DA in no hurry to give defence their evidence

QuirkyDiana

Conrad Murray's legal team are struggling to compile their defense for their client, as they are still awaiting the full evidence and discovery relating to the case. One of Murray's attorney's, Michael Flanagan, even went so far as to say the D.A's office are being "a little bit secretive" with the information.

<!-- m -->http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... -few-weeks<!-- m -->


So i guess there's a lot more evidence to come yet, discounting the autopsy and affidavit which is already public. Can't wait. Murray's legal team seem worried.

DancingTheDream

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

What... they are struggling with their defense??? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

Unknown

Conrad Murray's legal team are struggling to compile their defense for their client, as they are still awaiting the full evidence and discovery relating to the case. One of Murray's attorney's, Michael Flanagan, even went so far as to say the D.A's office are being "a little bit secretive" with the information.

<!-- m -->http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... -few-weeks<!-- m -->


So i guess there's a lot more evidence to come yet, discounting the autopsy and affidavit which is already public. Can't wait. Murray's legal team seem worried.

this is very interesting they should have it - i dont know if there are time constraints

tabloidburn

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

What... they are struggling with their defense??? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

sure, murray's lawyer can only get him off if he can maintain 'reasonable doubt' within the jury, so he can walk off. whatever is on that tape, he's gonna twist and turn it into murray's favor.

this says it all: 'there is no information that leads to the conclusion that murray was anywhere else but at the bedside.' and there is no witness, no proof, no nothing to prove the opposite. that's even not saying anything but creating reasonable doubt within the jury. that will be their strategy and that's why they have to have the tapes, so they can prepare that step by step with the questions already in mind that are going to be asked. and the correct answers, of course.

'that's why we do rehearsals' <!-- s --><!-- s -->

QuirkyDiana

Well, the timeline issue has yet to be played out. However, for me, this is not the only issue that can convict Murray of criminal negligence - involuntary manslaughter. Conrad doesn't just need to be at the bedside of MJ he needs to have the right equipment with him if something goes wrong with that medication, particularly propofol! Even if Murray was there the whole time, if he hadn't got the right monitoring or rescue equipment he would not be able to help MJ in difficulty. It's worth noting that in deep sedation/anaesthesia, the airway can collapse. So it doesn't matter how hard you do mouth-to-mouth, the air ain't getting in to the lungs. Which is why you intubate. Except Murray didn't intubate. According to the Investigator's report in the autopsy report, Paramedics intubated. Another thing is in a situation like that, the person in distress needs emergency medical support - at the hospital. You wouldn't waste time doing 20 mins or so of cpr and then call 911. 911 is needed asap. There is no reversal agent for propofol.

The following parameters should be monitored for all patients receiving propofol: pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography and heart rate. Appropriate resuscitation equipment should be readily available for airway management. It is important to note that propofol may cause vasodilation and myocardial depression independent of hypoxia and hypoventilation. While technology exists for capnography, the current literature does not support such a routine, because no change in clinical outcomes has been documented (2). <!-- m -->http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2660799/<!-- m -->

tabloidburn

Well, the timeline issue has yet to be played out. However, for me, this is not the only issue that can convict Murray of criminal negligence - involuntary manslaughter. Conrad doesn't just need to be at the bedside of MJ he needs to have the right equipment with him if something goes wrong with that medication, particularly propofol! Even if Murray was there the whole time, if he hadn't got the right monitoring or rescue equipment he would not be able to help MJ in difficulty. It's worth noting that in deep sedation/anaesthesia, the airway can collapse. So it doesn't matter how hard you do mouth-to-mouth, the air ain't getting in to the lungs. Which is why you intubate. Except Murray didn't intubate. According to the Investigator's report in the autopsy report, Paramedics intubated. Another thing is in a situation like that, the person in distress needs emergency medical support - at the hospital. You wouldn't waste time doing 20 mins or so of cpr and then call 911. 911 is needed asap. There is no reversal agent for propofol.

