For the accuracy of it they should have drafted another form of verdict. Nowadays with all the computers is not that difficult is it? I mean it is just a sentence, for God's sake. Michael Jackson deserves that much
it is almost like it is saying this person has been known as michael jackson but indeed is not michael jackson. make any sense or have i gone loopy again. <br />another thing has been buggin me. when witnesses are sworn in they are sworn to tell the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth. well doesn't the admonishen to answer yes or no prohibit this if the counsel does not pursue the line of questioning? see what i am saying? any thoughts? i still think there were so many other witnesses that could have been called had they wanted the truth. there has to be more coming down the line one way or another with this. also with the closing arguments did anyone think that chernoff ended in a rather abrupt non conclusive fashion ? he almost looked like something inside of him told him to shut up and go sit down.
ok, I did some checking and this MIGHT BE the explanation for "alleged" victim or date.<br /><br /><br />These are official documents for jury in California (instructions, manuals).<br /><br />http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/312.htm<br /><br />when you go to this doc Supplement With New and Revised Instructions page 43 <br /><br />there is the following wording: "The People allege that the defendant committed the followingcrime"<br /> <br />Then when you see how some media has phrased the news about prosecution filing the complaint with court, you can also see <br /><br />"A criminal complaint filed earlier in the day alleged that Murray "did unlawfully, and without malice, kill Michael Joseph Jackson." <br /><br />Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-08/justice/michael.jackson.charges_1_dr-conrad-murray-michael-joseph-jackson-caution-and-circumspection?_s=PM:CRIME<br /> <br />Then the official complaint filed with court says:<br /><br /><br />We have prosecution (the people) that allege, plus we the date of crime is presented as "on or about".<br /><br />In conclusion: maybe this is why there is alleged victim and date in the verdict. It might be the way or response as per court and jury procedures.<br /><br />As far as I understand, legal language might be a bit different from non-legal language. I have some experience in English legal as far as commercial and civil documentation is concerned including US law, and I can say that sometimes the language US lawyers were using was also difficult for my US colleagues non-lawyers to follow.<br /><br /><br />
Ok, so everything has always an explanation that doesn't fit with our belief.<br />This means it's perfectly ok, the verdict is legal, the trial is real. So what else can I say?
<br />Ok, so everything has always an explanation that doesn't fit with our belief.<br />This means it's perfectly ok, the verdict is legal, the trial is real. So what else can I say?<br />
<br /><br />Anna, why are you adopting such definite view here?<br /><br />First of all I said it MIGHT BE the explanation, so it does not mean it is.<br /><br />But even it is, it does not change my believe it all is a hoax. I just cannot adopt hoax-friendly perspective to everything that is out there. That would be a bit too naive for me to do that. More than two years have passed, there have been things I was able to explain and things I was not, I guess same as many other members here. <br /><br />The trial is just one piece of a puzzle for me. And I still do not see the whole picture of what we are to compete.<br /><br />
I say this because seeing that things like that- strange, illogical, absurd- can have an explanation to why they seem strange,illogical,absurd, makes me question everything we consider straight-in-our-face clue, that they can be our imagination and our mind set to see them this way.<br /><br />I don't know much about law, but seeing that in any other case, even if you choose only from the high profile cases- OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony are 2 huge high profile cases like Murray's case- never did they read in the verdict "alleged victim". But I leave it this way, if even an attorney answered above that this is because the verdict forms were printed before, while Murray was an alleged criminal and Michael was still an alleged victim. More lack of sense I haven't heard, and he's an attorney. I mean Casey Anthony's verdict forms weren't drafted before the verdict? Still, they haven't written and haven't read "alleged victim".<br /><br />And another thing, is this normal for jurors to write things on the forms? Like Judge Pastor said "and you put some squiggles after that?". I don't know if this is possible, to me it sounds ridiculous. First, the date was wrong, they erased and put June 25 and then some squiggles. Squiggles? How can they be allowed to draw squiggles on a verdict form?
