Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

I don't recommend any A2Kers going anywhere near a doctor who is offered that sort of deal. He'll probably have a man trap in his hallway.

Getting a bit nasty is the only way to deal with a load of phonies sucking the udders of a milking machine Arella.

Is that how you treat anyone who disagrees with you? You cuss at them and insult them? We have a right to our opinion just as you do. I don't appreciate nasty and I don't appreciate your cussing either. Is your position so weak you have to start cussing and insulting people merely because they don't see things the same way you do?

That is a rhetorical question, isn't it, Arella Mae?

His position, if one can even call his disconnected mental meanderings a "position", is divorced from the facts of the case.

You just noticed he's nasty?

Yes--that's all very well girls--but you have failed to address the question I raised about the possible sentence being too light to do justice to Dr Murray's crimes, bearing in mind the manner in which you have regarded them, and your expressed desire to send a clear and resounding message to other doctors who you presumably believe need forceful reminders of their duty to their patients.

You have both been nasty to me in your own ways which suggests that you demand even a thing like being nasty to be managed in your own styles, which is itself nasty, and the more so for being unconscious nastiness whereas mine was quite conscious and employed for literary effect. I was using the irony of the opposite intention, which requires emphasis, but you were just being nasty. And to other doctors too.

Will you please have a try at addressing my post rather than evading it with a soppy excuse which is an appeal to the more refined delicacy of the female sex and thus condescending to women.

I'm not nasty enough to try to get a man jailed when there is insufficient reason to define him as a felon. I would sooner jail the judge, the prosecuting counsel and those in media who conspired to produce an unfair trial. I consider allowing Mr White's statement to remain on the record a litmus test for my contention. If his remark was just an impulsive blurt I'll let him off although professional men in formal settings where a man's freedom and reputation are at stake ought not to be seen engaging with impulsive blurts. It was inadmissible precisely because it was unchallengeable. It certainly wasn't evidence.

The above is your opinion that seem share by no one else on this website and also not share more importantly with a jury of his peers.

He surely deserve in almost every one else opinion be define as a felon even if you do not see that.

It seems to me that "almost everyone else's opinion" was manipulated. As it was in the DSK case. You do remember the NYC tabloid front pages that firefly brought to our attention I presume.

Yes only you can not be control by the mass media all the rest of us can be and indeed were brainwash in relationship to this doctor.

I certainly didn't say or imply that. I've asked whether anybody is supporting Dr Murray besides those ed quoted and have received no answer.

"Brainwashed" is not the word I would use. Indoctrinated is the right word.

Nonsense under either terms people can disagree with you on this issue without being indoctrinated or brainwash even if you do not think so.

For what it's worth Quincy Jones and Larry King.

Ive found that trying to explain our system of justice to spendi is like teaching organic chemistry to a hamster

Nope. The hamster will fall alseep after a minute.

That's right. After teaching organic chemistry for a few minutes one easily becomes dopey.

Such subjects are best as hobbies or as obsessions. Like flying remote controlled model aircraft. Nobody teaches that but there are a sufficient experts to satisfy society's needs.

Nobody teaches computer hacking but some 15 year olds are wizards at it.

It's just an excuse to find folk like fm a respectable job. Teaching isn't learning.

There's a difference between explaining a system of justice and explaining in whose interests it operates, how it does so and speculating upon its usefulness.

I'll ask you a question fm--should Mr White have told the jury that he would not have administered Propofol for any amount of money in Dr Murray's position.

And another one-- did you know that the chief expert witnesses for prosecution and defence are enemies professionally?

I don't know that the possible sentence will be too light--he can receive up to 4 years, which is about the same sentence someone can receive for felony vehicular manslaughter with negligence in California. I would like to see the sentence be appropriate for the level of the crime. This situation is also complicated by the current over-crowding in California's jails and prisons, which may result in his serving a shorter sentence, but that decision is up to the Dept. of Corrections.

In addition, it is likely that his licenses to practice medical in California, Texas, and Nevada will be revoked, although he can re-apply to have them reinstated at some future time. So, that would be an additional, and significant, punishment for a physician.

Just the fact that he was criminally charged and convicted sends a message to the medical community--the consequences of his negligent actions as a physician were more dire than just requiring him to make a monetary payment, as would be the case in a malpractice or civil wrongful death action, and that will register with the medical community.

I had no feelings, one way or the other, toward Dr. Murray prior to the start of this trial. I had no strong feelings about Michael Jackson either, or about the circumstances surrounding his death. So, the feelings I've expressed in this thread were based on the evidence and arguments I heard presented during the trial, and the jury returned a verdict with which I concur. And I watched a trial I felt was quite fair. I wasn't brainwashed or indoctrinated. I am quite capable of thinking for myself.