The following parameters should be monitored for all patients receiving propofol: pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography and heart rate. Appropriate resuscitation equipment should be readily available for airway management. It is important to note that propofol may cause vasodilation and myocardial depression independent of hypoxia and hypoventilation. While technology exists for capnography, the current literature does not support such a routine, because no change in clinical outcomes has been documented (2). <!-- m -->http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2660799/<!-- m -->

well, i guess if they're going to say 'not guilty', it can only be proven by revealing a hoax, right? otherwise murray should get in major trouble here. and i didn't see a 'malpractice' charge yet, either, since you mention all the equipment that should have been there. if he was administering propofol regularly (like for weeks) under those circumstances, there should definitely be a malpractice charge cuz he had at least that much time to inform himself about the drug if he didn't know anything about it. a doctor has the duty of knowing exactly what he is giving his patient, why and most importantly: how to administer. klein said on tmz, that murray allegedly gave mj propofol as an im-injection, which is directly into a muscle (mostly buttocks), which is totally unthinkable, since propofol is iv only, it has to go in dripping, not as one injection. i am seriously thinking that murray cannot be that dumb.

so the only solution to get him off the hook totally is really (apart from 'reasonable doubt'): nothing was administered, nobody died, the autopsy report is fake (meaning no autopsy actually happened) and all the evidence, footage, tapes, whatever, was planted to cover up the grandest hoax in history.

otherwise: see you in 4 years, murray... <!-- s --><!-- s -->

Unknown

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

What... they are struggling with their defense??? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

sure, murray's lawyer can only get him off if he can maintain 'reasonable doubt' within the jury, so he can walk off. whatever is on that tape, he's gonna twist and turn it into murray's favor.

this says it all: 'there is no information that leads to the conclusion that murray was anywhere else but at the bedside.' and there is no witness, no proof, no nothing to prove the opposite. that's even not saying anything but creating reasonable doubt within the jury. that will be their strategy and that's why they have to have the tapes, so they can prepare that step by step with the questions already in mind that are going to be asked. and the correct answers, of course.

'that's why we do rehearsals' <!-- s --><!-- s -->

i dont know about the US, you may need to google it, but it may be "beyond reasonable doubt" a higher threshold then in civil cases - but i dont know anything about the US criminal thresholds

tabloidburn

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

What... they are struggling with their defense??? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

sure, murray's lawyer can only get him off if he can maintain 'reasonable doubt' within the jury, so he can walk off. whatever is on that tape, he's gonna twist and turn it into murray's favor.

this says it all: 'there is no information that leads to the conclusion that murray was anywhere else but at the bedside.' and there is no witness, no proof, no nothing to prove the opposite. that's even not saying anything but creating reasonable doubt within the jury. that will be their strategy and that's why they have to have the tapes, so they can prepare that step by step with the questions already in mind that are going to be asked. and the correct answers, of course.

'that's why we do rehearsals' <!-- s --><!-- s -->

i dont know about the US, you may need to google it, but it may be "beyond reasonable doubt" a higher threshold then in civil cases - but i dont know anything about the US criminal thresholds

if i'm not mistaken, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision first to have the judge come to a verdict. if there is only one saying 'not guilty' and eleven say 'guilty' they will have to rediscuss until they all come to the same conclusion. the lawyer only needs that one grain of doubt to keep murray out of jail. that part is called 'buying time', i think...

i don't live in the states either but i have american family and friends (most of them look at me like i'm nuts, thinking hoax and all...). i asked if it were enough to create reasonable doubt in this case, they all said yes. it don't matter if it's high profile or what.

and there is still no malpractice/ negligence charge yet, as far as i know...and not one valid proof for anything other than what murray says.

