CONRAD MURRAY To Take the 5th In Katherine Jackson Suit

AdiAdi Posts: 1,834
edited March 2013 in News
[size=18pt]CONRAD MURRAY<br />To Take the 5th<br />In Katherine Jackson Suit<br />[/size]<br /><br />3/17/2013 1:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF<br /><br />0221conrad-murray-1.jpg<br /><br />Sounds a little weird, but Conrad Murray -- who has already been convicted and <br />serving time for killing Michael Jackson -- will exercise his 5th Amendment right against<br /> self-incrimination in Katherine Jackson's lawsuit against AEG.<br /><br />Michael's mom is suing AEG, claiming the company negligently hired and supervised <br />Murray, which resulted in her son's death.  Katherine has subpoenaed Murray to explain <br />his arrangement with AEG.<br /><br />Sources connected with the case tell TMZ ... Murray's lawyer, Valerie Wass, will file legal <br />docs ... arguing she is appealing Murray's conviction, and if it's overturned it's likely he'd <br />be re-tried.  If that happens, what he says could still be used against him, so Wass wants <br />Murray to keep his trap shut.<br /><br />It's pretty crazy, since Murray has already served almost a year-and-a-half.  By the time <br />his case is appealed, he'll probably be out.<br /><br />Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/03/17/conrad-murray-fifth-amendment-self-incrimination-michael-jackson-aeg-katherine-jackson/#ixzz2NmtEHwZ0 <br />
«1

Comments

  • AdiAdi Posts: 1,834
    Bummer......I was hopin' he'd let fly  :icon_lol:
  • AndreaAndrea Posts: 3,787
    <br />
    It's pretty crazy, since Murray has already served almost a year-and-a-half.  By the time <br />his case is appealed, he'll probably be out.
    <br /><br /><br />Because of all the time wasting delays with this whole appeal, I said something similar in the TIAI discussion, that his time in jail will be up before the appeal gets sorted.  And even if his appeal was successful, it would seem he would be re-tried? (overturned convictions must be an exception to the double jeopardy clause).  At this point, it seems like the appeal is not worth it, but that would be strictly from a non-hoax standpoint.<br /><br /><br />Murray could always change his mind! (assuming TMZ is telling the "truth" here)
  • everlastinglove_MJeverlastinglove_MJ Posts: 2,884
    <br />
    If that happens, what he says could still be used against him, so Wass wants <br />Murray to keep his trap shut.<br />
    <br /><br /><br />Funny thing is that Front used the word TRAP recently<br /><br />
    ….and never WILL! <br /><br />MJ has those buffoons running around in circles like blind yip-yapper dogs buzzed up on crack, trying to sniff out their own sh^t. <br /><br />Like I said----> falling right into the TRASH…..ugh, I mean TRAP. <br /><br /> :ghsdf:
    http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,18255.msg438365.html#msg438365
  • everlastinglove_MJeverlastinglove_MJ Posts: 2,884
    Conrad Murray ordered to meet with Katherine Jackson's lawyers<br />By Alan Duke, CNN<br />February 21, 2013 -- Updated 1847 GMT (0247 HKT)<br />STORY HIGHLIGHTS<br />Jackson lawyers can question Conrad Murray about Michael Jackson's death, judge says <br />Murray's lawyer says she will advise him to use his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent <br />"But Dr. Murray has a mind of his own,"lawyer Valerie Wass says <br />Michael Jackson's mother and children are suing concert promoter AEG Live <br />Los Angeles (CNN) -- A judge has ordered Dr. Conrad Murray to meet with Katherine Jackson's lawyers next month for a deposition in her wrongful death lawsuit against concert promoter AEG Live.<br /><br />The lawsuit, which is set for trial in April, accuses AEG Live of causing the death of Katherine Jackson's son, Michael Jackson, by pressuring him to prepare for his 2009 comeback concerts while he was in fragile health.<br /><br />The suit, filed on behalf of Michael Jackson's mother and three children, says that AEG Live executives hired and supervised Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's death.<br /><br />Murray lawyer Valerie Wass, who unsuccessfully objected to the deposition, said the decision disappointed her. Wass said she would advise Murray to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions.<br /><br />"But Dr. Murray has a mind of his own," Wass said. "If he decided to answer a question, those parties don't know what he's going to say."<br /><br />The videotaped deposition is set to take place on March 18 in the Los Angeles County jail where Murray has been serving his sentence since November 2011.<br /><br />Murray, who was the pop superstar's personal physician, has never been questioned under oath about Jackson's death. He did not testify at his trial.<br /><br />
    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/21/justice/conrad-murray-deposition<br /><br />So according to this article a videotaped deposition will take place tomorrow..
