Conrad Murray Trial - Closing Arguments 11-3-11

[borndem]

Come on he didn't even perform CPR correctly. GRRR

It wuz all for show
He didn't know
How, and so
It didn't matter
Any mo'
MJ laid low
By CM's pro

 

[borndem]

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya'. It's all one big conspiracy against my client! Notice the folded arms. It means something, but I forget. It's not a good message, though.

:laugh::floorlaugh:

 

[outofstatelawyer]

No doubt some of you long time board members are aware of this, but I just learned today that Conrad Murray's sainted father, Rawle Andrews, had his Texas Medical License put under a 5 year limitation in 1994 for improperly prescribing controlled substances with no theraputic indication and not keeping proper medical records. Looks like the apple didn't fall too far from the tree (even if they didn't really know each other very well). You can read the Medical Board order here:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/ht_rawle_andrews_090723.pdf

 

[peace9274]

I am glad they get to deliberate at least one day before the weekend. (that is if they even need more than one day)

If they do not reach a verdict tomorrow, will they be able to go home for the week-end?

Or will they be sequestered until a verdict is reached?

Either way, how many hours are they required to deliberate each day?

And do they come to the courthouse &/or the courtroom tomorrow?

Will anything be televised before the jurors go into "their room", or where ever they go to deliberate?

TIA

 

[Isabelle]

Are we laying off bets on this prediction?

If I were on that jury, I would not want to return on Monday. I say late Friday mainly because the prosecution did a great job with the facts and evidence. Yah, I'll take Friday, Nov. 4 by 3 p.m pst.

Anyone else?

Friday, just after lunch.

 

[peace9274]

Predictions on how long it will take the jury to come to a decision?

Definitely Tomorrow

Friday afternoon - Between 2pm - 4 pm PST

What's the prize?

 

[peace9274]

No doubt some of you long time board members are aware of this, but I just learned today that Conrad Murray's sainted father, Rawle Andrews, had his Texas Medical License put under a 5 year limitation in 1994 for improperly prescribing controlled substances with no theraputic indication and not keeping proper medical records. Looks like the apple didn't fall too far from the tree (even if they didn't really know each other very well). You can read the Medical Board order here:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/ht_rawle_andrews_090723.pdf

Nope, I didn't know that. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[borndem]

Chernoff is criticizing the "baby on a countertop" analogy that Dr. Steinberg made. The problem is the analogy was in reference to a sedated patient, not MJ as a person.

Yes, bravo, it was. I thought it was a great analogy.

Still do.

So there, Cherny...

 

[borndem]

"The crux of this case is the prosecution believe that dr murray should be responsible for MJ' self administration. "

:doh::doh:

 

[borndem]

Jean Casarez has lost her mind. She described Chernoff as focused and to the point.

bbm
You're absolutely right, Talina, but the way you said it just made me LOL. :floorlaugh:

 

[borndem]

OT: eating candy corn like there is no tomorrow! If I had chocolate I would be eating that too, and cupcakes!

I had your chocolate, Isabelle -- twice!! And a miniature Tootsie Roll Pop (or 3) -- not many trick or treaters at our house...

 

[borndem]

Well, how's that for perfect timing?

I told the dentist, the assistant, & office girls I didn't have time to chat!
Just give me my effing credit card and let me get the eff home!
(I didn't really say that. I just smiled while they took too long.)

Excuse this, peace, but you're so dayam cute!! LOL. I love it!:great::floorlaugh:

<shaking head>

 

[borndem]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/shockaholic-excerpt-carrie-fisher_n_1072462.html?ref=books

a tad off topic Carrie Fisher describes MJ and kids last christmas

Thanks for sharing, joe -- nice article about MJ just trying to be a dad & a regular guy.

 

[borndem]

mix candy corn with salted peanuts. microwave about 10 seconds. soooo good!!

Just checked out a sight on giving a speech. It says DO NOT let your voice fade at the end of a sentence. I think that means you do not really believe what you are saying.

"Aha! and Touché !" said Inspector Clouseau...

 

[borndem]

To me it was like a STAR gets better treatment from the prosecution than a "regular" (for lack of a better word) person would. But either way it's not a nice thing to imply. As Chernoff said, there is no perfect victim, victim being the key.

I'm getting sick & tired of this guy's drivel, even if he doesn't believe it and probably knows he has a convict for a client. He needs to get off his high horse and act like an honorable officer of the court.