Unknown

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

What... they are struggling with their defense??? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

sure, murray's lawyer can only get him off if he can maintain 'reasonable doubt' within the jury, so he can walk off. whatever is on that tape, he's gonna twist and turn it into murray's favor.

this says it all: 'there is no information that leads to the conclusion that murray was anywhere else but at the bedside.' and there is no witness, no proof, no nothing to prove the opposite. that's even not saying anything but creating reasonable doubt within the jury. that will be their strategy and that's why they have to have the tapes, so they can prepare that step by step with the questions already in mind that are going to be asked. and the correct answers, of course.

'that's why we do rehearsals' <!-- s --><!-- s -->

i dont know about the US, you may need to google it, but it may be "beyond reasonable doubt" a higher threshold then in civil cases - but i dont know anything about the US criminal thresholds

if i'm not mistaken, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision first to have the judge come to a verdict. if there is only one saying 'not guilty' and eleven say 'guilty' they will have to rediscuss until they all come to the same conclusion. the lawyer only needs that one grain of doubt to keep murray out of jail. that part is called 'buying time', i think...

i don't live in the states either but i have american family and friends (most of them look at me like i'm nuts, thinking hoax and all...). i asked if it were enough to create reasonable doubt in this case, they all said yes. it don't matter if it's high profile or what.

and there is still no malpractice/ negligence charge yet, as far as i know...and not one valid proof for anything other than what murray says.

i find it strange that he has not been suspended from working until the conclusion of this criminal matter - why is this?

reading_on

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

What... they are struggling with their defense??? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

sure, murray's lawyer can only get him off if he can maintain 'reasonable doubt' within the jury, so he can walk off. whatever is on that tape, he's gonna twist and turn it into murray's favor.

this says it all: 'there is no information that leads to the conclusion that murray was anywhere else but at the bedside.' and there is no witness, no proof, no nothing to prove the opposite. that's even not saying anything but creating reasonable doubt within the jury. that will be their strategy and that's why they have to have the tapes, so they can prepare that step by step with the questions already in mind that are going to be asked. and the correct answers, of course.

'that's why we do rehearsals' <!-- s --><!-- s -->

i dont know about the US, you may need to google it, but it may be "beyond reasonable doubt" a higher threshold then in civil cases - but i dont know anything about the US criminal thresholds

if i'm not mistaken, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision first to have the judge come to a verdict. if there is only one saying 'not guilty' and eleven say 'guilty' they will have to rediscuss until they all come to the same conclusion. the lawyer only needs that one grain of doubt to keep murray out of jail. that part is called 'buying time', i think...

i don't live in the states either but i have american family and friends (most of them look at me like i'm nuts, thinking hoax and all...). i asked if it were enough to create reasonable doubt in this case, they all said yes. it don't matter if it's high profile or what.

and there is still no malpractice/ negligence charge yet, as far as i know...and not one valid proof for anything other than what murray says.

Your right but I don't think it has to be complete, because individual jurors can actually be polled after a decision is made. In other words I believe you can go forward for a unanimous vote even with one that doesn't believe it. I THINK that is the way that works. But we also have what is called a "hung jury" which means they just can't make up their mind.

Civil suits are easier to prove. Dr Murray, for instance would not have to be found guilty in a criminal case to be sued successfully by the family for wrongful death. For an example of it in the biggest news I urge to read People VS Orenthal James Simpson case and then Goldman VS Orenthal James Simpson.

mirandacnc

Well, the timeline issue has yet to be played out. However, for me, this is not the only issue that can convict Murray of criminal negligence - involuntary manslaughter. Conrad doesn't just need to be at the bedside of MJ he needs to have the right equipment with him if something goes wrong with that medication, particularly propofol! Even if Murray was there the whole time, if he hadn't got the right monitoring or rescue equipment he would not be able to help MJ in difficulty. It's worth noting that in deep sedation/anaesthesia, the airway can collapse. So it doesn't matter how hard you do mouth-to-mouth, the air ain't getting in to the lungs. Which is why you intubate. Except Murray didn't intubate. According to the Investigator's report in the autopsy report, Paramedics intubated. Another thing is in a situation like that, the person in distress needs emergency medical support - at the hospital. You wouldn't waste time doing 20 mins or so of cpr and then call 911. 911 is needed asap. There is no reversal agent for propofol.