<br />I say this because seeing that things like that- strange, illogical, absurd- can have an explanation to why they seem strange,illogical,absurd, makes me question everything we consider straight-in-our-face clue, that they can be our imagination and our mind set to see them this way.<br /><br /><br />
so on the surface it looks like there are two options 1. the way hoaxer's see it , he is alive and in complete control of what is going on.<br /> 2. the way the deaders see it , he was murdered. <br /><br /> can it be that what one perhaps should ask themselves , why should i be limited to those options only? the truth has to be one of these? it can't fall somewhre in between? could it be that is very attitude can limit the ability of those who question what has happened to put this in front of others to give them the chance to reconcider what they think they already know? just sayin'
<br />Look what a lawyer answered to this question:<br /><br />"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 />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 />http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/conrad-murray-case-verdict-michael-119617113/a<br />
<br /><br />What I DON'T understand is- in OJ's case, in Casey Anthony's case, the victim was STILL alleged before the verdict, as in any other case, yet when they read the verdict form the victim was "VICTIM" not "ALLEGED VICTIM".<br /><br />Makes no fucking sense! Why on earth OJ's victim, Anthony's victim and any other victim in a trial, while reading the verdict, they were "victim" not "alleged victim"? If they printed the verdict forms beforehand and put "alleged victim", then why only in THIS case? Why didn't they print the verdict forms with "alleged victim" in OJ's case? Or in Anthony's case? Why their forms were printed with "victim"and not with "alleged victim", if that's how it's done?<br /><br />In OJ's case: verdict form printed before, read "victim"<br />In Anthony's case: verdict form printed before, read "victim"<br />In Murray's case: verdict form printed before, read "alleged victim"<br />
<br /><br />[size=10pt]Also in other cases it seems the accused stands up and faces the jury as the verdict is read. Which was not the case with Murray. [/size]
They said alleged because it's a hoax and MJ isn't a victim. Why do people here have such a hard time believing that? You're going to usurp logic and common sense in favor of an explanation by a self touted internet lawyer that makes no sense at all?<br /><br />Come on people. Just believe already. <br /><br />Some here are as bad as the non-believers. We sit and wonder when non-believers will catch on... at the same time dreaming up explanations for the clues in order to disprove the hoax. Wait, what?!?<br />
Hey bec we try to find an explanation for why they said "alleged". <br />I do not believe there is something wrong in trying to find a reasonable explanation.<br /><br />That lawyer makes a stupid explanation if you ask me.<br />No court of law should accept a wrong drafted verdict. What, they couldn't afford another piece of paper to write it again?<br /><br />
@Forstamoon I must confess I can't follow your explanation.<br />Of course the defendant and the victim are "alleged" during a trial. This is no reason to still call the victim "alleged" after a verdict was reached.<br /><br />Sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say. It is difficult for me to fully understand English.
<br />@Forstamoon I must confess I can't follow your explanation.<br />Of course the defendant and the victim are "alleged" during a trial. This is no reason to still call the victim "alleged" after a verdict was reached.<br /><br />Sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say. It is difficult for me to fully understand English.<br />
<br /><br />Gina, in the nutshell, I just wanted to say that "to allege", "alleged" is used in jury manuals and instructions, as well as used while describing the case by e.g. media. Plus the date of death as described in prosecution documents was presented as "on or about 25th", what may give grounds to say the alleged date of death was 25th.<br /><br />English is not my mother tongue as well, and most of all - I am not US lawyer geek/ , so I cannot say with (any) confidence nor I can assure this what I say is right.
