MJ trial goes to jury after they're told the star 'had children he loved who wer

everlastinglove_MJeverlastinglove_MJ Posts: 2,884
edited January 1970 in Dr. Conrad Murray
[size=14pt]Michael Jackson trial goes to the jury after they're told the star 'had children he loved who were robbed because of Conrad Murray[/size]<br />'Meanwhile defence lawyer questioned whether the trial would exist if the victim had not been Michael Jackson <br />Jury begins deliberations on Friday morning<br /><br />By David Gardner In Los Angeles <br /><br />Last updated at 11:23 PM on 3rd November 2011<br /><br />Conrad Murray's criminally negligent care of Michael Jackson robbed the King of Pop's three children of their father, a court heard today.<br />'For Michael's children, this case will go on forever, because they do not have a father,' prosecutor David Walgren told jurors in his closing speech in the trial of Jackson's private doctor.<br />'The evidence in this case is abundantly clear - that Conrad Murray caused the death of Michael Jackson and that Conrad Murray left Prince, Paris and Blanket without a father.<br /><br />'They do not have a father because of the actions of Conrad Murray," he added.<br />The Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney told the hushed courtroom how Jackson's daughter, Paris, now 13, discovered Murray frantically trying to revive her father in his bedroom and screamed out 'Daddy!'<br />The children have not been in court during the five-week trial, but Jackson's parents, Joe and Katherine, were in the public gallery yesterday along with siblings LaToya and Randy.<br />Murray showed no emotion as he was accused by the prosecutor of breaking the 'hallowed trust' of the relationship between a doctor and his patient.<br />'Conrad Murray is criminally liable. Justice demands a guilty verdict,' he said.<br />'Michael Jackson trusted Conrad Murray. He trusted him with his life. He trusted him with his own life and with the future lives of his children. Conrad Murray corrupted that relationship and because of that, Michael Jackson paid with his life,' the prosecutor added.<br />He said the evidence in the case was 'overwhelming' that Murray, 58, was criminally responsible for the June 25 2009 death of the 50-year-old superstar.<br />  Jackson's children, seen her last weekend at daughter Paris's soccer game, have not been in the courtroom for the trial, although his mother and various siblings have made appearances<br /><br />Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter by injecting Jackson with a lethal dose of the hospital anaesthetic propofol.<br />Mr Walgren claimed Murray's administration of the powerful drug to treat Jackson's chronic insomnia was an 'obscene experiment.'<br />He said Murray should never have given propofol to Jackson outside a hospital setting and then criminally botched his resuscitation efforts after Jackson stopped breathing and lied to paramedics and hospital doctors to try and cover up his own guilt.<br />He condemned the cardiologist's delay in calling 911 as 'bizarre.'<br />'What on earth would motivate a medical doctor to delay making that call other than self preservation?' he asked the jury of seven men and five women.<br />'He knew his acts killed Michael Jackson. Maybe he's panicked, maybe he's cleaning up. But he's putting Conrad Murray first. He's intentionally not calling 911. He's intentionally delaying help that could have saved Michael Jackson's life.'<br />The prosecutor blasted the defence claim that Jackson injected himself with the deadly knock-out drug as 'junk science.'<br /> Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Walgren said in his closing argument that Jackson's children were robbed of a father who loved them very much by Dr Murray's actions<br />He also attacked anaesthesiologist Dr Paul White, the star defence witness, for 'sullying' the trial with his 'garbage' theories and flimsy research trying to support the suggestion that Jackson died at his own hand.<br />Michael Jackson was 'optimistic and excited' about his upcoming 'This is it' concerts at London's O2  Arena and was looking forward to the future and performing for the first time in front of his children,' he said.<br />But just 12 hours after his final, exuberant rehearsal the star was 'lying in his bed, palms up, his head tilted to the side, dead in his bedroom.