4
   

CONRAD MURRAY, M.D. DEFENDANT: WHATAYATHINK???

 
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 10:59 am
Quote:
Murray the millionaire? How killer doctor is set to cash in on Michael Jackson’s death
By Sara Nelson and David Gardner
8th November 2011

Conrad Murray may be facing jail for the involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson – but he looks set to be a very rich man regardless of whether he goes to prison or how long he stays there.

As the doctor awaits sentencing, it has emerged he took a starring role in a documentary about the King of Pop, which began filming almost immediately after his death in 2009.

Entitled Michael Jackson and The Doctor: A Fatal Friendship, the film is set to be released this week and will reveal intimate details about the singer and his relationship with the disgraced doctor.

While it is unclear exactly how much Murray will make from the film, worldwide interest in the trial suggests he will take a handsome cut of the profits.

A book deal and chat show appearances also seem inevitable, for which Murray will surely demand high fees.

The father-of-seven was heavily in debt when he met Jackson in January 2008, with a string of legal judgments against him.

Court documents show that he owed $228,420 (£143,660) to a finance company, $135,302 (£85,110) to a leasing company (which may be why he was driving his sister's car) and $71,302 (£44.846) in school fees.

Plus, of course, the many thousands he owed to the various mothers of his children.

Combined with an appetite for fast cars and beautiful women, it was little wonder that he happily agreed to Jackson’s offer of a salary of $150,000 (£94,000) a month to be his doctor.

In an exclusive extract of the upcoming documentary obtained by TMZ, a casually dressed Murray is pictured sitting in his car outside one of Jackson’s sumptuous properties.

He explains how he met the singer at the mansion and began caring for him and his three children thereafter.

Murray tells the camera: ‘He could not really enjoy his property, I mean, paparazzi were here, fans were here, everyone was looking into the property.

‘And we escaped many a time, actually in this said vehicle. He would climb into the back seat and lay low and he would tell security “Don’t follow us”.

‘My heart pounded a little bit…he liked those risks.’

The film, which will be broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK and MSNBC/ NBC in the States this week, will also show footage of fighting between Murray's lawyers and even reveals him divulging personal, often unflattering details about Jackson.

In one clip, Grenadan-born Murray claims Jackson needed ‘personal hygiene changes’ and said the star had ‘unbelievably’ never had a pedicure or a manicure.

He said: ‘(He was) walking around with painful feet, as a dancer (he had) unbelievable callouses.

‘So I brought the appropriate specialists and he was very pleased of course. He was dancing without pain for the very first time – that was amazing.’

Produced by October Films and distributed by Zodiak Rights, the documentary filmed with Murray throughout the intervening two years and continued to record with him during the trial.

Shot by multi-award winning director Tom Roberts, it explores the last three months of Jackson’s surreal life and how Murray, an unknown cardiologist from Texas found himself a confidante to the most famous man in the world.

Adam Bullmore, executive producer for October Films, said: ‘Made with remarkable levels of access and complete editorial independence, we believe this film is the most complete and accurate story of what really happened to Michael Jackson and Conrad Murray on 25 June 2009, and why.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058992/Conrad-Murray-millionaire-Killer-doctor-set-cash-Michael-Jackson-death.html#

I'll probably watch that documentary but I don't know that I will believe Conrad Murray's version of events--I think he's done too much obvious lying to have any credibility.

I remember hearing during the trial, from the commentators on the channel broadcasting the trial, that Murray could profit from movie and book deals, and the rights to his story, as long as all these contracts were completed before he was convicted. So he might have already received a lot of money--he's had two years to cash in on his story with other projects that might be in the works. He did have a lot of debt--he has 7 children, by 5 different women who were forever dragging him into court for not paying child support, and he also has all the legal fees for his trial and any appeals that might be made.

But Michael Jackson's father has lodged a wrongful death civil suit against Murray, which he seems likely to win given the criminal verdict, so, if Murray does profit, the Jackson family would be trying to go after that money.

I also heard that any further decisions regarding Murray's medical licenses won't be made until after he completes whatever sentence he is given and all appeals are exhausted. Currently, his license in California is suspended, but he also holds licenses in Nevada and Texas. So there is a possibility he might be able to retain his medical licenses, something I would find really appalling.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 11:11 am
@firefly,
Quote:
But Michael Jackson's father has lodged a wrongful death civil suit against Murray, which he seems likely to win given the criminal verdict, so, if Murray does profit, the Jackson family would be trying to go after that money.
and given that we generally oppose allowing people to profit from their crimes the Jacksons are likely to be successful.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 11:55 am
@firefly,
Um, what happened to a criminal cannot monetarily benefit in any way from their crime?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
and given that we generally oppose allowing people to profit from their crimes the Jacksons are likely to be successful.

