Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

Oh, when spendi resorts to name-calling, it means he's lost the handle of his argument. But it was obvious his position was flawed from the get-go. He has a peculiar way of looking at things.

It's a waste of time arguing with you ff. Your continuous hiding behind legalese and assumptions you offer no evidence for such as that it was "for insomnia" and your use of words like "may" on which to stand up a condemnatory sentence is pathetic.

This is not a courtroom.

A unanimous verdict was mandatory in this case.

The verdict was unanimous.

You proved it in your previous post relating to doctors getting their clients addicted to things to keep their incomes up.



That doesn't square with what has been said on this thread. Two months was asserted.



And that doesn't square with another assertion on here that MJ was not a special case.



Very few because very few can afford it. Churchill had Lord Moran going nearly everywhere with him. I've read Lord Moran's diaries.



Are you kidding? Most of them probably fantasise about such things.

And you have a "seems" now, it's a change from "may", on which to build another self-serving conclusion. Your penultimate paragraph is incoherent. First Dr Murray is "average" and then "posh" clients, as MJ was, "seek out and want the most highly qualified doctors".

Thank you for your PR puff on behalf of posh doctors. Are you into impressionist art? I assume the posh doctors you are on first name terms with are not included in your previous remarks.

MJ had prescriptions in 14 different aliases. That is illegal.

Well, since MJ is dead and Dr. Conrad Murray (lol I just noticed I keep getting his name backwards) has been convicted of killing MJ it seems yes, some people are that stupid.

Since when is "peculiar" flawed. Are you a Stalinist Mame? And "peculiar" is a self-serving assertion.

I wasn't name calling. ff is a silly moocow as she proved on the DSK thread. And name calling does not prove that I lost the handle of the argument even if I had been guilty of it.

How many names have I been called on the evolution threads? Go tell that crew of atheists that name calling means that they have lost the handle of the argument. They would be mortified. The only argument they have is name calling. And I have been insulted on this thread a few times as well. So all you who have stooped to insulting me have Mame's word that you have lost the handle of the argument. Very good.

It's all on the record surely? Why hasn't someone else been charged?

Michael Jackson was a junkie. The doc acted in a totally wrong manner. They both paid the price. Next?

Did you watch the trial? Any of it? All of it? I watched nearly all of it and I heard all of it. It wasn't a show trial. It was a trial about a doctor's negligent act wherein the result was someone died.

Not much fun in that is there bvt?

We are all having a good ding-donger and you pop in a throw a wet blanket over it in what I will admit is a highly original and scholarly manner.

You'll never convince me of that Arella. It was grandstanding from first to last.

The main argument used by those who opposed showing trials on TV was that the participants would start grandstanding. But the entertainment argument won out.

Not here yet but there a moves afoot.

What ratings did the show get? Were there ads in it?

Leaving aside "negligence", which I would dispute, it was this doctor and not many another whose real negligence, incompetence and stupidity resulted in a death, a paralysis or a mental wrecking.

Actually bvt, if you had put that post on at the beginning of the thread it would have saved Bob going to all the trouble of putting the medical services ads at the bottom of the pages.

It was the defense's own doctor expert witness that said such a thing. Get it through your head - if anything their own expert doctor would more likely side on their viewpoint and he even admitted the drug was administrated inappropriately and should be adminstered in a hospital environment.

The defense had the same opportunity to provide an "expert" and they did.


"The testimony of Dr. Paul White, an expert in the powerful anesthetic that killed the King of Pop, dealt a potentially crushing blow to the defense of Dr. Conrad Murray, who is charged with accidentally killing the icon in 2009.

To make matters worse for Murray, it was his own defense who called White to the stand.

White’s testimony re-emphasized the professional opinion of another expert, prosecution witness Dr. Steven Shafer, who told the court previously that he believes Murray made no fewer than 17 “egregious” violations of standards of care by giving Jackson the anesthetic propofol as a sleep aid.

White said the Jackson case was the first time he had ever heard of propofol being used in a private setting, rather than at a hospital. “I wouldn’t use propofol in a home environment,” he said under cross-examination.

“I wouldn’t even consider it,” he added. "It's something no amount of money could convince me to take on."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/dr-conrad-murray-medical-protocol-michael-jackson-s-death-expert-article-1.970017#ixzz1dF3nznOr

I think part of the problem may be that you do not live in a country where you can regularly watch a televised trial from start to finish. So that may account for some of your ignorance regarding legal proceedings in a courtroom, and what actually occurs in the course of a trial, and what is admissible and inadmissible during that trial. It may also account for some of your lack of interest in the law and how it is applied.