<br />'Michael Jackson was not reckless. He had a life ahead of him. He had three children he loved dearly,' said Mr Walgren.<br />'He wanted propofol to help him sleep. He wanted a doctor with eyes on him to keep him safe,' he added.<br />  Jackson, seen here on a trip to Berlin with all three of his children in 2002, when he controversially dangled newborn Blanket over a hotel balcony, died when Prince was 12, Paris was 11 and Blanket was seven<br /><br />Defence lawyer Ed Chernoff questioned whether the case would have ever been launched if the victim had not been Michael Jackson.<br />'We have been dancing around this for six weeks, maybe two years. Somebody has got to just say it - if it were anybody else but Michael Jackson would this doctor be here today?' he said.<br />'There is a tremendous desire to paint Dr Murray as the villain. They want to paint this perfect villain and this perfect victim. But there is not perfect villain and no perfect victim.<br />'He was just a little fish in a big dirty pond,' he added.<br />'Dr Murray's greatest defect is his greatest strength. He got brought into this situation because he thought he could help. He thought he could help Michael Jackson succeed. He thought he could help Michael Jackson sleep. He was wrong.'<br />Mr Chernoff said the prosecution 'is trying to convict Dr Murray for the actions of Michael Jackson.'<br />Murray insists that his star client self-administered a lethal dose of the drug propofol after the doctor left him alone for a couple of minutes while he went to the toilet.<br />Mr Chernoff said Murray gave Jackson a safe amount of propofol and was not using an IV drip, as the prosecution speculated.<br />'It doesn't matter if you go outside and play basketball or if you leave the patient or if you are on the phone, it doesn't matter. Dr Murray did not kill Michael Jackson,' he told the court.<br />  But in his closing argument defense attorney Ed Chernoff, right, questioned if the jury and Judge Michael Castor, left, would ever have heard of the case had the alleged victim not have been Michael Jackson<br /><br />He said it was ridiculous to suggest Murray delayed calling 911 when the doctor was desperately treeing to revive his patient.<br />Mr Chernoff complained that prosecutors were claiming everything was a deviation of the standard of medical care because Murray 'has to go down.'<br />He said a prosecution witness who compared Murray leaving Jackson alone in his bed to leaving a baby on a counter top was 'the most insulting thing' you could say about the star.<br />'Michael Jackson was an adult and he made his own decisions. He had plans for the future and he knew what he was doing.<br />'This is not a reality show. This is real life,' he added.<br />The jury will start its deliberations Friday morning after a final speech by prosecutor David Walgren.<br />'Poor Conrad Murray,' said Mr Walgren, who angrily denounced the doctor's 'bizarre behaviour.<br />'If they had time to argue I am sure they would haver found a way of blaming Michale Jackson's son, Prince,' he added.<br />'Everything this doctor did was bizarre. None of it was consistent with a trained medical doctor who was putting his patient first.<br />'What is unusual is that Michael Jackson lived as long as he did under the care of Conrad Murray.<br />'Michael Jackson is dead and we have to hear about poor Conrad Murray and how no doctor knows what it was like to be in his shoes. You've got that right.'<br />The way Murray treated with propofol in his bedroom 'has never been seen before, ever,' he added.<br />Mr Walgren also said Murray lied to Jackson's mother, Katherine, when he 'pulled a chair up next to her in hospital and told he he didn't know what happened' to her son on the day he died.<br /><br />Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057295/Michael-Jackson-trial-closing-arguments-Pop-star-life-ahead-children-robbed-Conrad-Murray.html#ixzz1cgpEBnh2<br /><br />I was posting a few articles from the media just to show how different the reports are and how biased some are, full of speculation and opinions. It is striking, and we can actually see it now quite clearly, because we've watched the trial live personally. Now we can judge by ourselves.  /judge/ <br /><br /><br />L.O.V.E. 

Comments

  • I am sure if it was not a star they would have done the same thing. Negligence is negligence whether you are a star or not..