This whole trial hinged on issues involving appropriate standards of medical care. It was neither inappropriate, nor legally inadmissible, for the prosecutor to have asked this expert witness, an expert chosen by the defense for his knowledge of Propofol, whether he would ever administer that drug to a patient in a home bedroom. Dr. White did not impulsively "blurt" anything out. He reluctantly conceded, under cross-examination, that he would never do such a thing, despite that admission being damaging to the defense, who were paying him for his testimony --he was under oath, and he likely felt compelled to be honest. Just because his personal statement could not be successfully challenged, by the defense--the prosecutor had no reason to challenge it--does not make it legally inadmissible. The defense could have challenged his statement, but why would they want to discredit their own main expert witness on any matter? Your reasoning on this issue doesn't make sense.

Dr. White got himself in trouble with comments he did blurt out while seated in the visitor's section of the courtroom, and with comments he made in violation of a gag order imposed by the judge, and, for that, and he faces a contempt of court hearing this week. But the comments on the witness stand, that you object to, were perfectly legally admissible. Every physician testifying in this case made similar comments on the witness stand. That's how the standard of care, for administration of Propofol was made clear to the jury. Statements made by expert medical witnesses, regarding standards of medical care they follow in their own practice, are most certainly evidence, admissible evidence, and it is up to the jury to decide how much weight they want to give to such evidence--it is the jurors who evaluate the witnesses credibility, not the judge.

BTW, Dr. White, as a defense witness, should never have been sitting in the courtroom when the prosecution medical expert was testifying--one witness is not supposed to hear the testimony of another witness, particularly a witness from the opposing side. No one seems to know why the prosecution allowed him to be there, when they could have rightly objected and had him removed. Being there, listening to the prosecution witness, gave him an unfair advantage--an advantage for the defense. So, if bias operated with regard to Dr. White, it was in favor of the defense. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Not before this trial they weren't--they have had a long friendship, and until this trial mutually respected each other.

White also had a blowup with Ed Chernoff in a courthouse elevator that was so loud, from both parties, it could be overheard by the media and people in the hall--that sort of fighting, in the courthouse, is pretty unheard of--lawyers keep that sort of thing private, and out of earshot of anyone, particularly the prosecution.
And Chernoff had a blowup with Michael Flanagan his co-counsel. They didn't talk to each other the last two weeks of the trial. Flanagan will appear for the sentencing, but then he's done, he will not work on the appeal.

So, there was a lot of emotional turmoil going on within the defense camp.

You know, people do have a right to disagree with you without being insulted just as you have the same right. I have no control over his sentence. The law does. I stick with that. I don't wish the man to be strung up either.

Seriously, why do fight so hard against people that merely disagree with you? What is wrong with civilly disagreeing?

The tautology of all tautologies. I am simply not barking up the same tree as you are. That my tree is the wrong tree is just another way of claiming you are right and I am wrong. I am bound to be wrong if it is true that I'm barking up the wrong tree. QED.

What my tree is is a rather complex matter dealing as it does with the question of which professional "guild" has the subjective power to render other professional guilds its objects and zones of exploitation. And further to explore the effects upon society of the hegemony of a coalition of professional guilds. The case is far wider in its ramifications than an isolated specimen in a petri dish. I'm not a particularly fawning acolyte of the medical profession but I would trust it on a whole other level than I would trust lawyers and denizens of media.

The most famous law firm in the UK is a fictional one invented by Private Eye and named Sue, Grabbit and Runne. Media is known to be run in Grub Street and anybody who cannot see its chosen method of picking pockets is either blind or scared of looking.

Tell me ff. Is there a section of LA where a certain type of wine bar and restaurant exist in which persons from these two guilds co-mingle in the usual manner of instinctively predatory beings. Do they intermarry, use the same golf clubs etc and send their children to similar schools. All piss in the same pot I mean. A class apart.

How popular with that class in LA was the outsider, Mr Chernoff? I imagine there was some resentment.

I think a game was played with Dr Murray as the ball and hoi polloi as the pitch. A cinch.

And, if I may be allowed the venture an opinion, the win bodes no good. You need Francois Rabelais to orient yourself in relation to these buggers. I mean to get started on the right course. Apologists for them are likely their poor bloody infantry.

Is there not an exodus of good doctors out of Cal?

http://www.2ndrcflightschool.com/

Yes-- and a message which the whole logic of your case asserts it should not need.

It also sends a message to the public that the LA legal and media co-operative is very sympathetic to claims of medical negligence and recklessness as defined by itself. I can hear the cash tills ringing from here.

Your fundamental problem is the eager purchase of goods from countries where such added costs are kept to a minimum. Your deficits are the scientific instrument on which the problem is displayed.