Let´s talk about Dr. Conrad Robert Murray, the man, who should have "killed" Michael Jackson.
He´s charged with involuntary manslaughter, a crime, established in the CA Codes as "Penal Code 192 (b)".
"Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
Every law /Penal Code needs so called implement regulation, which complete and explain them.
The legal definition of involuntary manslaughter, according to the American law, is:
"In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person.
In the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life.
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others."
Let´s analyze the legal definition....
"In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person."
Dr. Murray admitted in his LAPD interview the following timeline:
- 01:30 am - a tab of Valium (10 mg)
- 02:00 am - 2 mg Lorazepam (diluted) via IV
- 03:00 am - 2 mg Midazolam (diluted) via IV
- 05:00 am - 2 mg Lorazepam (diluted) via IV
- 07:30 am - 2 mg Midazolam (diluted) via IV
- 10:40 am - 25 mg Propofol, diluted with Lidocaine via IV
So we can determine, Dr. Murray admitted, he administered the named medications to MJ = proof of the injections, based on his own statement in the LAPD interview. So the government is able to prove, that MJ "died" due to those administered drugs (result of an act by a person)!
"Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life."
The person´s act was by its nature dangerous to human life.....a farreaching formulation. So we need to question, is giving drugs/medications in general a dangerous act? Absolutely YES, because it´s never forseeable, how a patient react to medications, so it´s not just a question of the dosage, but also of the patient´s daily condition.
And this leads us to the formulation...."in the circumstances existing at the time"......we were told different stories about MJ´s former condition. Slim, weak, frail, unhealthy was one side of the story. The other side was, that he might have been a bit slimmer than normal, but eating well, drinking healthy juices, acting in a normal way, rehearsing very well, feeling good.
But what´s more important, noone from MJ´s surrounding ever saw him taking drugs or medications, so Dr. Murray is the only one, who was "involved" in the current circumstances, the circumstances existing at the time....
Let´s continue with " the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life"......
We determined, that administering drugs is ALWAYS dangerous by its nature, but here it depends on the administered dosage, if it was high enough or measured in a wrong way to cause a patient´s death.
In this case it should be about both the dosage and the assumed interaction of Benzodiazepines and Propofol.
There must be the exact proof, that the dosage of Propofol was lethal, because the AR named the Benzodiazepine effect as "other conditions contributing but NOT RELATED to the immidiate cause of death", that means, NOT directly responsible for MJ´s "death".
According to the AR, the dosage should have been lethal, but if we look at the mentioned amounts, we can determine, it does NOT fit in with the alleged administered dose of 25 mg, many hours before death was pronounced.
As far as I know, the prosecution didn´t refer to "dangerous in it´s nature to human life", but to the second part of the legal definition....
".....or was done with reckless disregard for human life."
It´s a very subjective formulation, so we need to ask, how is "reckless" defined.
"In both negligence and criminal cases, careless to the point of being heedless of the consequences ("grossly" negligent). Most commonly this refers to the traffic misdemeanor "reckless driving." It can also refer to use of firearms (shooting a gun in public place), explosives, or heavy equipment."
So....Dr. Murray was reckless in his dealing with the drugs/medications and didn´t care for the possible consequences, because he administered too much?
No, he did not, because neither the administered combintion of drugs nor the dosage of Propofol (25 mg) were lethal!
Dr. Murray was reckless in dealing with the location, because he administered Propofol in a non-hospital setting?
NO, as a physician he has every right to use the drug at home, as long as he knows it´s actions and interactions with other drugs, (according to the ASA, the American Society of Anesthesiologists), and as long as he takes care for the necessary monitoring measures to take actions in case of an emergency.
There´s a big difference between just sedation and general anesthesia, and therefore different kinds of care are mandatory.
For sedation the patient´s monitoring by pulse oximeter and controlling of blood pressure is required. Did Dr. Murray care for MJ in the required way?
YES, he did, and it´s proven by the seized items from the alleged crime scene, also by his own statement in the LAPD interview.
"Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others."
A threat for life, known by the person, who caused the death....did Dr. Murray know, that administering the mentioned drugs could kill MJ? Maybe, because every administration of any kind of drugs could be dangerous for a patient´s life. From that point of view, we have to determine, he might have known, BUT he should have administered the same dosage three days before June 25, and MJ didn´t "die"....what´s not possible, by the way....because either a dosage is lethal or not, and if we trust the AR about the alleged "lethal dose of Propofol" (25 mg), then MJ must have "died" three days before June 25! And proving a person´s knowledge of something is a subjective matter of fact and therefore hard to prove, although one could assume, a physician should know such medical facts.
Now we have to consider three points.....the government can prove, that MJ "died" as a result of an act by a person, according to the Autopsy Report, but the act was neither dangerous by it´s nature nor done with reckless disregard for human life. And it´s just a subjective state of affairs to prove a person´s knowledge of the current circumstances, the knowledge about the act, which could have caused the death.
Interesting, isn´t it? ;)
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen