case, OTHER THAN the massive amount of drugs Murray was putting into Michael; the total lack of rescue equipment; the lying to anyone and everyone; the complete lack of medical records during this pre-concert time Murray was treating Michael. And on, and on.

I believe propofol is a smoking gun against Murray. Chernoff was exposed yesterday. He LIED at the opening statement when he claimed jurors would hear scientific evidense from experts proving how MJ took 8 pills of lorazepam . He had no evidence of that he is a proven LIAR now. He said white said this and White said that, he probably misquoted him and is not really trustful even when quoting White.

Those who watched closely the 2005 trial know that when you deliever an openinig statement you have to follow with evidence. What you said in your opening statement will be held against you. You told us you have proof , where is it?

The most "shocking" revelation from the defense opening statement was they would produce medical evidence that would prove he himself took pills that were enough to make all the jurors full sleep. Now, the jurors heard from an expert the defense had no evidence whatsover to back up that statement. THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT in my opinion. They raised the expectations of the jurors but are not able to meet them .
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Now, the jurors heard from an expert the defense had no evidence whatsover to back up that statement. THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT in my opinion.
how do we know the defence wont have an expert that will claim that though. thats how it seems to go in such cases.
 
E

ExoticPrincess

Guest
Who was to report this piece?

I'm confused. I don't recall hearing anything in Murray's secret recording of MJ where MJ speaks to his family being "greedy".....does that mean we didn't hear the ENTIRE recording and that there was stuff we didn't hear him say re: his family? If so, how is it that others have heard it? How are things like this released to the media? If this recording was obtained during the investigation when Murray's phone was forensically examined, how would ABC get a copy of the entire recording -- why would investigators release it to the media?


It was reported on Good Morning America on Wednesday morning I think. They did'nt play the actual audio, they just printed on the screen what was said by MJ about his family. The thing though, the reporter did say that prosecutors can't just play parts of the recording and not the rest as it all has to be entered into evidence. Possibly we'll see the defence bring that portion to light if there is any real truth to this.
 
Top