  • sweetsunsetwithMJsweetsunsetwithMJ Posts: 2,626
    Murray, who was the pop superstar's personal physician, has never been questioned under oath about Jackson's death. He did not testify at his trial.<br />
    <br /><br />This really caught my eye  :icon_question: :icon_e_confused:
  • everlastinglove_MJeverlastinglove_MJ Posts: 2,884
    on 1363535953:
    <br />
    Conrad Murray ordered to meet with Katherine Jackson's lawyers<br />By Alan Duke, CNN<br />February 21, 2013 -- Updated 1847 GMT (0247 HKT)<br />STORY HIGHLIGHTS<br />Jackson lawyers can question Conrad Murray about Michael Jackson's death, judge says <br />Murray's lawyer says she will advise him to use his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent <br />"But Dr. Murray has a mind of his own,"lawyer Valerie Wass says <br />Michael Jackson's mother and children are suing concert promoter AEG Live <br />Los Angeles (CNN) -- A judge has ordered Dr. Conrad Murray to meet with Katherine Jackson's lawyers next month for a deposition in her wrongful death lawsuit against concert promoter AEG Live.<br /><br />The lawsuit, which is set for trial in April, accuses AEG Live of causing the death of Katherine Jackson's son, Michael Jackson, by pressuring him to prepare for his 2009 comeback concerts while he was in fragile health.<br /><br />The suit, filed on behalf of Michael Jackson's mother and three children, says that AEG Live executives hired and supervised Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's death.<br /><br />Murray lawyer Valerie Wass, who unsuccessfully objected to the deposition, said the decision disappointed her. Wass said she would advise Murray to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions.<br /><br />"But Dr. Murray has a mind of his own," Wass said. "If he decided to answer a question, those parties don't know what he's going to say."<br /><br />The videotaped deposition is set to take place on March 18 in the Los Angeles County jail where Murray has been serving his sentence since November 2011.<br /><br />Murray, who was the pop superstar's personal physician, has never been questioned under oath about Jackson's death. He did not testify at his trial.<br /><br />
    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/21/justice/conrad-murray-deposition<br /><br />So according to this article a videotaped deposition will take place tomorrow..<br />
    <br /><br /><br />
    <br /><br />UPDATE_____________________________________________________________<br /><br />Murray was scheduled to be deposed on Monday, but that has now been canceled.<br />
    <br /><br />Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/03/17/conrad-murray-fifth-amendment-self-incrimination-michael-jackson-aeg-katherine-jackson/#ixzz2NpsSUdYo <br />Visit the TMZ Store: http://tmzstore.com
  • blankieblankie Posts: 2,350
    June 25 is approaching..... :icon_rolleyes:  and as always, the puppeteer is Michael... :icon_rolleyes:...Strange things are happening... :icon_rolleyes: :moonwalk_:
  • paula-cpaula-c Posts: 7,221
    I did not testify at his trial, his lawyers were those who advised her not to do anything?:confused:
  • Okay AnnieOkay Annie Posts: 47
    Funny thing is that Front used the word TRAP recently ><br /><br />CM is a trap?!
  • shortyshorty Posts: 211
    UPDATE
    Murray was scheduledto be deposed on Monday, but that has now been canceled.....<br /><br />What does this mean!!!!!Is this only shifted!!!!<br />But why a statement on tape, when he is on the witness list.....<br />Is that permitted.......
  • suspicious mindsuspicious mind Posts: 5,984
    so even if he is going to take the fifth wouldn't they have to go through the process and ask the questions and so on? like the depositions we have seen michael give the lawyer sits there and either gives a yah or nah as to whether he can answer. or can they just do an overall thing?  or did it get stopped some other way? ideas ?
  • wishingstarwishingstar Posts: 2,927
    So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own?  <br />Or have I missed something? <br />I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th.  A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways.  <br />It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.    Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone?  Could we relate this to something in the past?  Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point?  Or was it TS?  <br />I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time.  <br /><br />Blessings Always
  • StrangerInCaliforniaStrangerInCalifornia Posts: 459
    Can someone please explain to me how or why Murray would be re-tried if his conviction is overturned? I was under the impression that was against the law due to double jeopardy :confused:
  • hesouttamylifehesouttamylife Posts: 5,393
    Conrad taking the 5th seems like double talk to me.  It wasn’t long ago that Conrad was requesting Katherine Jackson visit him in jail. Now that he has the opportunity to talk up for her he says no?  Doesn’t make a lot of sense. 
  • AndreaAndrea Posts: 3,787
    on 1363629447:
    <br />So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own?  <br />Or have I missed something? <br />I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th.  A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways.  <br />It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.    Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone?  Could we relate this to something in the past?  Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point?  Or was it TS?  <br />I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time.  <br /><br />Blessings Always<br />
    <br /><br /><br />Bashir took the Fifth.<br /><br />http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978387331<br /><br />So did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.<br /><br />
    On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.
