Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with you or not. That won't change the fact this doctor has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

I wonder what MJ woud say about the conviction
if he coud speak for himself.

I might be in error, but I have a hunch that
he 'd confess that he took extra drugs
that the doctor did not know about
and say that it was an accident.

I can be mistaken, but that 's what I suspect.

The good doctor lawyers did try to state that MJ might had given himself an injection of the drug in question when the doctor was out of the room taking phone calls.

Still does not matter as the drug would not be within MJ reach but for the doctor and he know that MJ had drug problems and he let him alone with the drug at hand.

Oh it is unlikely that MJ would had been in any condition to give himself an injection but once more it does no matter.

As far as other type of drugs they did not show up in the screen done after his death or at least no drug did show up in any harmful amount if I remember correctly.

.

One other comment an event can both be an accident and the crime of manslaughter.

As a lawyer David you should be aware of that fact.

In the case of MJ death it surely was both an accident and a crime as no one had the intend of causing MJ death.

His death results from a complete reckless disregard of MJ safety and well being by someone that had a duty to MJ to act otherwise IE his doctor.

.I see, Bill.
U are an expert on the Homicide Law of California.
U have the advantage over me, because I have never even read
that statute, let alone analyse it, nor its judicial interpretations.
I have never been admitted to practice in California; I guess u have.
Thank u for your judicial exegesis.

This thread reminds me of what I first thought when I saw this on my friend's facebook page.
Okay, let's see- is it true that when I thought of Michael Jackson and Keith Richards and their individual chances of surviving to a ripe old age that I'd have bet on Michael?
Not necessarily - no. They both walked the knife's edge as long as they'd been in the public eye- hadn't they?
At least Keef only hurt himself walking along that edge and can still play a mean lead guitar - that's why I've got to admit I'd have missed him more had he checked out early than I miss Michael.

Maybe Michael was just tired...in fact he must have been literally - that's why he was addicted to this medication that would make him sleep. I think he was probably also tired figuratively.
I mean if you're so freaked out by life that you have to be anesthaesized in your home daily to live with your demons and sleep...sounds pretty torturous to me.

Should the doctor go to jail for this? I don't know what I think about that - but he should lose his licence to practice - that's for sure.
But don't think that'll mean he'll lose his livelihood. Now that people know he's willing to do this sort of thing, he'll probably have a client list as long as his arm with a waiting list- all he'll need to do is hook up with an illegal supplier.
And we know he's not above bending the rules or breaking the law for a price, innit?

But these two cases over here are interesting to me in terms of the sentencing guidelines etc., for accidental death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050124/University-lecturer-admits-drug-possession-schoolgirl-collapsed-died-party-house.html

This guy is being sentenced November 18 for having a stash of illegal drugs in his bedside table. He was an aging hippy - university lecturer. He and his partner had gone to a party - left the teenage daughter at home. She had a party. Her fourteen year old friend found the dad's drugs in his bedside table, took a hit of ecstacy - was acting strange and sick but told her friends not to call an ambulance or take her to the hospital because she didn't want her parents to find out, and she ended up dying.
The guy pled guilty to illegal possession. What should he be sentenced to? Should he be given a custodial sentence? I mean he pled guilty to possession- and it wasn't just cannabis. I meet people every day who are in prison for possession - and they haven't killed anyone. What do you think he'll get? He's already tried to kill himself by jumping off an overpass into oncoming traffic- I think that'll work in his favor in terms of sentencing - as well as the fact that he pled guilty- the fact of which even if he does get a custodial sentence, half will be knocked off for saving the cost of a trial.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060305/Nurse-Gloria-Dwomoh-force-fed-baby-death-jailed.html
And then there's this woman, who was feeding her kid the way it was customary to feed children in Ghana, which is where she was born and raised. But she did it here in the Uk and accidentally killed the child; the baby aspirated the food into her lungs, developed pneumonion and died. This woman DID get a custodial sentence- three years in prison.

So when you look at Dr. Murray next to those two cases - what do you think?

see below

There's a reason for that Bill. Your opposition to firefly on the DSK thread was due to your personal experiences with women and the false allegations they had made. It was subjective. Take that away and you line up with her on other matters.

My opposition to the treatment of DSK and Dr Murray proceed from certain principles. I defend blokes against being railroaded to make people money or get them attention. Especially when the righteous indignation brigade are on the march who use language any way they see fit. I don't see Dr Murray as guilty of any form of manslaughter. MJ was way out the other side of eccentric. Dealing with him was nothing like dealing with ordinary people.