The following parameters should be monitored for all patients receiving propofol: pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography and heart rate. Appropriate resuscitation equipment should be readily available for airway management. It is important to note that propofol may cause vasodilation and myocardial depression independent of hypoxia and hypoventilation. While technology exists for capnography, the current literature does not support such a routine, because no change in clinical outcomes has been documented (2). <!-- m -->http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2660799/<!-- m -->

well, i guess if they're going to say 'not guilty', it can only be proven by revealing a hoax, right? otherwise murray should get in major trouble here. and i didn't see a 'malpractice' charge yet, either, since you mention all the equipment that should have been there. if he was administering propofol regularly (like for weeks) under those circumstances, there should definitely be a malpractice charge cuz he had at least that much time to inform himself about the drug if he didn't know anything about it. a doctor has the duty of knowing exactly what he is giving his patient, why and most importantly: how to administer. klein said on tmz, that murray allegedly gave mj propofol as an im-injection, which is directly into a muscle (mostly buttocks), which is totally unthinkable, since propofol is iv only, it has to go in dripping, not as one injection. i am seriously thinking that murray cannot be that dumb.

so the only solution to get him off the hook totally is really (apart from 'reasonable doubt'): nothing was administered, nobody died, the autopsy report is fake (meaning no autopsy actually happened) and all the evidence, footage, tapes, whatever, was planted to cover up the grandest hoax in history.

otherwise: see you in 4 years, murray... <!-- s --><!-- s -->

MICHAEL DID SAY "WEVE ONLY GOT 4 YRS TO GET IT RIGHT" HAHAHA

mirandacnc

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->

What... they are struggling with their defense??? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

sure, murray's lawyer can only get him off if he can maintain 'reasonable doubt' within the jury, so he can walk off. whatever is on that tape, he's gonna twist and turn it into murray's favor.

this says it all: 'there is no information that leads to the conclusion that murray was anywhere else but at the bedside.' and there is no witness, no proof, no nothing to prove the opposite. that's even not saying anything but creating reasonable doubt within the jury. that will be their strategy and that's why they have to have the tapes, so they can prepare that step by step with the questions already in mind that are going to be asked. and the correct answers, of course.

'that's why we do rehearsals' <!-- s --><!-- s -->

i dont know about the US, you may need to google it, but it may be "beyond reasonable doubt" a higher threshold then in civil cases - but i dont know anything about the US criminal thresholds

if i'm not mistaken, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision first to have the judge come to a verdict. if there is only one saying 'not guilty' and eleven say 'guilty' they will have to rediscuss until they all come to the same conclusion. the lawyer only needs that one grain of doubt to keep murray out of jail. that part is called 'buying time', i think...

i don't live in the states either but i have american family and friends (most of them look at me like i'm nuts, thinking hoax and all...). i asked if it were enough to create reasonable doubt in this case, they all said yes. it don't matter if it's high profile or what.

and there is still no malpractice/ negligence charge yet, as far as i know...and not one valid proof for anything other than what murray says.

i find it strange that he has not been suspended from working until the conclusion of this criminal matter - why is this?

I KNOW I DONT GET IT EITHER....I MEAN PPL R KINDA MAD I WOULD B TERRIFIED IF I WERE HIM,SOMEONE COULD JUST WALK IN AND SHOOT HIM! PLUS I WOULDNT WANT A DR THAT WAS AS STUPID AS HIM ..

tabloidburn

Well, the timeline issue has yet to be played out. However, for me, this is not the only issue that can convict Murray of criminal negligence - involuntary manslaughter. Conrad doesn't just need to be at the bedside of MJ he needs to have the right equipment with him if something goes wrong with that medication, particularly propofol! Even if Murray was there the whole time, if he hadn't got the right monitoring or rescue equipment he would not be able to help MJ in difficulty. It's worth noting that in deep sedation/anaesthesia, the airway can collapse. So it doesn't matter how hard you do mouth-to-mouth, the air ain't getting in to the lungs. Which is why you intubate. Except Murray didn't intubate. According to the Investigator's report in the autopsy report, Paramedics intubated. Another thing is in a situation like that, the person in distress needs emergency medical support - at the hospital. You wouldn't waste time doing 20 mins or so of cpr and then call 911. 911 is needed asap. There is no reversal agent for propofol.

