November 10, 2011


Ain’t the pictures enough?
Why do you go through so much to get the stories you need
so you can bury me
You keep on stalking me
Invading my privacy
Won’t you just let me be?
 ~ Michael Jackson

On June 25, 2009 Michael Jackson’s life was taken. The world lost an exceptional artist and one of its brightest lights. More importantly, three young children lost their only parent.
Conrad Murray’s so-called “friendship” with Michael Jackson was based solely on his love of money and Michael Jackson’s desperation to sleep –nothing more.  The man who massaged Mr. Jackson’s “non-pedicured, calloused feet” now embellishes the relationship, not that he sucessfully fools anyone but his delusional self. It didn't matter if Mr. Jackson needed Murray to bark like a dog, for $150K, he would have –and he did– anything!  

After the painful trial, a guilty verdict was heard around the world – a small measure of justice but justice nonetheless. We all felt a brief sense of vindication, knowing that the man responsible for Michael Jackson’s death was finally being held accountable. Only hours later, we learnt that MSNBC will give platform to a convicted felon’s scripted reality show where he will maintain that he is just an innocent victim of circumstances and that it was everybody and their mama’s fault but his – a claim 12 jurors didn’t buy.

“We wouldn’t be here if Michael Jackson was not the patient” bemoaned Ed Chernoff. Well, would Conrad Murray leave two medical practices to treat one patient if that patient wasn’t Michael Jackson? "It is only because Michael Jackson is such a visible personality that this case has garnered media attention" grumbled Ed Chernoff. Would networks line up to reward a convicted killer if his victim didn't have such a visible personality?

Ed Chernoff’s hypocritical words reverberate across our vast universe. Apperantly their
so-called-concern for Michael Jackson's stature came in very handy when profiteering from his death. The very man who opted not tell his side of the story when a family and the jury turned to him for answers, pre-meditatively arranged a deal in which now, he will tell us “what really happened.” And Conrad Murray is the beacon of "troot". Ask his wife!

“Take this case out of Michael Jackson. This is not a reality show, it is reality” lamented
Ed Chernoff. In hindsight, their affectations in court make so much sense. They were acting for their blockbuster “reality show”. It makes me wonder if the tears were real.

The time for Conrad Murray to tell us “what really happened” was under oath, in the court,
giving the People benefit of a cross examination. Based on the evidence, the People presented its case. The defense, bless their heart, did resort to every avenue to pull a rabbit of their hats. Judge Pastor asked Murray, time after time, if he wanted to tell his story.
CONrad Murray said “My decision is that I will not testify in this matter, judge.”

Little did we know, Conrad Murray DID testify that night to a glaring camera!!!

Ultimately, 12 jurors decided that “what really happened” to Michael Jackson was Conrad Murray –with his unique blend of unethical acts & extreme incompetence.

This con artist not only has the audacity to re-victimize his victim but also spits at
judge Michael Pastor's face, who went above and beyond to afford Murray a fair Trial.
He cunningly masterminded a loophole to skirt around the judge’s gag order in order to disseminate his lies without being challenged by the People. His "Today" Show interview was done on Oct 30, 2011 -during the Trial- despite of judge Pastor's gag order!

His now blaring conniving ways shines a bright light to when he tried to clean up crime scene when his patient laid there dying!!!  This documentary doesn't show "what really happened"; it shows who Conrad Murray REALLY is: a conniving con artist! 

The very jury who had to make personal sacrifices to sort out his mess was ordered NOT to profit for 90 days but the man who is convicted of killing a human being plotted 2 years ago that he would profit from his crime immediately after the Trial –no matter the verdict!

We are outraged that NBC Universal and other media outlets would even consider airing this show on a so-called respectable network. How can this be justified for any other reason but money? This irresponsible decision rewards a criminal, it diminishes a lost life,
it diminishes NBC Universal, its shareholders, sponsors and viewers –it diminishes all of us.

The verdict wasn't even a week old and the sentencing is yet to be finalized but a coven of greedy networks and CONrad Murray thought that the timing couldn’t have been better.

We are boycotting NBC Universal, MSNBC, Nine Network, Channel 4 & Zodiak Rights and we will mount a protest to ANY media outlet that broadcasts Murray's sideshow!

The decision by ANY network in ANY country to broadcast this documentary will diminish the said network to the media equivalent of Conrad Murray –willing to compromise ethics
in exchange for money. Rather than walking away from an indecent proposal, you decided to reward crime. His decision killed a human being, your decision kills ethical journalism.

A deceased fellow human being  –Michael Jackson – deserves better. Paris, Prince and Blanket deserves better. We, the viewers, deserve better than this proposed obscenity.
This so-called program should be retitled ‘A Man’s Inhumanity to another Man" and it applies to everyone who has hand in the making or disseminating it. Crime shouldn’t pay

It is completely unacceptable and an affront to justice to reward a convicted felon.

Related Links:
MJ Estate Executors calls on MSNBC to cancel Conrad Murray Documentary 
Jack Wishna Stands With Jackson Estate in Calling for Show Not to Air
Coalition Urges Public To Spurn MSNBC Documentary
When Does He Get to Rest? 