I don't even understand why these people on here are interested in how MJ died. I'm only interested in watching the legal processes and they don't look very edifying to me. I don't think a man who I feel sure was doing his best for his patient under all the extreme circumstances should be sent to jail in order to facilitate a feeding frenzy and prevent all those who had found him guilty on the gush having to eat their words and face a few unpalatable truths.

How many deaths are there caused by doctors that you not only have never heard of but don't give a damn about? And not all accidents either as this one was.

It's hysteria I'm afraid.

And given me one repeat one state that would not classify a death that resulted from someone completely reckless actions that cause a death of someone who they had a duty to the protected as manslaughter?

In CA we sure do not need to question the matter as the good doctor was charge and found guilty of the crime.

Doing his best you got to be kidding me the act of walking out of the room when there was no auto-alarms devices monitoring to make phone calls in and of itself far from doing his best for his patient.

Beside all his other bad judgments and reckless behaviors.

Obviously Bill but you have asserted the actions in this case to be "completely reckless" which is actually the point at issue. I don't think they were "completely reckless" at all.

How reckless is it to manipulate the economy of the city to provide the high life for those with sufficient cunning and predatory instinct when infant mortality rates in the areas in which such people live are considerably less than it is in other areas of the city or of the state? Which is done deliberately in the full knowledge of the facts.

I see zero benefits for allowing a clear criminal deed to go unpunished because we do not live in a perfect world.

Your logic seems lacking in thinking otherwise.

But you didn't observe this legal process--you didn't watch the trial. On top of that, your knowledge and understanding of legal procedures is abysmal.

Perhaps because that was the crux of this trial--how Jackson died, and whether Conrad Murray substantially contributed to that death. That's why Murray was on trial.

And on what do you base your opinion that he was, "doing his best for his patient under all the extreme circumstances"? Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?

Plenty. Why do you think doctors in the U.S. pay such high malpractice insurance premiums? Because the insurance carriers are paying out on malpractice claims and settlements. Doctors needlessly injure patients in all sorts of ways, besides killing them, as a result of negligence. And medicine is a profession which generally does not police itself well. In the past 10 years, more and more doctors have been charged criminally in addition to malpractice actions. That's because of how serious the nature of the malpractice is--it amounts to criminal behavior.
The fact that other doctors also cause needless patient deaths does not excuse Dr. Murray. And I hope the verdict against him sends a clear, resounding message throughout the entire medical community--they may face criminal charges, and criminal convictions, if their negligence is egregious enough.
This is about consumer protection, and public safety, spendius, a point you seem to be entirely missing.

Just because MJ was eccentric does not mean that a physician should significantly deviate from appropriate standards of medical care that seriously jeopardized his life. Murray's legal obligation was to maintain a standard of care that did subject MJ to unnecessary or needless risk. He failed to do that.

So you disagree with the verdict. But you fail to address the evidence presented at trial that led the jury--who actually listened to the evidence, which is more than you did--to find him guilty. The verdict was determined by the evidence presented at trial. In what way was the evidence presented at trial inconsistent with a guilty verdict for involuntary manslaughter, as that crime is defined under California law? Have you even read the wording of that specific law?

And this wasn't a particularly controversial verdict. Sure, some people will disagree with any verdict. But, in this case, the evidence of Murray's gross negligence was rather overwhelming, and the verdict returned by the jury was consistent with that evidence.

The trial is over, spendi. You'll just have to live with your personal feelings that an innocent man was railroaded and falsely convicted. Write the man a letter and tell him how much you believe in his innocence, I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

I watched the entire trial and I saw a legal process that was fair to the defendant and one in which his legal rights, and his legal presumption of innocence, was fully protected. I definitely did not see a man being "railroaded". And the fact that the trial was fully open to public scrutiny, by virtue of the fact it was televised, helped to confirm the fairness of the proceedings. But, although most trials are not televised, all of our criminal courtrooms are open to the public. People can visit these courtrooms and observe what goes on. That involves the public as a watchdog on our legal process and helps to keep it from being the sham you erroneously think it is.

That was a typo on my part.

It should have read:
Murray's legal obligation was to maintain a standard of care that did not subject MJ to unnecessary or needless risk. He failed to do that.

By watching the trial and the spinning machines surrounding it I meant watching it as a thirsty man staggering through the veldt might watch the vultures. I understand the evolutionary necessity of vultures but I am entitled to watch the buggers.

Try this--"If I love you--watch out". I saw Elina Garanca playing Carmen at the Met. How many millions loved MJ? All those dark eyes watching him. Millions of them. All adoring MJ. Phew!!! He better watch out.

