Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

I obviously think Dr Murray was found guilty "all on the facts of the case". But "all on the facts of the case" is not the same as "on all the facts of the case." I think there were other facts in the case, that were not in the case in the courtroom.

Which meaning of "case" are you using? And did you actually mean "all on" or was it a typo of "on all"?

I think firefly's description of Dr Murray, with allowances for a feminine slant, is very relevant to the case. It betrays a man of inordinate vanity. And serves as a warning to all of us about doctors with similar propensities even if they are limited due to smaller resources. It hardly needs to be offered in evidence when media has covered his partialities so comprehensibly. As it did DSK's.

But him having an "indigent" practice back in Houston(?) could put an interesting idea into a well read person's head concerning such displays of superiority. And not necessarily derogatory to Dr Murray. But it gets a bit mystical so I won't elaborate.

That's interesting Raggie. The idea that Bill would judge a comment, even one as silly as your's was, according to who it was aimed at.

Interesting spendius still not addressing the fact that the UK legal system is in agree with the states over such doctors.

I think the establishment here would have been so pleased with a doctor getting rid of somebody like MJ that they would be unlikely to investigate the circumstances too carefully. Had the victim had six bullet holes in his chest or a knife sticking out of his back they would have reluctantly looked into the matter.

You mean someone who earn 100s of millions of dollars/pounds they could tax?

Yes--of course we are in agreement. Where our emphasis might differ is in what is negligent and reckless. I think we are less trigger happy with those.

Since when did $100 million dollar earners pay tax?

One might readily understand a righteous Christian imbued with the spirit of pious rectitude being indignant at such behaviour but for a supporter of the teaching of evolution in schools it is necessary for it to be admired. A male with CM's superior physical and mental qualities could see it as a duty as an evolutionist to get as many children out of as many females as possible.

Don't you think so farmerman? Would you agree with firefly that such behaviour is sleazy? Do you agree that "dangling" is a tender euphemism for an activity which does have a proper scientific term and its usage ought properly to cause tittering, or at least a covert smirk, in any genuine evolutionist.

LOL..........

Actually Bill, to be precise, the $100 million dollar earner does pay tax indirectly because those people he employs to avoid paying tax pay tax as well as do those whose task it is to to put forth and display the nobility of his station.

Maybe farmerman has gone for a walk to think things over.

I think you missed my point that Conrad Murray was as reckless and irresponsible in his personal life as he was in his professional dealings with patients.

This man was not some poor hapless dupe lured into the spider's web, he happily jumped right into it because it was such a good fit for him. This was not an otherwise good doctor, and fine upstanding citizen, who suddenly became a victim of circumstance, a victim of his patient, and the fall guy for his patient's other doctors. This man was so perfect for the part he played in MJ's death, he was right out of celestial central casting. He had honed the art of treating everyone who put trust in him with reckless negligence, and Jackson simply became the most obvious and glaring collateral damage of his frenzied spree of narcissism.

I agree with farmerman that none of this is relevant to the legal facts of this case, that trail of evidence the jury followed to arrive at their verdict of guilt, but it does help to illuminate the "why" it happened, beyond just the motive of greed, because negligence and deceit was deeply enmeshed in all of this man's most private human dealings that took place behind bedroom doors long before he strode through the one in Jackson's home to make his own notorious grand entrance on a world stage. He not only had motive, he had an established modus operandi. In that regard, MJ's death was not "accidental", it was fairly predictable once a potentially lethal weapon was joined with that modus operandi.

Whatever misguided admiration you feel at his prowess for sowing his seed, I feel sorry for those 7 children of this deadbeat dad who will forever have to live with the legacy that their father is the man who killed Michael Jackson. More collateral damage he's left behind him.

Yeah--yeah ff. Round you go again.

You missed my point. Probably deliberately.

You base your position on a speculation about the future of the 7 kids which is both vulgar and pointless unless you're a fortune teller.

There is something absurd about a person who promotes teaching evolution in schools and castigates CM for the behaviour you described. To sit in your armchair complacently smirking at your own superior qualities whilst holding those two positions in your head is laughable.

And to try to undermine my argument by asserting a bad future for those 7 kids equally so.

