Hello, my friends,
The latest TMZ article....
"Dr. Conrad Murray's preliminary hearing in the Michael Jackson manslaughter case ... set for next Tuesday ... will be a one-sided affair, because TMZ has learned Murray's side won't utter a peep.
Sources connected with Murray's defense tell TMZ Murray's lawyer, Ed Chernoff, will be there to listen -- not to ask questions. Specifically, when the prosecution lays out its case, Chernoff will be looking for holes and inconsistencies.
As TMZ first reported, the prosecution will call approximately 30 witnesses, including experts and LAPD detectives, to establish Murray acted recklessly in fueling MJ with Propofol the day he died.
It's a very good bet the judge will order Murray to stand trial ... judges rarely dismiss charges after a preliminary hearing. So there's no point in Murray's lawyer playing his hand."
Today TMZ posted, that Murray´s defense team, in person attorney Ed Chernoff, doesn´t plan to ask any question at the preliminary hearing on January 4, 2011. He´ll just listen to all the accusations, witnesses and alleged evidences...as for me, it´s the best, he could do! ;)
Not acting at the first appointments of the hearing doesn´t mean weakness, it´s a masterstroke!
He prefers to let everything pass by, and then he´s able to react.
It´s the prosecution´s part to prove the elements of an offense...in this case it means to prove Murray acted in a reckless way and involuntarily killed MJ because of that reckless behaviour.
Involuntary Manslaughter is 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."
We see, the term "reckless" is not mentioned in the CA Codes, but the legal definition, which completes every legal Code, says the following:
"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."
The definition of "reckless" is the following...
"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."
Let´s analyze, if the recklessness could be proven by the prosecution!
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, furthermore controlling of breath by possibly administering oxygen (just in case of an emergency).
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, and also by his own statement in the LAPD interview.
Oh, and the assumption of TMZ, that a judge might decide, Murray will be able to stand the trial, is a nice bet, but nothing more! ;)
I said it once and I say it again....I prefer to stick to facts than to weird theories, because facts rule! ;)
Mittwoch, 29. Dezember 2010
Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2010
Murray´s defense team wants another testing!
Good morning! :)
A friend did send me an interesting article, Dr. Murray´s defence team wants some items, found in MJ´s bedroom after he "died", to be tested again...because they claim to be able to prove, there wasn´t enough Propofol, which could have "killed" him!
"Hearing to decide testing on syringes found in Michael Jackson's home
As for me, it sounds a bit like prejudgement and not like an independant upcoming preliminary hearing, as long as not all decent requests of the defence are considered! Should the trial amount to formal errors? ;)
A friend did send me an interesting article, Dr. Murray´s defence team wants some items, found in MJ´s bedroom after he "died", to be tested again...because they claim to be able to prove, there wasn´t enough Propofol, which could have "killed" him!
"Hearing to decide testing on syringes found in Michael Jackson's home
December 21, 2010 - 17:56
Anthony McCartney, The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES, Calif. - A judge overseeing the criminal case of a doctor charged in Michael Jackson's death has scheduled a hearing to determine if medical items found in the singer's bedroom should undergo another round of testing.
Defence attorneys for Dr. Conrad Murray have been asking for months that fluids in two syringes and an IV bag found in Jackson's rented mansion be tested to determine how much of the anesthetic propofol they contained.
Murray's defence attorneys say the items are deteroirating and the results could be crucial at trial, but prosecutors have downplayed the significance.
Coroner's officials ruled Jackson died of acute propofol intoxication.
A judge will hear arguments on the issue on Dec. 29 — six days before Murray is scheduled to appear for a preliminary hearing. Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
The testing is not a factor during the hearing, when the judge will determine if there is enough evidence for Murray to stand the trial."
So far, so good.... ;)
Interestingly, the prosecutors should have downplayed the defence´s request for more testings, as for them it´s an understandable fact, but....those defence´s request was filed months ago, and now the judge will decide, whether he´ll allow another testing or not? About 18 months after June 25, 2009, and just 6 days before the preliminary hearing should start????
Beside the fact, that the items might be waste, if they weren´t stored properly, why did it take so long to make such an important decision???
"Innocent until proven guilty" is still the a line of the American jurisdiction, and that means, it´s one of Dr. Murray´s fundamental rights to require another testing to confirm his statement!
As for me, it sounds a bit like prejudgement and not like an independant upcoming preliminary hearing, as long as not all decent requests of the defence are considered! Should the trial amount to formal errors? ;)
Have a great day! :)
Montag, 20. Dezember 2010
Sonntag, 12. Dezember 2010
The wrongful death lawsuit....part II
Let´s continue to tear Joe Jackson´s wrongful death lawsuit into pieces, shall we? ;)
Under point 5, the children are mentioned with their year of birth, 1997, 1998 and 2002), but withholding their exact birthday....whereas Mrs. Katherine Jackson is noted with her full data. Either every named person is mentioned in the same way or there´s an explanation, why the mentions are different. Here we don´t find an explanation, so we have to assume, Mr. Oxman didn´t know it better, but shouldn´t he as an attorney? ;)
Under point 9, we find the following...."Mr. Jackson has given has given all preliminary....(...)..."
No, the repitition isn´t my fault, it´s part of the alleged legal document! I think, there´s no need to explain, that something like that shouldn´t happen at all, it just shows a kinda involuntary handling of legal papers!