Murder is murder, dammit, and I think the PT probably feels the same way.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? ..." :furious:

 

[borndem]

Chernoff is going for the Pity Verdict. :cry:

To me and by now, he sounds like he'll settlle for half that: Just plain pity...

 

[borndem]

Chernoff definitely looked like he'd had his guts punched out. The whole defense table looks shell shocked.

You said it, madge! :fireworks2::fireworks:



They've been KA -- BLOO'ED by the Chiron of Walgrenland.

 

[peace9274]

Well, I came back here one mo' time, before lights out, to see if anyone
posted any answers to my questions about what's happnin' tomorrow.

So, since no one has , I'll have to go to bed not knowing whether I should get up early.....
or sleep an extra hour.

I wonder if I can find out.... in the next 5-10 minutes - probably not.....
if there'll be anything to watch tomorrow morning, before the jurors go to deliberation.


OK - then. I guess that's it. I'll call it a day!

Good night!

Sleep Well. Sweet Dreams. Say Prayers.

And above all..... Don't let the bedbugs by-choo!

 

[borndem]

Well I have served on 5 juries both civil and criminal. They usually take a vote just to see where everyone is at. It really depends on the foreperson. Sometimes they like to start with the instructions or sometimes people just want to talk about why they think there is reasonable doubt or why they are guilty. I know this doesn't sound like much of a help but it really depends on the group.

It may not sound like much to you, but it sounds like a lot more than I knew before I read it! Thanks!

I'm sure with the crime, the court principals, the defendant, the foreperson, the juror personalities, etc., etc., that each scenario differs, but it still has helped me get a feel for this mysterious and fascinating thing called the jury room. Thanks, legalmania!

 

[~n/t~]

I was seriously underwhelmed by the defense argument. There were MUCH BETTER assumption of risk arguments available.

I have represented nursing homes in northern California in civil medical malpractice cases involving patients who were fall risks who chose not to have physical restraints (i.e. not be "tied down") who subsequently fell and died, and patients who refused to drink the nasty-tasting nutritional supplements prescribed by their doctors or to have gastric/parenteral nutrition tubes implanted who subsequently died of malnutrition and/or dehydration, and various other situations where the patient basically refused to follow the doctor's advice but the doctor continued to help the patient with their problems. Also, as a woman, and in particular as a mother of 5 including some high-risk pregnancies, I have an enhanced point of view with regard to assumption of risk with regard to women who choose to give birth at home, or who shop for OB/GYNs willing to perform vaginal birth of twins (most OB/GYNs insist on C-sections) or who refuse to have c-sections despite their doctors advice (which was the basis of a prosecution in Utah) or other risky situations.

I would have argued that competent adults have the right to make choices concerning their medical care. Smokers with emphysema may continue to smoke; does that mean their doctors have a duty to stop treating them? Twenty OB/GYNs may decline to deliver twins vaginally; does that mean that the OB/GYN who agrees is grossly negligent? Some patients suffering from AIDS or cancer decline to pursue therapies with severe side effects; does that mean that their doctors have to cut them off from palliative (symptomatic) relief? No! Competent adults have the right to control their medical care. And it is not illegal for a doctor to continue trying to help the patient suffer as little as possible.

At a minimum, it is a better "theory of the case" likely to result in "reasonable doubt" than the actual defense argument that everything Conrad Murray did was perfectly safe yet Michael Jackson happened to die anyways.

Katprint
Whose father declined a second series of potentially life-saving chemotherapy because he was unwilling to suffer the side effects,
and who has been so exhausted as a new mother that death would have been an acceptable risk of getting some sleep
Always only my own opinion

IMO, that is what he was trying to tell this jury when he said CM was a small fish in a big dirty pond. If we believe the theory that MJ self induced the meds, then there was nothing that CM could've done to stop him. He basically potrayed MJ as an addict who committed suicide. He gave the psych ward as one example. Also, Walgren in his rebuttal potrayed MJ as a feeble person who put his trust in CM but yet through some of the testimony I've heard, Michael was being potrayed as a healthy, strong person who had nothing wrong with him. I thought that was 'bizarre'. They can't have it both ways.

I think Chernoff did a good job in raising reasonable doubt. I know if I was on the jury, I'd be wanting some of these questions answered before I would vote guilty. Relooking at the evidence is crucial.

And yes, I truly believe that if it wasn't Michael Jackson, we wouldn't be here today discussing this trial.