The following parameters should be monitored for all patients receiving propofol: pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography and heart rate. Appropriate resuscitation equipment should be readily available for airway management. It is important to note that propofol may cause vasodilation and myocardial depression independent of hypoxia and hypoventilation. While technology exists for capnography, the current literature does not support such a routine, because no change in clinical outcomes has been documented (2). <!-- m -->http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2660799/<!-- m -->

well, i guess if they're going to say 'not guilty', it can only be proven by revealing a hoax, right? otherwise murray should get in major trouble here. and i didn't see a 'malpractice' charge yet, either, since you mention all the equipment that should have been there. if he was administering propofol regularly (like for weeks) under those circumstances, there should definitely be a malpractice charge cuz he had at least that much time to inform himself about the drug if he didn't know anything about it. a doctor has the duty of knowing exactly what he is giving his patient, why and most importantly: how to administer. klein said on tmz, that murray allegedly gave mj propofol as an im-injection, which is directly into a muscle (mostly buttocks), which is totally unthinkable, since propofol is iv only, it has to go in dripping, not as one injection. i am seriously thinking that murray cannot be that dumb.

so the only solution to get him off the hook totally is really (apart from 'reasonable doubt'): nothing was administered, nobody died, the autopsy report is fake (meaning no autopsy actually happened) and all the evidence, footage, tapes, whatever, was planted to cover up the grandest hoax in history.

otherwise: see you in 4 years, murray... <!-- s --><!-- s -->

MICHAEL DID SAY "WEVE ONLY GOT 4 YRS TO GET IT RIGHT" HAHAHA

<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> oh my, there are just too many clues, are there? <!-- s --><!-- s -->

Unknown

to the above posters

making the connection between the max sentence length and the movie is genius.

i had not bought the enviroment argument made by some, then i thought that it had something to do with obama's length of office (like i know anything about that -no no). but this seems relevant. in the TII movie mj made a reference to 4 years - but its out of context because we dont know what he is taking about - question is, is it this?

great food for thought

with regard to the lack of detail from the people(DA office) to the defence this is interesting - they seemed pushed into filing their case, prompting CM's camp to say they would turn up at court.

i would have thought and i know nothing of the state regulation of the medical profession, but i would have thought that they would have suspended CM, until after the conclusion of the case. it was left to the judge to put conditions on his practice. is this normal i do not know?

or is this the presumption of innocent until proved guilty????

But if the evidence is weak - which it seems it points us hoaxers to one direction?

QuirkyDiana

Without getting really off topic here, and i'm sure there is a thread already discussing it, but why would you sell all those tickets and then have to refund them all if you knew in advance that you were not going to do any concerts? Also, why would you try and send a man to prison if it was all just to tell a hypothetical story about corruption. If it's to prove a point morally, that people/establishment can be unjust why does Murray implicate himself at all (i gave propofol in a home setting/it's not recommended for insomnia), if he is supposed to be the innocent party? What he admitted to doing is very blatantly wrong. There is little to contend there? If it's a story to escape, are we to believe that the court proceedings are totally false? There is only so much pretense and fakery that is reasonable before it descends into irrationality, never mind such theories being built on no tangible proof. Is there not a teeny weeny possibility that what's going on is real? Not meant to offend, just food for thought <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->

Unknown

off thread here but ever since i heard jermaine say mike was taken to the airport by accident, i think whats all this about.

QuirkyDiana

off thread here but ever since i heard jermaine say mike was taken to the airport by accident, i think whats all this about.