Not necessarily. It depends on how well Murray had hidden or shielded the money (maybe in trust accounts for his children, for instance).
They never were able to collect the $32 million judgment against OJ.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:43 pm

I dunno the situation in California's penal system,
except that I saw on TV that a kid who was sentenced
to 4 days in jail for public drunkeness, was released in 6 hours, for insufficient space.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:43 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
Um, what happened to a criminal cannot monetarily benefit in any way from their crime?

That may hold true only after a conviction. Before that, there is the presumption of innocence. So Murray has had almost 2 and a half years to close deals and make money.

I'm not positive about this, but that's what I heard the commentators say during the trial.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:45 pm
@firefly,
I don't think they can benefit even if they did make the deals beforehand but I'm not positive. I am doing some research on it. It's slow at work today so I have a bit of time that I can look it up. Seriously, if he benefits monetarily from this at all, I find that utterly disgusting.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:48 pm

Note that when Dr. Murray gets out of prison,
he will not be legally allowed to defend his life from predatory violence ("felon in possession of a firearm").
If he goes fishing or hiking and a cougar falls upon him, he will not be able to fight back.
(Yeah, I can hear the joke already, but he 'll have lost his authority to acquire any Propofal for the cougar.)

Some will CHEER that, but its a sad commentary on America
and it mocks the concept of "equal protection of the laws" that liberals have trumpeted so loudly in the 1960s n 1970s.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:49 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
I don't think they can benefit even if they did make the deals beforehand but I'm not positive

He must have been paid for his participation in that documentary that will air this week.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:49 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
he can't vote either, dave...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:56 pm
@firefly,
If I am reading the below correctly, it looks like it is possible he could profit from his crime. I am in no way any kind of legal expert so what do you think?

Quote:


http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2239/how-are-criminals-prevented-from-profiting-from-their-crimes

How are criminals prevented from profiting from their crimes?
February 14, 2006

Dear Straight Dope:

We always hear that "criminals are not allowed to profit from their crimes." How do the authorities make sure this doesn't happen? If a criminal writes a book about his crimes, who gets the money? What if he sells his personal items, which may have increased in value due to his notoriety? What if he writes a book, does a TV appearance, or is interviewed for a newspaper or magazine story many years after he is released from prison? And what about O.J.? Since he wasn't convicted of any crime, could he keep the profits if he wrote a book about how he killed Nicole?

— Anonymous, Chicago

The rule isn't universal, but judges generally do try to prevent people from profiting from their own wrongs. A classic case in this respect is Riggs v. Palmer, 22 N.E. 188 (1889). Palmer had poisoned his grandfather because his grandfather intended to disinherit him. Under New York inheritance statutes, Palmer was entitled to inherit all but a small portion of his grandfather's estate. The statutes required valid wills to be enforced, and provided no exception that would prevent a killer from inheriting from his victim. The validity of a will is determined at the time it is executed (signed). When the will was executed, Palmer had done nothing wrong.

The court looked to the maxims of equity for an escape from a result it saw as unjust. It wrote, "He now claims the property, and the sole question for our determination is, can he have it?" The court decided he could not, noting that on top of ordinary law, there were "fundamental maxims of the common law." The court elaborated, "No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime. These maxims are dictated by public policy, have their foundation in universal law administered in all civilized countries, and have nowhere been superseded by statutes." In other words, the court decided that public policy required it to read the statute to bar Palmer's claim.

The Riggs court didn't come up with this idea on its own. The principle is much older and is still around today, although most states have codified it in statutes. For instance, Scott Peterson, a convicted killer, was recently prevented from receiving benefits under his wife's life insurance policy by California Probate Code section 252:

A named beneficiary of a bond, life insurance policy, or other contractual arrangement who feloniously and intentionally kills the principal obligee or the person upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the bond, policy, or other contractual arrangement, and it becomes payable as though the killer had predeceased the decedent.

This is one form of what is called a "slayer statute." California has statutes preventing killers from inheriting from their victims, obtaining title to land by murdering a joint tenant, or receiving life insurance benefits from policies insuring their victims, and includes a catchall for "any case not described . . . in which one person feloniously and intentionally kills another." In such cases, the statute says, "any acquisition of property, interest, or benefit by the killer as a result of the killing of the decedent shall be treated in accordance with the principles of this part." Every state has a similar slayer statute or a common-law slayer rule, according to research discussed by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Plumley v. Bledsoe (2005).