November 08, 2011


Above is a shot from yesterday’s post verdict press conference. In the middle is the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley. Standing on his right is Jackie Lacey, Steve Cooley’s nominee to continue his reign of terror and corruption when he retires next year. On his left is Patrick Dixon, Chief Deputy District Attorney. Jackie and Patrick who?

Wait, where is the man of the hour? Deputy District attorney, David Walgren.

Oh, there he is, out of the limelight! Usually the winning prosecutor addresses the media but because it was a high profile case, Cooley thrusted himself into the limelight, pushing aside the man whose vigor secured the victory. Cooley was happy to collect accolades!

Mr. Cooley, there was a reason you didn’t make attorney general. You are underhanded and while chasing after small wins, you lose big. This publicity stunt was no exception. You did disservice to Jackie Lacey. Don’t you have advisors to halt your tactless acts? 

During the post verdict press conference, Steve Cooley said:

"There is a theory that second degree murder based upon implied malice that
the doctor's comments were so reckless that it amounted to malice in its context. This theory was examined carefully based upon the evidence gathered by the LAPD and the coroners findings. Many lawyers in our office did review that as a possible alternative. And after careful consideration, we downed it to involuntary manslaughter.”

What Steve Cooley conveniently left out was that HE was the man who "downed it to involuntary manslaughter."

Then, citing the new prison realignment policy, Steve Cooley had the audacity to say
"it will be very difficult to achieve an appropriate sentence of incarceration for Conrad Murray." Had Steve Cooley sought second degree murder then Conrad Murray would have served his sentence in state prison! The State of the California wasted taxpayer money for what? Cooley said the outcome of this Trial sent a strong message to “feel good doctors.” Really? What message was that? Be incompetent to your heart’s content, we are determined to use taxpayer money to publicize you so you can be out in time for the premiere of your million dollar documentary?!!!!!!!!! The jurors were instructed NOT to profit for 90 days yet it is okay for the killer to profit immediately?

When we first heard of Steve Cooley and his corrupt ways, we were horrified that
HIS office would be prosecuting Conrad Murray. We thought this would be a mock trial outcome of which was already bought. Then along came David Walgren who prosecuted this case with methodical perfection. He single handedly restored public trust in LADA’s office. We, the People, scorn at Steve Cooley's self serving and ungracious move.

Related Links:
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Media Hogs

November 05, 2011


If you are interested in reading the jury instructions in its entirety, click here

Presumption of Innocence and the Burden of Proof

Just because Conrad Murray is charged with a crime doesn’t mean that he is guilty. He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt does NOT mean no doubt.


Evidence is sworn witness testimonies and the exhibits admitted into evidence.

The remarks by the prosecution or the defense attorneys are NOT evidence, their opening and closing statement are NOT evidence. The questions by the attorney to the witnesses are NOT evidence, the witness answers ARE evidence. Don’t assume something is true just because one of the attorneys remarked that it was true. The stipulations agreed by both the prosecution and the defense must be accepted as facts by the jurors.

Facts could be direct, circumstantial evidence or combination of both.

Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example if a witness testified that it was raining when he came into the court house, his testimony is direct evidence that it was raining. 

Circumstantial evidence don't prove a fact directly but it is evidence of another fact(s)
from which you could logically conclude the truth of the fact. For example, if a witness testify that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is a circumstantial evidence that it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.

BOTH direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence. BUT if relying on a circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find Conrad Murray guilty has been proven, the jurors must ensure that the prosecution proved that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jurors can draw 2 reasoble conclusions based a circumstantial evidence; one pointing that he is guilty, another pointing that he is innocent, the jurors MUST go with the one that points to innocence.

The jurors decide on the credibility of a witness. They can believe all, part of none of a witness testimony. Jurors are to use common sense to decide. Don't simply assume that a testimony is false just b/c of inconsistincies; sometimes people can honestly forget things. If a witness lied about something significant, then the jurors consider NOT believing that witness' testimony but the witness lied about some thing but told the truth on something, jurors should consider believing in parts that they feel are truthful.

If an expert was asked by an attorney an hypothetical question, it is up to the jurors to decide if the assumed fact has been proven.

Character witnesses for Conrad Murray testified that he is "attentive, informative, careful, cautious, compassionate, loyal and knowledgable physician and has a good reputation for financial generosity and selflessness". Evidence of Murray's good character by itself CAN create a reasonable doubt but the evidence for Murray's good character can be countered by the evidence for his bad character for the same trait.

It is Conrad Murray's constutional right NOT to testify. The jurors are NOT to make a negative inference that he did not testify. Conrad Murray's LAPD interview IS evidence but jurors must decide how much importance it carries.

If you find that Conrad Murray made a false or misleading statement before this trial relating to the charged crime, it may show his guilt of conscious and the jurors MAY consider this in determining his guilt.

If you find that Conrad Murray tried to hide evidence, it may show he was aware of his guilt but that conduct in itself can NOT prove that he is guilty. Jurors must decide on the importance of such conduct. 