When did jermaine say that? Have you got a quote/link?

Unknown

[youtube:1yl6drtm]

look at 0.18

mirandacnc

to the above posters

making the connection between the max sentence length and the movie is genius.

i had not bought the enviroment argument made by some, then i thought that it had something to do with obama's length of office (like i know anything about that -no no). but this seems relevant. in the TII movie mj made a reference to 4 years - but its out of context because we dont know what he is taking about - question is, is it this?

great food for thought

with regard to the lack of detail from the people(DA office) to the defence this is interesting - they seemed pushed into filing their case, prompting CM's camp to say they would turn up at court.

i would have thought and i know nothing of the state regulation of the medical profession, but i would have thought that they would have suspended CM, until after the conclusion of the case. it was left to the judge to put conditions on his practice. is this normal i do not know?

or is this the presumption of innocent until proved guilty????

But if the evidence is weak - which it seems it points us hoaxers to one direction?

THANKS ARABIAN NIGHTS FOR SAYING THAT MY THEORY IS GENUIS <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: --> !!BUT EVERSENSE I FOUND OUT THAT COULD BE MURRAYS SENTENCE TERM ...I PUT IT TOGETHER WITH TII!!

tabloidburn

Without getting really off topic here, and i'm sure there is a thread already discussing it, but why would you sell all those tickets and then have to refund them all if you knew in advance that you were not going to do any concerts? Also, why would you try and send a man to prison if it was all just to tell a hypothetical story about corruption. If it's to prove a point morally, that people/establishment can be unjust why does Murray implicate himself at all (i gave propofol in a home setting/it's not recommended for insomnia), if he is supposed to be the innocent party? What he admitted to doing is very blatantly wrong. There is little to contend there? If it's a story to escape, are we to believe that the court proceedings are totally false? There is only so much pretense and fakery that is reasonable before it descends into irrationality, never mind such theories being built on no tangible proof. Is there not a teeny weeny possibility that what's going on is real? Not meant to offend, just food for thought <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->

i get you. but the answer to this might be the legal loopholes created. if we think hoax and take the argument, that the whole 'this is it'-concert series was never supposed to happen, then the o2 announcement is to be regarded as the 'kick off' (he was plainly totally hyped himself about it). that might be a reason for mike's 'off'-behaviour. everybody who bought a ticket was offered a total refund. some people did, some people didn't take that. no mistake on mj, no financial damage done. on the contrary, sony and everybody involved are making a 'killing' on everything mcihael-related, including tii. they are taking vids down from youtube one by one, so you have no choice but to buy sony, if you want mj. plus: the concerts were insured for 'non-performance', not for the artist's death. very clever...

i'm honestly convinced that murray will not go to jail, and even if he did, he will come out of there filthy fat rich. would you give up four years to live the lush life afterwards, with all your debts paid and more money you would have ever made in that time yourself? he's getting money from somewhere, i'm sure of that.
or: the hoax will be revealed to prevent murray from going to jail, if it's gonna look like it. it's still time enough before anything trialwise even starts. and with all this mess going on, it could take years...

i think the reason for this is much larger than just escape. i can't really put that together myself. let's just say, mj had to go undercover for some very important reason. regarding the family here: they are of course in on it, protecting mj and playing their parts. i've read somewhere that there are doubts that his mother (and the rest of the family) would lie to everyone about mj being dead and she wouldn't do that. i'm a mother myself and if any of my kids (regardless of the age) would come to me crying about how scared they were for their life (for whatever reason) and they couldn't go on this way and this would be the only way out (to fake death), i would support that any way and do anything i could. i would sit there and lie to the whole world about it and wouldn't care one bit and play my part, too (not saying emotions were played, i'm sure this was tense. just imagining it could be a real funeral would bring me to tears.). noone is messing with my blood. noone, hear me? i'd chop my arm off, if i had to, to save my children from any possible harm. at any age. and what harm did mj have to endure...more than any of us would be able to take, i think. and he had to be 'officially dead', no other way. nothing else worked.

as for the court proceedings and all: look at mj's trial. they had nothing, still they all constructed a full blown legal case from it with the whole nine yards included. each piece of 'evidence' was fabricated and constructed, lies on top of lies...with the full legal team involved...yes, they can be false.