    <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson
  • everlastinglove_MJeverlastinglove_MJ Posts: 2,884
    on 1363635474:
    <br />
    on 1363629447:
    <br />So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own?  <br />Or have I missed something? <br />I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th.  A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways.  <br />It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.    Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone?  Could we relate this to something in the past?  Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point?  Or was it TS?  <br />I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time.  <br /><br />Blessings Always<br />
    <br /><br /><br />Bashir took the Fifth.<br /><br />http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978387331<br /><br />So did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.<br /><br />
    On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.
    <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson<br />
    <br /><br />
    5. The lawyer says, “It may come as a surprise to know that protections (which are given to the accused by criminal law) are not available in civil law”.
    <br /><br />http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/real-story-of-the-1993-and-2003-cases-untold-by-larry-feldman/3-lawyers-and-lawyers-for-mj/<br /><br />
    This was what Larry Feldman meant when he said that Michael’s lawyers were to worry about his Fifth amendment rights. This is why there was some ‘procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off’, as he said. Taking the Fifth Amendment (which Michael didn’t) was a terrible disadvantage for him in a civil case Larry Feldman imposed on him by force and Larry Feldman knew that once the civil suit went forward the situation became exceptionally favorable for him and his case and exceptionally unfavorable for Michael Jackson.
    <br /><br />http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/real-story-of-the-1993-and-2003-cases-untold-by-larry-feldman/3-lawyers-and-lawyers-for-mj/<br /><br />By reading this I'd think that when Murray would take the 5th in this civil suit it could become quite favorable for Katherine Jackson and unfavorable for Murray, as far as I could comprehend this      :judge-smiley:<br />
  • AndreaAndrea Posts: 3,787
    Thanks for that info everlasting, I didn't know there was a difference between criminal and civil cases in regards to taking the Fifth.  It does seem that taking the Fifth in a civil suit can be damaging to a defendant as silence could = acquiescence, unless the civil case is considered a "criminal case".  Is Katherine's considered criminal?  Did I read and interpret the below correctly?<br /><br />
    Refusal to testify in a civil case<br /><br />While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil action.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, “[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, ‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’”<br /><br />In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.<br /><br />Some civil cases are considered "criminal cases" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In Boyd v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself."
    <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case<br />
  • MJonmindMJonmind Posts: 7,290
    Wishingstar<br />
    A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways.  <br />It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.
    <br />This is truly a predicament. Is not the goal, justice for the victims; and protection for criminals should not supercede that?<br />Thanks all for your helpful discussion on legal matters which are beyond me.<br /><br />"Anything you say, can and will be held against you."  So who's big idea was it to film and allow to air, the Conrad Murray documentary during his own trial, in which Conrad's "trap" was not only open but flapping and incriminating himself royally, leading to his prison sentence. In his trial itself, he chooses to not testify and is later sorry, apparently. Now again, he could speak and clear his name by incriminating AEG, and he uses his right to remain silent. Craziness!  Either all the lawyers are only thinking of the money they make and not their clients, or MJ has a story-line impossible to predict.<br />
  • DontwalkawayDontwalkaway Posts: 849
    Yes, MJonMind.  I think it could be part of the story line.  A story line impossible to predict.  :icon_cool:
  • wishingstarwishingstar Posts: 2,927
    ahhhhh, cry, cry....I just lost my long reply : ( Ugh.......sorry guys.......I can't stand when I do this!  <br /><br />Anyways.....I will just say that I appreciate all the responses and thank you so much for these great thoughts!  <br />I will try to piece back together my post : ( just not right now....it was "legal thinking" stuff that just hurt, lol.......<br />But, I'll try to redo it...here in a little bit : ) <br /><br />Love you guys! You're amazing!<br />Blessings Always
  • girl_in_the_mirrorgirl_in_the_mirror Posts: 150
    on 1363650776:
    <br />Wishingstar<br />
    A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways.  <br />It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.