A nice line from the opera especially for Meestah Bill--"When cheating or stealing it's best to have the ladies along."

I can't imagine anybody else, except maybe his Mom, who had more interest in doing his best for MJ than Dr Murray had. I think he was doing his best in all the circumstances.

There's a big difference between paying out malpractice settlements and being carted off in cuffs to face a four year sentence. How many of the settlements resulted in jail time?

Of course the verdict was determined by the evidence presented. Were the jury all traffic wardens? I think there is other evidence.

I don't think the trial was fair and I've given four separate reasons.

In the documentary I saw we were shown MJ's bedroom and bathroom. Both chaotic. Stuff everywhere. A defence lawyer said that the bathroom, which nobody else was allowed in, hadn't been cleaned for months.

MJ was out on a limb the rest of us can't even get our heads around. An alien state of being. To treat Dr Murray as if he was handling the typical hospital patient is wholly ridiculous. Playing to the mob. There's nothing in your posts which anybody can learn anything useful from. Maybe the same is true of mine but I'll bet there were people in the Met audience who would have a sense of my meaning.

Here's another quote from the higher realms of thought--



Oswald Spengler. The Decline of the West.

I see rust in the trial and I'm going to say so as the little lad did on seeing the emperor's bum. Nobody need read my posts nor take the slightest notice of them. I don't see much point in Abling people to Know what they already know. Which is all your posts do.

I also saw Elina Garanca's performance of Carmen at the Met--she was marvelous, very sexy and seductive, one of the very best Carmen's I've ever seen. And Roberto Alagna actually moved me to tears as Don Jose.
But I still don't get what the hell you are talking about as it pertains to the specific actions of a specific man, Conrad Murray, in contributing to the death of another human being.

The condition of Michael Jackson's bathrooms was relevant to the outcome of this trial--a trial which legally focused only on Conrad Murray's actions in contributing to, or causing, the death of Jackson? Should Conrad Murray have been cleaning up those bathrooms, to earn his $150,000 per month salary? Was he also guilty of extreme bathroom neglect? Did the condition of the bathrooms cause MJ's death?

Doctors treat emotionally disturbed and drug addicted patients all the time, including those who live with messy bedrooms and bathrooms. They are expected to maintain the same standards of medical care for those patients as they do for everyone else--and that would include the treatment of someone like Michael Jackson. A doctor is legally bound not to recklessly or negligently expose a patient to needless risks of harm or death.You seem totally unaware of Conrad Murray's numerous, egregious, errors in medical judgment that placed his patient MJ at significant risk of death.

The civil trial may go into the actions of other doctors, or others at AEG, that affected MJ in some way, but the criminal trial, which is what we have been discussing, focused only on the actions of a specific person--the defendant--and the role he played in causing MJ's death. The state was not alleging, or trying to prove, that a broad conspiracy killed Jackson, but that appears to be the intent of Katherine Jackson's civil suit for wrongful death. So, when that civil trial gets underway you may find it more to your liking than a criminal trial which is apparently too circumscribed for your tastes.

That's excellent advice. On that I concur. It's the best, and most logical, thing you've said thus far.

Why not string him up then? In public. Greasy rope. That would send a "clear resounding message". You would all sleep more soundly in your beds knowing that quacks were up for that if they put one foot wrong in anybody's treatment. There's a Queen in one of Brecht's fairy stories who says "hang 'em now--that'll larn 'em".

And Prof. Skinner would have agreed.

You lot are pussy-footing around with a few months free holiday at the taxpayer's expense in a holiday camp to be followed by a book deal, film rights and a tour of the world's chat shows. It's practically encouraging recklessness and negligence where famous patients are concerned. It's a crap job is doctoring. All that diseased flesh to feel at and moaning and groaning to listen to all day every day.

Make an example of the ****** if you want a proper clear and resounding message. Are you a bleeding heart ff?

What an insult to doctors you have posted. Suggesting that they need to be sent a clear and resounding message to look after their patients properly and then you wimp it when it comes to doing so.

That's how I know you are all a load of phonies being given a go on the udders of the milking machine.

The kind of doctors who would think of trading the welfare of any patient for $$$$$ need to be insulted and if found to be doing so send to the UK to treat you personally.

Okay you have gone from being rude to just being downright nasty. No one said a word about stringing him up. I think you do protest just a little too much. Anyway, you don't need to use such filthy language.

OK, so NOW, if I read u correctly:
u claim to be an expert on the homicide statutes of ALL 5O States!