CM's debts, his vanity, his recklessness and all the rest are neither here nor there compared to such evolutionary success and Norman Mailer points that out somewhere as well he might seeing that it is obvious. And it is a bit patronising, to say the least, for you to "feel sorry" for them when there are millions of kids much more deserving of your sorrow. Racist even. And to invent a bad outcome for them in order to stand your argument on its feet is ridiculous.

The problem with your way of thinking on this spendi is that you will make your head explode with your large arc of concern for kids, unnamed, who you feel are being brutalized. We can only deal with each case as it rises to the top of the tank. Dr Murray was found guilty by a jury of his peers. The judge will impose sentence in another phase , and he shall pay his debt , and, most important, he will not legally, be able to harm anyone elese again.

Youre attempts at trying to sound eloquent are probably the reason that you rarely get to a point in a discussion. You are easily diverted by irrelevancies. I used to have a golden retriever who was a lot like you. Handsome dog but also easily diverted and confused.

Complete balderdash fm designed to divert viewer's attention and confuse them in regard to you not only failing to answer the question but being unable to do so.

An evolutionist has no other alternative than to admire CM's performance at sending his genetic material into the future. And to facilitate that he has employed 5 different females which not only provides for variation and helps each mother to give here attention one or two children but saves one female from 7 pregnancies.

I don't "feel" that millions of kids are being brutalised. I know it. It's official. The UN says so.

In regard to this point, i.e. objective proof that your position on evolution is half-baked, along with that of many others, we can now see that you have only subjective motives for promoting radical and dangerous changes to the curriculum in schools across the nation. A straightforward prejudice.

What difference does it make to any alpha male in evolution that he is a toss-pot, a bankrupt, a criminal (not yet fully decided) and is not approved by your local Agony Aunt?

Half-baked understates the case by a large margin. I am thinking more in terms of play-pens at this moment.

there you go again, youve left the main line and have wandered onto a silly sidetrack. Good luck .

I used to be considered handsome but I'm a bit gnarled and grizzled now.

But there you go again. I'm going to start calling you Mr Subjective. I feel quite sure that your dog behaved in a perfectly rational evolutionary manner given the circumstances it found itself in. Being your dog I mean.

It only looked confused and easily diverted to you. Looking confused and easily diverted was probably the only rational course to take. I dare say a farm-hand you employed would soon start looking confused and be easily diverted. One certainly has to assume that any other dog would have reacted in the same way.

You asserting that the poor dog was confused and easily diverted is not scientific proof that it was confused and easily diverted. By shifting the blame to the dog, a shameful thing to do imo, you let yourself off as the cause of the dog's behaviour. They say dogs become like their owners. Or the other way round.

There you go again. The whole expostulation is resting on something being silly that you declare to be so and by so declaring evade the point I am making. And it sure is no silly sidetrack either. Because media sources which go in to bat for teaching evolution in schools have presented CM's genetic CV in a deprecatory light as well. Milking it even in the service of influencing the court.

And what I'm saying about your half-bakedness in this regard applies equally to them and is proof that they too have a pure subjective motive, unsullied by any scientific principles, for promoting the teaching of evolution in schools and with them being in business as they are that motive can only be financial profit.

And it is hardly a silly sidetrack to point out for viewers here that what these media centres of force are promoting is not evolution in schools at all but increased profits. As I have been trying to explain for many years. And if some viewers wish to continue taking any notice of what these media centres say about teaching evolution they are perfectly free to do so. I concede them that freedom with a wave of the hand from the sofa. I wouldn't go into the last trench for it though.

So it is relevant to the case because media created a pre-trial atmosphere which would influence everybody in the court and those watching the proceedings. And created by media centres which the above proves are half-baked, confused and have a reputation, well deserved, for being easily diverted. They castigated a man for behaving in a fine, exemplary manner from even an amateur evolutionist's point of view and are promoting the teaching of evolution to the only partially formed minds of the next generation. Both make money. Fair enough. That's life eh? There's nothing new under the sun. It's a bit schizoid though unless carried out with aplomb.

You have seen The Front Page haven't you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote--



Which sounds as if OWH would have considered the use, and possibly even the manufacture, of all the **** MJ was on to be reckless and negligent and a criminal dereliction of duty on the part of the whole medical profession in the service of making trillions by replacing nature's cures with their own arts. Obviously attempts to make nature's cures illegal would follow.

Is there no end to the nonsense you will try to drag in to defend the doctor?

No one is buying it and we all are shaking our heads over your silliness.