    <br />This is truly a predicament. Is not the goal, justice for the victims; and protection for criminals should not supercede that?<br />Thanks all for your helpful discussion on legal matters which are beyond me.<br /><br />"Anything you say, can and will be held against you."  So who's big idea was it to film and allow to air, the Conrad Murray documentary during his own trial, in which Conrad's "trap" was not only open but flapping and incriminating himself royally, leading to his prison sentence. In his trial itself, he chooses to not testify and is later sorry, apparently. Now again, he could speak and clear his name by incriminating AEG, and he uses his right to remain silent. Craziness! Either all the lawyers are only thinking of the money they make and not their clients, or MJ has a story-line impossible to predict.<br />
    Now that just wouldn't make sense, now would it? You're right MJonmind... this could be a part of the story line.<br />@Wishingstar: :p we're looking forward to seeing your long post :p
  • suspicious mindsuspicious mind Posts: 5,984
    on 1363512534:
    <br />Bummer......I was hopin' he'd let fly  :icon_lol:<br />
    <br /><br />weren't we all  :thjajaja121:
  • suspicious mindsuspicious mind Posts: 5,984
    on 1363640261:
    <br />
    on 1363635474:
    <br />
    on 1363629447:
    <br />So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own?  <br />Or have I missed something? <br />I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th.  A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways.  <br />It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.    Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone?  Could we relate this to something in the past?  Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point?  Or was it TS?  <br />I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time.  <br /><br />Blessings Always<br />
    <br /><br /><br />Bashir took the Fifth.<br /><br />http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978387331<br /><br />So did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.<br /><br />
    On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.
    <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson<br />
    <br /><br />
    5. The lawyer says, “It may come as a surprise to know that protections (which are given to the accused by criminal law) are not available in civil law”.
    <br /><br />http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/real-story-of-the-1993-and-2003-cases-untold-by-larry-feldman/3-lawyers-and-lawyers-for-mj/<br /><br />
    This was what Larry Feldman meant when he said that Michael’s lawyers were to worry about his Fifth amendment rights. This is why there was some ‘procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off’, as he said. Taking the Fifth Amendment (which Michael didn’t) was a terrible disadvantage for him in a civil case Larry Feldman imposed on him by force and Larry Feldman knew that once the civil suit went forward the situation became exceptionally favorable for him and his case and exceptionally unfavorable for Michael Jackson.
    <br />[size=18pt]<br />http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/real-story-of-the-1993-and-2003-cases-untold-by-larry-feldman/3-lawyers-and-lawyers-for-mj/<br />[/size]<br />By reading this I'd think that when Murray would take the 5th in this civil suit it could become quite favorable for Katherine Jackson and unfavorable for Murray, as far as I could comprehend this      :judge-smiley:<br />
    <br /><br />humm or maybe they knew there was no way in hell this kid was gonna co operate in anything that might send michael to prison but he wouldn't feel so bad if it was only goin to take money from some big insurance company . not to mention as long as this is out there there is always leverage to stir up another accusation to hang onto the opportunity to hold it over his head.
  • MJonmindMJonmind Posts: 7,290
    Wish, looking forward to your re-assemble of thoughts! It's happened to me sometimes too--grr... :Crash:<br /><br />Suspicious, yes, the same background people who tried so hard to incriminate MJ, are still out there.  But MJ is also still out there, and IS going to bring them all down in one big CRASH/BAM!  Using art/story to reveal truth!
  • wishingstarwishingstar Posts: 2,927
    Let me "try this again", LOL....bad joke considering the topic......(I accidentally lost my last post) <br /><br />@StrangerinCalfornia.....I think CM could be given the choice to be re-tried.  He has the right to wave the double jeopardy clause if he decides.  However, from what I have been reading, the courts would just need to change the charges, even slightly.  He's in for involuntary manslaughter.  They could move it to a degree of murder, or even voluntary manslaughter and avoid the double jeopardy clause.  Basically there are ways around it.  But, I don't think the court would just up and over-turn the verdict.  CM is in a good spot for leverage, I think he'll use it.  <br /><br />@Hes.......a million times YES!  It wasn't long ago that CM wanted to speak to Katherine and was saying how much he loved the family, loved her, loved the kids etc......<br />So, yes.....he's his chance to speak on record, under oath, and he's choosing to cower silently in the corner.  No sense at all.......<br /><br />@Andrea.....yes, yes!  I thought I had remembered something about the 5th being taken.  Thank you so much for the links.......sometimes, I feel Front's posts really help.  <br />That rear-view mirror.....everything is more clear looking back........<br /><br />@MJonmind.......that whole video thing of CM during his trial....I just knew it was crazy.  Nothing he said in that video could be used against him.....he wasn't under oath.<br />BTW...do we know for sure he was read his Miranda Rights in the first place?  In the US, when you are arrested, if you are not read those rights, it's grounds for dismissal in court.  <br />it's a set of rights given to each person.  I have a couple of like links here.  I am reading some things with regards to evidence that I don't quite understand....fresh eyes would help, if anyone wants to read....thanks!  Here are the links to Miranda:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning<br /><br />http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights/<br /><br />But, yes......impossible storyline for sure!!!!  <br /><br />Thanks guys.....sorry I had lost that first post....ugh, hate that.  I know I had more swimming around my head, but this should suffice for now. <br />Hope you all have a brilliant and beautiful day!<br />Blessings<br /><br />
Sign In or Register to comment.

© 2024 Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators | All Rights Reserved