<br />Anna.....I know that "stick to the facts" is easily said. I understand that you are exhausted.<br />But let me say this: if reason and logic fail to appease you at some point, try to listen to your heart.<br /><br />You know...during the night, you cannot see the sun, yet you know it is there and will rise again in the morning.<br /><br /> bearhug<br />
<br /><br /> /bravo/ Perfectly said Mary, I couldn't agree more. Anna instead of focusing on the seal issue, think about the other oddities we found in the court. Murray didn't even stand up when the verdict was read but in real trials people HAVE TO stand up! They said ALLEGED victim for Michael which was never heard in real trials. Alleged means NOT PROVEN! How could they sentence a man who ALLEGEDLY killed an ALLEGED victim on an ALLEGED day? They cuffed Murray while the judge was talking but even in murder verdicts they do NOT cuff people. Think about these and think once again if this trial could be real or not.<br /><br />Here is a video for you to watch.<br /><br />
As to OJ Simpson, I recognize that I am jumping to conclusions without disposing of a summary of steelhard facts.<br />Yet from reading, hearing and watching only pieces from afar, I immediately said that OJ had been framed in his trials. The activities of Mr. Goldman always have been suspicious to me. <br /><br />Interestingly, FBI was said to be involved in the 2007 case - and this not to their advantage.<br />http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307757,00.html<br />http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/17/fbi-expert-testifies-simpson-robberykidnapping-tri/<br />Not all evidence presented then could be proven to be authentic.<br />Hmmm. Who's black and who's white here?<br /><br />
That is interesting info Grace, but all of this info does not even stack up against the evidence that OJ was guilty due to his OWN incriminating behaviour.<br /><br /> I've read about the son being the killer theory, and still there is nothing that shows motive nor evidence. OJ had more than enough of both.<br /><br /> I'm still befuddled as to how people can ignore the victim herself. If he was innocent of the crime of murder, which I doubt, he was more than guilty of being abusive. She had proof of this, so did the police. If he was innocent, why further incriminate yourself by writing a book that details the grizzly murders? Going by logic and facts, she said many times he was going to kill her and there was documented evidence to corroborate that allegation.<br />The most threatening time in terms of a domestic violence relationship is when the woman is trying to leave, and after. *Most* women end up murdered at the hands of their abuser, OJ's case isn't unusual unfortunately. Not every high profile case and every thing we've ever seen is a conspiracy, though much is.<br /><br />@Applehead The people were cheering because it became a case about race, which it shouldn't have. The African-Americans cheered because they felt vindication for other injustices IMO. This was a time when a black man who looked more than guilty, was able to get the 'not guilty' verdict in a case where the victim's are white. Almost unheard of. <br />And the glove would have fit if he put it on right lol. He obviously didn't even try, not only that but leather shrinks when wet. It was soaking in blood. I think MJ offered him to stay at Neverland because he has a good heart and I'm sure he cared first for the children of OJ and Nicole, versus OJ himself. Remember, their mother had just been murdered. Or maybe, MJ believed OJ was innocent for various reason's, including maybe being misinformed.<br />There is a reason OJ is in prison.<br /><br /> In the end, this has nothing to do with the Murray trial in my opinion.<br />@Anna There is MUCH more to the trial that proves it a sham, than the seal.
California | Medical Malpractice <br />11/11/11, 5:27 pmLegal QuestionAttorneys Only: Answer this Question <br />Why in the Conrad Murray case, during the verdict Michael Jackson was still stated as alleged victim?and waht does alleged date means?<br /><br /><br />Verdict:<br /><br />Superior court of California Los Angeles County. The people of the state of California plaintiff versus Conrad Robert Murray defendant. Case number SA-073164. Title of court and cause. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Conrad Robert Murray guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In violation of penal code section 192 subsection B alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009 as charged in count I of the information<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Legal Answer When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true.<br /><br />Michael Stone<br /><br />Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE<br />3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300<br />Seal Beach, CA 90740 <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/conrad-murray-case-verdict-michael-119617113/a<br /><br /><br />Response without sense :!: :?
<br />California | Medical Malpractice <br />11/11/11, 5:27 pmLegal QuestionAttorneys Only: Answer this Question <br />Why in the Conrad Murray case, during the verdict Michael Jackson was still stated as alleged victim?and waht does alleged date means?<br /><br /><br />Verdict:<br /><br />Superior court of California Los Angeles County. The people of the state of California plaintiff versus Conrad Robert Murray defendant. Case number SA-073164. Title of court and cause. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Conrad Robert Murray guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In violation of penal code section 192 subsection B alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009 as charged in count I of the information<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Legal Answer When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true.<br /><br />Michael Stone<br /><br />Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE<br />3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300<br />Seal Beach, CA 90740 <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/conrad-murray-case-verdict-michael-119617113/a<br /><br /><br />Response without sense :!: :?<br />
<br /><br />Thank you, Paula. That answer doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Because if that were the case every verdict would read the same. Either that or somehow they remove the "alleged" when reading it out loud?<br /><br />Blessings
Comments