Murray´s defense team....

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! ;)