  • PureLovePureLove Posts: 5,891
    I can not wait for the verdict really. I think he is going to be found guilty. Then what happens?  albino/
  • Snoopy71Snoopy71 Posts: 952
    Wow.  I guess media reporting on this will be pretty tame since it was a public court case (they can't get too bias one way or the other), because everyone has been watching.<br /> <br />They are still making this trial about "celebrity" (much like the 2005 trial), simply because it's Michael Jackson who is the victim. Apparently, for Dr. Murray to have done this anywhere else, he would have not even been brought to justice. :?<br /><br />I don't think there are any winners here to be honest. <br /><br />If Dr. Murray walks free, people will say the court system does not work/it's not fair, he's getting away with murder and he will always be branded a "guilty man". <br /><br />If he is convicted, does the punishment fit the crime? Is he a scapegoat? How does this stop any other doctor from ever operating outside the boundaries of "standard care"? <br /><br />So long as a patient has the money, will there always be "Dr. Murrays"?<br /><br />No matter the verdict, someone loses...and does it really change anything?  :|<br /><br /><br /><br />
  • on 1320368397:
    <br /><br />I don't think there are any winners here to be honest. If Dr. Murray walks, they will say the court system does not work/it's not fair, he's getting away with murder and will always be branded a "guilty man". If he is convicted, does the punishment fit the crime? Is he a scapegoat? How does this stop any other doctor from ever operating outside the boundaries of "standard care"? So long as a patient has the money, will there always be "Dr. Murrays"?<br /><br />No matter the verdict, someone loses...and does it really change anything?<br />
    <br /><br />i humbly beg to differ. if CM is found guilty... what then... prison.... fake prison... i have no basis saying that. i just look at everything with hoaxy eyes lately... suspicious// <br /><br />but seriously... if this is a fake courtroom... and CM is convicted... what then? fake prison???<br /><br />or if his is a real court, sting operation, and he is found guilty, what then? prison? will MJ bam to prevent this... or what happens to intercept murray going to prison if this is all a hoax and murray is 'in on it' and playing a role... or does he go to prison as part of the role he plays to punctuate the lesson being told in this trial and sit there til BAM when / if mj rectifies the hoax.... again, i have no basis to think this, just my head filled with a myriad of crazy questions...<br /><br />too many questions... time .... only time...  i cant sit still im so excited.. nervous... uncertain, amongst other emotions....<br /><br />one thing i am certain of is that MJ lives  /woohoo/<br /><br />so i say that i humbly beg to differ because a G verdict or a NG verdict could take the DH in two very different, crazily unique directions... that is if you look step back and look at courtcase at a DH angle, not just a courtcase angle...<br /><br />dunno... what to think. just think it will be interesting if a G verdict is found, what does this mean for DH... is bam imminent....
  • Snoopy71Snoopy71 Posts: 952
    on 1320368762:
    <br />
    on 1320368397:
    <br /><br />I don't think there are any winners here to be honest. If Dr. Murray walks, they will say the court system does not work/it's not fair, he's getting away with murder and will always be branded a "guilty man". If he is convicted, does the punishment fit the crime? Is he a scapegoat? How does this stop any other doctor from ever operating outside the boundaries of "standard care"? So long as a patient has the money, will there always be "Dr. Murrays"?<br /><br />No matter the verdict, someone loses...and does it really change anything?<br />
    <br /><br />i humbly beg to differ. if CM is found guilty... what then... prison.... fake prison... i have no basis saying that. i just look at everything with hoaxy eyes lately... suspicious// <br /><br />but seriously... if this is a fake courtroom... and CM is convicted... what then? fake prison???<br /><br />or if his is a real court, sting operation, and he is found guilty, what then? prison? will MJ bam to prevent this... or what happens to intercept murray going to prison if this is all a hoax and murray is 'in on it' and playing a role... or does he go to prison as part of the role he plays to punctuate the lesson being told in this trial and sit there til BAM when / if mj rectifies the hoax.... again, i have no basis to think this, just my head filled with a myriad of crazy questions...<br /><br />too many questions... time .... only time...  i cant sit still im so excited.. nervous... uncertain, amongst other emotions....<br /><br />one thing i am certain of is that MJ lives  /woohoo/<br /><br />so i say that i humbly beg to differ because a G verdict or a NG verdict could take the DH in two very different, crazily unique directions... that is if you look step back and look at courtcase at a DH angle, not just a courtcase angle...<br /><br />dunno... what to think. just think it will be interesting if a G verdict is found, what does this mean for DH... is bam imminent....<br />
    <br /><br />I guess I'm thinking in terms of if Michael doesn't BAM.  I know the trial process is needed for the purposes of the hoax, but if Michael doesn't come out and reveal, I guess I'm confused as to what the verdict G or NG would really mean.  What is the outcome really changing? :?
Sign In or Register to comment.