<br /> <br />Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment<br />Defenses focus
>Character<br /><br />The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication. <br /><br />In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient). When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)<br /> <br /><br />So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...)then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...)(character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".<br /><br /> <br />All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient. <br /> <br /><br />People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting. So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.<br /><br /><br />I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.<br /><br />I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case" <br /><br />...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).<br />
<br /> <br />Thanks for your clear explanation. Actually, it is not long winded, on the contrary, it's interesting to see this from a juror's perspective . I have no knowledge of law cases, trials etc. and I've never seen a courthouse from the inside (glad I am).<br />
It's more simple than most people realize.
<br />Personally, I can't imagine that it's so simple. I mean, when you must adhere to specifics as a juror, you must be rational and block your emotions as well. I think that's not so simple, because even if you adhere to specifics rationally as a juror, hearing the loving and emotional testimonies of the patients and seeing the reaction of Murray, it will somehow touch the jurors (or at least 1 or 2). I still find the timing of the testimonies of the patient witnesses striking. Convenient timing for the defense, because they are close to the date of the verdict. I believe that recent remarkable testimonies or situations will always stick into the memories of the juror. But that's from my own perspective and I'm not a juror and I guess I will never be. I find it very interesting though .<br /> <br />With L.O.V.E.<br /> <br />
<br /><br />My apologies...I didn't mean to imply that jurors have to be insensitive On the contrary, you do get emotional and it can influence your perspective and defense attorneys count on it! But there are certain instructions and guidelines you do have to adhere to. <br /><br />Yesterdays testimony would have been hard to sit through---> I went through a box of tissue just watching it on my computer, I imagine being there was very emotionally charged. It's easy to get caught up in the science and forget there are real people behind the situation. The defense chose their character witness' well.<br /><br /> /bravo/ <br /><br />But in terms of being on a jury, I just meant that people are sometimes "shell shocked" at how fast a jury reaches a verdict in some cases (usually only within a matter of hours) even if presenting the case had taken weeks or months! It's a very exciting experience if you ever get the opportunity. I used to dread jury duty until I was actually chosen for that first case. It definitely gives you a whole new appreciation of the legal system.<br /><br /> /judge/ <br />
<br />
It's a very exciting experience if you ever get the opportunity.
<br />I bet it is a very exciting experience, though I guess I will never get the opportunity to be a juror, because here in The Netherlands we have a completely different judicial system with no jury http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Netherlands-JUDICIAL-SYSTEM.html. That's why it is so interesting to see how the judicial system in the US works. Ok, this trial's not a real case , I still learn a lot. I have to admit that I was a little sceptical about the high risk of media influence on the jury, but no offense because I'm just an "outsider" who's familiar with another judicial system. <br /> <br /> <br />
<br /> <br />Love how Ed has a matching pumpkin orange tie. I can't even imagine where you'd shop to find a silk orange neck tie.<br /><br />I know someone else who likes the color orange
As far as I know, they have not mentioned anything in regards to Dr. Klein's records of administering Demerol, that the notes are written up for a patient known as Arnold Omar. It has been said that that is one of the many names MJ used in getting prescriptions. But I have two questions. One, if this was all legit and proper, why use a fake name? Doctor/patient records should be private, so normally, no need for a fake name, right? And secondly, is this also yet another clue in that it's not really MJ having the demerol, and the kangaroo court is assuming facts not in evidence? After all, none was found in his system (assuming he really is dead) NOT! ;D
Walgren vs. Waldran....WHEW!!!!! Made me a nervous wreck. Did anyone notice they said Unicorn Unicorn Unicorn for exhibit U and then showed V V V on the medical record? Not to mention Chernoff's orange tie!!!<br /><br />
Elephant in the room mention. Did you hear it? Isn’t it strange that this s mentioned during Dr. White’s testimony being that HE WAS NOT SWORN IN /cook/
Oh! I guess it worked! Hurray! Look at the window...you can see a mouth, nose, and ears. It's a giant face....it was there for awhile today and then as soon as I mentioned it on chat it disappeared.