More recently, states have enacted laws entitling crime victims to the profits from stories criminals tell about their crimes. States enacted these "Son of Sam" laws after rumors that the serial killer known by that name, David Berkowitz, had received financial offers from publishers. Son of Sam laws were designed to prevent killers from profiting by selling their stories and to compensate victims. But most of the statutes are probably unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court found that New York's Son of Sam statute violated the First Amendment in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991). The Court found that New York had a legitimate interest in "ensuring that criminals do not profit from their crimes," citing Riggs v. Palmer, and also in "compensating victims from the fruits of the crime." But it concluded that the statute in question was too broad. "It would have escrowed payment for such works as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which describes crimes committed by the civil rights leader before he became a public figure; Civil Disobedience, in which Thoreau acknowledges his refusal to pay taxes and recalls his experience in jail; and even the Confessions of Saint Augustine, in which the author laments 'my past foulness and the carnal corruptions of my soul,' one instance of which involved the theft of pears from a neighboring vineyard." The Court concluded that "the Son of Sam law clearly reaches a wide range of literature that does not enable a criminal to profit from his crime while a victim remains uncompensated." Because the statute singled out speech based on content and was not narrowly tailored to compelling state interests, the Court concluded that the statute violated the First Amendment.

The California Supreme Court struck down California's Son of Sam law in 2002, applying logic similar to Simon & Schuster in Keenan v. Superior Court. In light of Simon & Schuster and Keenan, it seems likely few of the original Son of Sam laws would withstand a constitutional challenge. According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, "[n]early one-third of all states have not altered their notoriety-for-profit statutes following the Simon & Schuster ruling. Some states that have amended their laws have not addressed the Supreme Court's concerns. However, a substantial number of states have attempted to revise their laws to make them constitutional." New York amended its statute in 1992 and again in 2001 to create, as one author has described it, "a never-ending threat of suit" applying to those "under the watch of the criminal justice system." So in some states criminals can write books or give interviews about their crimes and earn money for the stories; in others criminals cannot profit from their crimes.

Of course, earning money and keeping it are two different things. As the Simon & Schuster court noted, criminals remain liable to victims and their heirs. The cases of O.J. and Robert Blake show that a person can be acquitted of a crime but still be held civilly liable. If the victims fear that the killer will dissipate assets before they can get a judgment, they can try to get an order freezing those assets (this is called pre-judgment attachment). So even in cases where criminals elude statutes meant to keep them from profiting, their victims and the victims' families can still see to it that they don't.

References

Riggs v. Palmer: http://www.cooter-ulen.com/cases.htm#Riggs%20v.%20Palmer

California Slayer Rules: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ cacodes/prob/250-259.html

Plumley v. Bledsoe: http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/Spring05/31764.htm#Footnote4 (Ala. 2005).

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/5 02/105.html

Keenan v. Superior Court: http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/slip/2002/s080284.html (Cal. 2002)

"Notoriety for Profit/'Son of Sam' Legislation," National Center for Victims of Crime: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32469

Yager, Jessica, "Investigating New York's 2001 Son of Sam Law: Problems with the Recent Extension of Tort Liability for People Convicted of Crimes," 48 New York Law School Law Review 433 (2004): http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/Vol48no3p4 33-488.pdf

"Blake Liable for Wife's Murder," Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2005, latimes.com: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-111805blake_lat,0,7926358.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"Jury: O.J. is Liable," cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civ il.trial/
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 12:57 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
he can't vote either, dave...
I disapprove of that.
In the American Revolution, we fought because we demanded: "no taxation without representation."

That principle applies to any citizen who is required to comply with the law.
Citizens who are disenfranchized, shoud treat the law as a joke.
Those citizens shoud deem the law to have the same moral authority as a schoolyard bully.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:01 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella (or Rusty), r u OK at work???
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:02 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I'm fine. That's one thing no one gets in trouble for around here. We have times when we have absolutely nothing to do. People read books, listen to books, etc. I wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't okay! You can count on that. It's better than taking a nap......................not mentioning names.

Call me whatever you are comfortable with.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Those citizens shoud deem the law to have the same moral authority as a schoolyard bully.
or for a host of other offenses by the state, for instance legistatures writing vague statutes, DA's charge shopping and loading up on charges not for the pursuit of justice but to drive a better deal in plea bargaining, and supermax prisons....
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
What 's the problem with supermax prisons.... ?
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:10 pm
I seriously think if a person has a problem with our country, our justice system, etc., they can do one of two things: 1) offer a solution instead of complaining; 2) if you can't offer a solution and you have such disdain for our country or judicial system, why are you in the country at all?

Our justice system is not perfect but it's what we have. If you don't like it, get off your butt and get out there and lobby for new laws, write laws, etc. You can't tell me that doesn't work because I can probably list a hundred laws that were brought about by an ordinary citizen actually doing something other than complaining.

Nothing ever gets done when people only complain. You have a right to complain and I am not trying to take it away from you but don't you ever get tired of whining and complaining about the same thing over and over again and not doing anything about it?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

What 's the problem with supermax prisons.... ?
cruel and unusual punishment....like getting the **** beat out of you by a bully. It is an unneed and and immoral assault upon the sanity of people that the state wants to beat on.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
Its not to raise the odds against escape ?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:13 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
Nothing ever gets done when people only complain
Noting ever happens if complaint is not made, and power never reforms unless it is confronted by other power, in these case the power of the people after indignation is raised.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 08:40:46