I find it a definite advantage to be able to watch entire trials, and I found this one particularly interesting because it was not bogged down with a lot of tedious or difficult to understand expert testimony. These experts were informative and clear and excellent instructors for both the jury and the viewer at home. I learned a great deal listening to them about both the drugs involved in MJ's death and the necessary standards of medical care for administering them.
In addition, although Murray did not take the stand in his own defense, the evidence included a lengthy taped interview he had given to the police, so we did get to hear from the defendant even though he was not cross-examined. And a lot of what Murray had said in that interview, in the presence of his lawyers, was damaging to him. He had obviously lied on important matters--such as how long he had left MJ alone, unobserved and unattended.

Also, I got to listen to the defense case--which was essentially the speculation that MJ had self administered a last dose of Propofol to himself, by injection, when Murray left him alone in the room, rather than the prosecution argument that Murray had left MJ hooked up to an IV Propofol drip when he left the room.
It is a classic defense tactic to try to blame someone else in a homicide. The defense had originally wanted to blame MJ's dermatologist as well, for giving MJ high doses of Demerol by injection which might have contributed to his insomnia, but, since MJ had no Demerol in his system at the time of his death, the judge would not allow that sort of evidence to be presented because it was irrelevant to the issue of Murray's guilt or innocence in causing MJ's death. So, the defense was left only with the option of trying to blame Jackson for his own death, since there was no way they could medically justify any of Murray's negligent actions regarding the lack of proper equipment, leaving MJ unattended, failing to call 911 quickly, and failing to tell either the paramedics or ER doctors that Jackson had been given Propofol.
The problem is, under California law, Murray would still be considered guilty if he had left a known addict like MJ alone in a room with a syringe containing Propofol, knowing he might want to self-administer it, if he were still awake and desperate to get sleep.
In addition, the defense case for putting the blame on MJ was inconsistent with some of the remarks Murray had made to the police, it was not a plausible scenario given how hooked-up to IV's and catheters and how drugged MJ was at that time, and it really didn't excuse Murray's other negligent actions after he found MJ not breathing.

So, I heard the prosecution's entire case, which was tight, well organized, and bolstered by evidence and testimony to support it. And I also heard the defense's response which hinged on an unsupported speculation that MJ might have self-administered a last fatal dose of Propofol to himself--while his doctor had left him negligently unintended--and the defense case failed to raise credible reasonable doubt about Conrad Murray's role in causing MJ's death. If anything, the main defense witness corroborated just how negligent Murray was in using this drug in someone's bedroom without proper equipment or medical supports.

Being able to watch actual complete trials gives one a real appreciation and respect for the legal process, and the fairness of that process. And these broadcasts are accompanied by extensive legal commentary that allows viewers to better evaluate the proceedings by providing different legal perspectives on what is occurring.

The law is not haphazardly applied and there is nothing frivilous about the proceedings of an actual trial--including this one. In this case, one man was needlessly dead, and another stood to have his life significantly altered, and his freedom affected by the verdict, and those very serious matters were evident throughout this trial.

Had you watched this trial, I think you might have agreed that Conrad Murray's acts of negligence were too numerous, and too extreme a departure from accepted standards of medical care, to be regarded as anything other than criminal in their reckless disregard for the life of another human being, and that he, therefore, deserved to be held criminally responsible for causing the death of that human being.

That's what this legal case was about, nothing more and nothing less. If you find that banal, you're just not interested in the law, or how it actually operates in its application.

I don't recall anyone insulting you on this thread and calling someone a cow is name-calling, of course. I don't visit the threads you usually hang out in because of the low levels of debate I see there. I have name-called, in particular 2 people that I recall - and you are quite familiar with them - and don't feel proud of it, actually. And no one can prove themselves a cow, anyway.

Are you sure it was illegal for him to have simply possessed those prescriptions?
He didn't obtain them illegally. Doctor shopping isn't illegal.

The doctors who wrote them knew they were for Jackson, regardless of the patient's name on the bottle. Their claim was that they were protecting his "privacy" by using a patient alias. That's BS, they knew they were prescribing for an addict.
Doctors are responsible for the prescriptions they write, particularly for controlled substances such as benzodiazepines. That's why the DEA gets involved, but these are hard cases to prosecute, the legal issues can be very involved.

I know how the law is applied in every country of the world ff. For the benefit of the legal profession is how. I'm not saying there is a better way. But I'm not in favour of TV trials.

The trial was on our TV on the Sky News red button channel. I saw bits of it. It was obvious to me what was going down. I think you are too enamoured of your own appreciation and understanding of the legal profession.

btw--"you silly moocow" is a term of endearment. You don't seriously think I would use such an expression if I wanted to insult you?