<br />Is this the face you are referring to?<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Yes.....and then it disappeared and went back to the reflections of the people in the courtroom. It was there for a few minutes and that's it.
Question: In day 19 during court, does anyone remember seeing the jack-o-lantern sitting on one of the high tables? <br />0:46 it's noticable.<br /> /><br />Later on as in depth session continues, the jack-o-lantern is no longer there. Why????<br /><br /> />Could it be a "now you see me and now you don't type of thing"? Or could it possibly be because of the fact that ppl would make a mockery out of MJ calling him "Jacko"....Jack-O- lantern?????? <br /><br /><br />I see now that this was already discussed. LoL. My bad. But um....yeah. I wonder the purpose of that....Crazy huh??? :shock: fresse/
Anyone check out all the line graph 7's today? I was only able to watch til just after the mid morning break but nearly all those line graphs were perfect sideways 7s. Even the exhibit LLLL looked like 4 perfect upside down sevens, with the curved part n everything. 7 7s on one graph, 16 7's on another. It was neato.
Maybe not an odd thing but first time I think we got this view of the courtroom :?: .... the exit is let's say "illuminated"...I thought it could be a kind of message.<br /><br />
I have not seen it mentioned but just for the record Mr Flanagan called Michael "Mr. Lorazepam...huh! Michael Jackson" and it did sound like an intentional slip-up...
<br />Maybe not an odd thing but first time I think we got this view of the courtroom :?: .... the exit is let's say "illuminated"...I thought it could be a kind of message.<br /><br /><br />
re: mr lorazapam.... non believers or people who dont realise that this courtcase is all fake, must think that the majority of personnel who are working at this court atm, are the most unprofessional legal professionals that ever existed...
<br />Maybe not an odd thing but first time I think we got this view of the courtroom :?: .... the exit is let's say "illuminated"...I thought it could be a kind of message.<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Where is Murray?<br />
<br /><br />The one on the left with black jacket.
<br />Maybe not an odd thing but first time I think we got this view of the courtroom :?: .... the exit is let's say "illuminated"...I thought it could be a kind of message.<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Where is Murray?<br />
<br /><br />The one on the left with black jacket.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />... But he is always sitting beside Flanagan, all is changed, or perhaps Murray is short-sighted and does not see the screen<br /><br /><br />Someone saw this change in the broadcast of the trial?
<br />Everyone, I know MJ has been cited for calling propofol his Jesus Juice (something he put out there evidently), but below is what it probably truly is related to. Remember, this story is fake. MJ had to die of something, and he knew that the more outrageous the story (or any story) relating to him was, would be the most believable to some. They thought him a freak, eccentric, looney toons et al.<br /> <br />He was amazed that people would believe all of those tabloid stories about him without any fact checking/researching. He couldn't conceive it. And how the media lied on him during the 2005 trial was appalling and a crying shame (and some more adjectives). On some levels it bothered him, but at some point, he decided that he would use it for fodder/background to tell several unbelivable stories about and attributed to himself. He is the writer/author, director, executive producer, victim and some more stuff having to do with this Michael Jackson story. <br /> <br />The more outrageous the stories/lies about him were/are - the better, because that was the way folks identified with him. So he said, I show them - and that is what he is doing now. He planted a lot of these stories about himslf thru some of the so-called shady characters that have been quoted in the press, written about in the press and now with the witnesses and such in this farce of a trial. LOL!<br /> <br />By the way, Diana was dressed in garb that looked like two galaxies colliding on a recent tour stop which IMO has to do with the below. Matter of fact, there are a lot of things MJ was about in This Is It - since then and back in the past that was very COSMIC.<br /> <br />Please delete if duplicate posts.<br /> <br />http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=94<br /><br />http://www.cosmomyth.com/milky_way.html<br />
<br /><br />Wait, wasn't white wine his "Jesus Juice" and propofol his "milk"? Or was propofol also/his (new?) Jesus Juice? confused/
Comments