Involuntary Manslaughter

The People are charging Conrad Murray with this charge for 2 reasons:
1-      He committed a lawful act with criminal negligence
2-      He failed a perform a legal duty with criminal negligence

To prove that he committed a lawful act with criminal negligence, the People must prove:
1-      He committed a lawful act but acted with criminal negligence
2-      His act led to Michael Jackson’s death

Lawful act with criminal negligence = administration of Propofol

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment. A person acts with a criminal negligence when:
1-      He acts in a reckless way that creates high risk of death
2-      A reasonable person would’ve known that acting that way would create such risk

In another words, a person acts with criminal negligence when he is SO different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of his act.

To prove that Conrad Murray is guilty, the People must prove:
1-      He had a legal duty to Michael Jackson
2-      He failed to perform his legal duty
3-      His failure to perform his legal duty was criminally negligent
4-      His failure to perform his legal duty caused Michael Jackson’s death

A physician who assumed the responsibility to treat or care for a patient HAS
a legal duty to treat and care for that patient.

A person fails to perform a legal duty with criminal negligence when:
1- He fails to perform a legal duty in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death
2- A reasonable person would’ve known that acting or failing to perform a legal duty in that way would create a high risk of death.

An act or failure to perform a legal duty causes the death if the death is the direct, natural and probable consequences of the act or the failure to perform
a legal duty and the death would NOT have happened without the act or the failure to perform a legal duty. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes.

(blogger- Conrad Murray was a physician who assumed Michael Jackson’s care. He, therefore, had a legal duty to care for Michael Jackson. His failure to perform his legal duty is the direct cause of Michael Jackson’s death which would not have happened if it wasn’t for Conrad Murray’s deviations from the standard of care. A reasonable doctor in his place would have known that the dangerous setting Conrad Murray “treated” Mr. Jackson was a recipe for disaster. We had doctor after doctor testify that they would NEVER do what Conrad Murray did. Even the defense witness, Dr White testified that no amount of money could pursue him to do what Conrad Murray did. Ed Chernoff said in his opening “well Michael Jackson received Propofol for two months and he didn’t die. See, it was not a dangerous circumstance.' Mr. Chernoff’s argument is as absurd as someone who killed while playing Russian roulette saying “well when I pulled the trigger for the first 4 times, there was no danger.” Propofol…to treat insomnia…bottle in the bag…no infusion pump....gravity dripping an anesthesia as a sleep aid…in a bedroom…
..this is bizarre as Hell. Not to mention a recipe for death.)

An act or the failure to perform a legal duty causes the death if it is a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. It does NOT have to be the only factor in the death.

(blogger: Conrad Murray does NOT have to be the only cause of Michael Jackson’s death, he just has to be a substantial cause of the death but he has to be a CAUSE.)

(blogger- The key word in this trial is 'causation.' Following 2 illustrations were used by Ed Chernoff in his closing argument. As per the law, simply being criminally negligent does NOT mean that Conrad Murray caused Michael Jackson's death.

Did Murray's criminal negligence CAUSED MJ death. Did the actions or failure to perform a legal duty by Murray CAUSE MJ death? For example person A shots and kills person B. If A didn't shot B, would B die? Answer is no. A CAUSED B's death.

Following is the jury instructions to guide the jurors in deciding whether or not Conrad Murray CAUSED Michael jackson's death.)

To relieve the defendant of criminal liability, an intervening cause must be UNforeseeable and extraordinary occurrence. A defendant is criminally liable if either the possible consequence might reasonably have been contemplated or the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of the harm of the kind that could result from his act. Even if Michael Jackson himself caused his death but if Conrad Murray is the SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE, he is legally responsible for Michael Jackson’s death.

(blogger: To explain intervening cause imagine A injured B and as B was being transported into an ambulance, B was struck by a lightning and died. The lightning is the intervening cause and A can NOT be the cause of B's death.

In Conrad Murray Trial, the defense claim that IF Michael Jackson self administered
(--->intervening cause) then Conrad Murray can NOT be the cause of his death. But the juror instructions state that IF the intervening cause was foreseeble then Conrad Murray IS still the cause of death EVEN IF Michael Jackson self administered. Conrad Murray stated that Michael Jackson “likes to push” Propofol and that he was getting addicted to it. Intervening cause = Michael Jackson self administration of Propofol. In this case, leaving the patient who is addicted to Propofol, who likes to push Propofol, who begged for Propofol all nite with an access to Propofol is as ridiculous as leaving a gun next to someone who talked of suicide all night. The possible consequence was very much expected and foreseeable and Murray should've foreseen the possibility)


If the juror believes that Conrad Murray, without criminal negligence, accidently killed Michael Jackson, he must be acquitted.


In order to find Conrad Murray guilty,
1-      ALL of the jurors must agree that the People proved beyond a reasonable that at least ONE act or failure to perform legal duty by Murray cause MJ’s death
2-      ALL the jurors must agree on the above & the verdict MUST be unanimous