Joe Jackson claims, MJ should have met Dr. Murray in 2008 in Las Vegas, because he should have treated MJ´s children´s cold and flu. Beside the fact, that this information is false, where´s the footnote, which points to the truth of this statement?
To explain a bit more, every fact, which is mentioned in such a lawsuit, needs to be proven, and usually, footnotes are used, which point to other documents and their legal identity to make sure, every claimed fact is right! Or the corresponding documents are added.....
In this case, it might be something like MJ´s patient documents or a recipe for any kind of medications for him and/or his children.
But nothing is present here! ;)
Interested in more? Stay with me.....
Under point 5, the children are mentioned with their year of birth, 1997, 1998 and 2002), but withholding their exact birthday....whereas Mrs. Katherine Jackson is noted with her full data. Either every named person is mentioned in the same way or there´s an explanation, why the mentions are different. Here we don´t find an explanation, so we have to assume, Mr. Oxman didn´t know it better, but shouldn´t he as an attorney? ;)
Under point 9, we find the following...."Mr. Jackson has given has given all preliminary....(...)..."
No, the repitition isn´t my fault, it´s part of the alleged legal document! I think, there´s no need to explain, that something like that shouldn´t happen at all, it just shows a kinda involuntary handling of legal papers!
Joe Jackson claims, MJ should have met Dr. Murray in 2008 in Las Vegas, because he should have treated MJ´s children´s cold and flu. Beside the fact, that this information is false, where´s the footnote, which points to the truth of this statement?
To explain a bit more, every fact, which is mentioned in such a lawsuit, needs to be proven, and usually, footnotes are used, which point to other documents and their legal identity to make sure, every claimed fact is right! Or the corresponding documents are added.....
In this case, it might be something like MJ´s patient documents or a recipe for any kind of medications for him and/or his children.
But nothing is present here! ;)
Interested in more? Stay with me.....
Sonntag, 5. Dezember 2010
Propofol killed Michael Jackson? ;)
Nothing more to say than....if Propofol killed MJ, I´ll eat my hat! ;)
The wrongful death lawsuit, filed by Joseph Jackson....
Did you read the alleged wrongful death lawsuit, Joseph Jackson filed some days ago in the Superior Court of California? ;) Honestly, guys, I was laughing really hard....and there are many reasons to laugh!
In the upper left corner, the section, where the plaintiffs are named, Katherine Jackson is mentioned both as Individual and as the "guardian ad litem" for MJ´s three minor children.
First, the term "guardian ad litem" contains a major spelling error....it´s written "guardian ad item", the "l" is missing, and that´s a mistake, which could cause the whole document´s invalidity!
Second, the term "guardian at litem" means, it is a guardian appointed by a court to protect the interests of a minor or incompetent in a particular matter. Typically, the court may appoint either a lawyer or a court appointed special advocate volunteer to serve as guardian ad litem in juvenile matters, family court matters, probate matters, and domestic relations matters.
A family member can´t be a guardian ad litem because of a goal conflict, concerning their own interests in court.
On August 11, 2009, Partner Margaret Lodise was selected by Superior Court Judge, Mitchell Beckloff, as Guardian ad Litem of Michael Jackson’s children.
Misses Lodise is there to represent their financial interests in all matters relating to their father’s estate. As guardian ad litem, Ms. Lodise will advocate on behalf of the children in connection with their rights in their father’s estate, including the resolution of certain contracts proposed by the estate’s Special Administrators, John Branca and John McClain, but opposed in part by Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson’s mother and another beneficiary, who opposes certain elements of the contracts.
And that´s Mrs. Margaret Lodise....
....who´s the legal guardian ad litem of MJ´s three children! ;)
And what does it tell us? Even the first part of the document shows a major fault by claiming, that Mrs. Katherine Jackson is the "guardian ad litem" of MJ´s kids, additional to the fact, that the legal term is typed in a wrong way!
More is yet to come...stay with me! :)
In the upper left corner, the section, where the plaintiffs are named, Katherine Jackson is mentioned both as Individual and as the "guardian ad litem" for MJ´s three minor children.
First, the term "guardian ad litem" contains a major spelling error....it´s written "guardian ad item", the "l" is missing, and that´s a mistake, which could cause the whole document´s invalidity!
Second, the term "guardian at litem" means, it is a guardian appointed by a court to protect the interests of a minor or incompetent in a particular matter. Typically, the court may appoint either a lawyer or a court appointed special advocate volunteer to serve as guardian ad litem in juvenile matters, family court matters, probate matters, and domestic relations matters.
A family member can´t be a guardian ad litem because of a goal conflict, concerning their own interests in court.
On August 11, 2009, Partner Margaret Lodise was selected by Superior Court Judge, Mitchell Beckloff, as Guardian ad Litem of Michael Jackson’s children.
Misses Lodise is there to represent their financial interests in all matters relating to their father’s estate. As guardian ad litem, Ms. Lodise will advocate on behalf of the children in connection with their rights in their father’s estate, including the resolution of certain contracts proposed by the estate’s Special Administrators, John Branca and John McClain, but opposed in part by Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson’s mother and another beneficiary, who opposes certain elements of the contracts.
And that´s Mrs. Margaret Lodise....
....who´s the legal guardian ad litem of MJ´s three children! ;)
And what does it tell us? Even the first part of the document shows a major fault by claiming, that Mrs. Katherine Jackson is the "guardian ad litem" of MJ´s kids, additional to the fact, that the legal term is typed in a wrong way!
More is yet to come...stay with me! :)
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)