Of course it is all alleged until proven one way or another.<br />Still this doesn't explain it.<br /><br />I am used to believe Americans are let's say less rigorously with the papers as we, Europeans, are.<br />Just see the Joseph/Joe matter. In my country such a mistake wouldn't be allowed.<br /><br />But maybe they don't care too much about the form of the documents. maybe they just care for the background matter.<br /><br />For example in my country I wouldn't be allowed to legitimate myself with the driving license, but to them it is normal.
gina, I undestand the confusion because it puzzles me too. Unless this is definitely a hoax court, alledged woud be removed once the defendant had been found guilty of the crime. I don’t see any other explanation for it. <br /><br />Maybe in our letters to judge Pastor, which I surely intend to write, we could ask him why is the word alledged still used after the verdict of guilty had been rendered; as well as why Murray and the defense team were able to dishonor the gag order and do interviews for a tv special during the trial with no consequences /white flag/.
<br />Of course it is all alleged until proven one way or another.<br />Still this doesn't explain it.<br /><br />I am used to believe Americans are let's say less rigorously with the papers as we, Europeans, are.<br />Just see the Joseph/Joe matter. In my country such a mistake wouldn't be allowed.<br /><br />But maybe they don't care too much about the form of the documents. maybe they just care for the background matter.<br /><br />For example in my country I wouldn't be allowed to legitimate myself with the driving license, but to them it is normal.<br />
<br /><br />True. This Joe/Joseph still drives me insane. Jermaine in his book said "I don't know where this rumor began, about his name being Joseph. Maybe people want to believe in this myth because our father's same is Joseph, but my mother shortened it to Joe at birth.His name on the birth certificate is Joe."<br /><br />Just look how he says it- " From somehwere and especially after Michael's death, a rumor began that his middle name was Joseph. Joe was his name, as recorded in his birth certificate". Rumor from somewhere? It's on all documents since June 2009. Myth?<br /><br />Here it's not possible, I don't think that US is that different, after all FBI files said clearly "his real name is Michael Joe Jackson".<br /><br />I even remember when I was in school, a classmate of mine was called "Daniela". people always called her "Dana", and she was used to "Dana". When we had to give and exam, she simply forgot her actual name was "Daniela" and wrote "Dana" on the exam sheet. The professor had to have her take another exam sheet and write again, because it was not matching her identity card name. And it was just a fucking exam, not a court of law case.
I didn't know Jermaine said that in his book. I don't know where to find his book here .<br /><br />These Jacksons are driving me crazy. So we discuss for 2+ years about his name on legal documents and they don't even notice?<br /><br />Or they just do not care.<br /><br />hesoutofmylife I wonder if the judge will answer to your question.
Do these people care about us at all ?<br /><br />Why they don't adress this issue?<br /><br />I just wish they would stop the games and tell the truth, whatever that is :-\
<br />Look what a lawyer answered to this question:<br /><br />"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 />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 />http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/conrad-murray-case-verdict-michael-119617113/a<br />
<br /><br />Isn't it interesting how he answers the question without actually answering the question? lol Of course it was alleged before trial all they while Murray was presumed innocent. That isn't the issue. The issue is when the verdict was read, it wasn't alleged anymore. It was a guilty verdict. Michael was the victim, not 'alleged victim." I haven't found any other verdict where the verdict was read with alleged. I think that tells you something.
I know it is hard to believe MJ would comeback, but remember what Akon said 'Michael's entire life is choreographed'...if MJ is hiding, he won't stay hiding for long. This hoax is reaching it's maturity date/expiration both scriptwise and contractually (dancers have the 2 year non-disclosure agreement). Joaquin Phoenix's hoax lasted 2 years. Theoretically there is nothing left to do now but a comeback. 8-) I think it's funny how the fans misunderstood the "Bam" comment as his comeback when all it really was a direction towards when the band should start playing during the dramatic pause in Human Nature, but now we lovingly know it as Bam Day. The seal of confidence from MJ to the fans that this is all a live production is his signature at the end credits of This Is It. It is the keystone clue that this is a directed act by the man himself. Also (and this is tantamount) someone who had access the IMDB.com account for the Conrad Murray Documentary put MJ as the Director early this year for about a week or so and was quickly pulled afterwards. There's alot of noise, alot of noise:<br /><br />http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3735024/<br /><br /> moonwalk_/
Comments