QuirkyDiana

@ arabian nights regarding youtube video. On that point, from a non-believer (very hard to convince) to a hoax believer, I thoroughly get your point! That was mega weird? You know i don't jump into those hoax theories with 2 feet, but i have to agree that was very strange of Jermaine and even the interviewer was like 'What did you say?' Did Jermaine forget his brain or was he tired? He even looked embarrassed afterwards. Honestly, i agree that's weird but i'm not betting that it meant something. Taken note of though <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->

QuirkyDiana

By the way, is that the whole interview? Is there anything before this youtube vid starts. It seems like the interview was already in progress when the youtube vid starts.

Unknown

Without getting really off topic here, and i'm sure there is a thread already discussing it, but why would you sell all those tickets and then have to refund them all if you knew in advance that you were not going to do any concerts? Also, why would you try and send a man to prison if it was all just to tell a hypothetical story about corruption. If it's to prove a point morally, that people/establishment can be unjust why does Murray implicate himself at all (i gave propofol in a home setting/it's not recommended for insomnia), if he is supposed to be the innocent party? What he admitted to doing is very blatantly wrong. There is little to contend there? If it's a story to escape, are we to believe that the court proceedings are totally false? There is only so much pretense and fakery that is reasonable before it descends into irrationality, never mind such theories being built on no tangible proof. Is there not a teeny weeny possibility that what's going on is real? Not meant to offend, just food for thought <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->

i get you. but the answer to this might be the legal loopholes created. if we think hoax and take the argument, that the whole 'this is it'-concert series was never supposed to happen, then the o2 announcement is to be regarded as the 'kick off' (he was plainly totally hyped himself about it). that might be a reason for mike's 'off'-behaviour. everybody who bought a ticket was offered a total refund. some people did, some people didn't take that. no mistake on mj, no financial damage done. on the contrary, sony and everybody involved are making a 'killing' on everything mcihael-related, including tii. they are taking vids down from youtube one by one, so you have no choice but to buy sony, if you want mj. plus: the concerts were insured for 'non-performance', not for the artist's death. very clever...

i'm honestly convinced that murray will not go to jail, and even if he did, he will come out of there filthy fat rich. would you give up four years to live the lush life afterwards, with all your debts paid and more money you would have ever made in that time yourself? he's getting money from somewhere, i'm sure of that.
or: the hoax will be revealed to prevent murray from going to jail, if it's gonna look like it. it's still time enough before anything trialwise even starts. and with all this mess going on, it could take years...

i think the reason for this is much larger than just escape. i can't really put that together myself. let's just say, mj had to go undercover for some very important reason. regarding the family here: they are of course in on it, protecting mj and playing their parts. i've read somewhere that there are doubts that his mother (and the rest of the family) would lie to everyone about mj being dead and she wouldn't do that. i'm a mother myself and if any of my kids (regardless of the age) would come to me crying about how scared they were for their life (for whatever reason) and they couldn't go on this way and this would be the only way out (to fake death), i would support that any way and do anything i could. i would sit there and lie to the whole world about it and wouldn't care one bit and play my part, too (not saying emotions were played, i'm sure this was tense. just imagining it could be a real funeral would bring me to tears.). noone is messing with my blood. noone, hear me? i'd chop my arm off, if i had to, to save my children from any possible harm. at any age. and what harm did mj have to endure...more than any of us would be able to take, i think. and he had to be 'officially dead', no other way. nothing else worked.

as for the court proceedings and all: look at mj's trial. they had nothing, still they all constructed a full blown legal case from it with the whole nine yards included. each piece of 'evidence' was fabricated and constructed, lies on top of lies...with the full legal team involved...yes, they can be false.

i hear you