Wouldn't surprise me in the least!:P

Conrad Murray guilty of Michael Jackson manslaughter

 

Michael Jackson's personal physician, Dr Conrad Murray, has been found guilty of the involuntary manslaughter of the star by a jury in Los Angeles. A panel of seven men and five women took two days of deliberation to reach a verdict.

 

Michael Jackson died on 25 June 2009 from an overdose of the powerful anaesthetic propofol. Murray, 58, could now receive a maximum prison term of four years and lose his licence to practise medicine. Dr Murray's lawyers argued that Jackson self-administered a lethal dose of the drug while he was out of the room.

 

Dr Murray sat silently, shifting in his seat as the verdict was read out. The jury - made up of one African American, six whites and five Hispanics - deliberated on Friday and through the morning on Monday.

 

Outside the court, fans of Michael Jackson were cheering and chanting, "Guilty! Guilty!" in the run-up to the verdict being announced.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15624869

Was it any surprise he got found guilty when he didn't do it with all the media pressure on the jurors?

What bullshit. Four years in jail because a pedo OD'd on medication he took of his own free will. The lengths people will go to to find a scapegoat sickens me.

A scapegoat. Some people will never accept the problems that man had. Either they deny it or blame it on someone else like they've done here. Crazy, weird fans.

The guy became Jacksons doctor only a few months after he died when Michael had been addicted to drugs like Propofol for years and people seem to think this is an argument in favour of the 'scapegoat' idea, actually he'd give Michael whatever he wanted without a 2nd thought and its no coincidence that such negligence lead to his death in a short amount of time.

 

You can look at some diehard MJ fans now and yes you could say that some of them don't even care whether Murrays guilty or not, but nobody really took this involuntary manslaughter claim seriously before it was actually going to hit court and nobody was calling for Murrays head when there were rumours it may have been his fault. At that point nobody was looking for a scapegoat and there was no necessity for one, it was an inevitability that this would be investigated.

A scapegoat. Some people will never accept the problems that man had. Either they deny it or blame it on someone else like they've done here. Crazy, weird fans.

 

Whoa, I'm kind of surprised at these reactions.

 

First off, media pressure on jurors doesn't hold much weight, considering what recently happened in the Casey Anthony trial. She was acquitted of murdering her daughter, and people were shocked, this case was almost bigger than the Michael Jackson / Conrad Murray case over here. If media pressure couldn't "force" those people to say she was guilty, I wouldn't expect it to be a reason here.

 

One thing to keep in mind, the doctor wasn't charged with murder; he probably would have been found not guilty if that had been the charge. Being accused of manslaughter is not the same thing. Not to mention there are different levels of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary. Basically, being accused of involuntary manslaughter is the lowest thing on the totem pole in regard to being involved with someone's death. Yes, Michael had addiction issues, other issues, etc. But that does not negate or excuse the fact that the doctor was negligent in his actions on SO MANY levels, and that negligence contributed to Michael's death. Involuntary, he didn't mean for it to happen; manslaughter, someone's death resulted from his actions/inactions (not premeditated/murder). The maximum sentence is 4 years, he'll probably get about half that.

i just feel so sorry for this man. Whether he's guilty or not, his life is kinda ruined :\

#scapegoat... the new Christmas fragrance from the Jacksons. Apparently it stinks!

Whoa, I'm kind of surprised at these reactions.

 

I'm surprised that this is actually a pretty common reaction at the moment, but if you actually ask anyone the specifics of why this wasn't a negligent crime, when there's stacks of proof against him, everyone just says hes a scapegoat.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/8867583/Michael-Jacksons-death-the-cases-for-and-against-Dr-Conrad-Murray.html

 

There's not one 'for' argument I deem relevant whatsoever. If Jacko had been a normal guy then the masses who wail SCAPEGOAT would actually look at least look at the facts, its funny how fame skews perception.

I didn't say he wasn't guilty. The evidence points to him being complicit in his death and so guilty. In the UK courts the comparable tariff is gross negligence.

 

What I'm saying is that the whole bloody Jackson family & associated hangers on should have also been tried. This doctor was only there for a few months. Jacko was systematically fu*(ed up for years before that.

 

He was just unlucky to be the one left standing in the Jacko'sDoctor version of musical chairs.

Actually I wasn't really talking about you as I just thought you were passing on a (poor) joke.

 

I didn't say he wasn't guilty. The evidence points to him being complicit in his death and so guilty. In the UK courts the comparable tariff is gross negligence.

 

Ah thats fair enough.

 

What I'm saying is that the whole bloody Jackson family & associated hangers on should have also been tried. This doctor was only there for a few months. Jacko was systematically fu*(ed up for years before that.

 

He was just unlucky to be the one left standing in the Jacko'sDoctor version of musical chairs.

 

Oh my god.

Wasn't really a joke :) Just a barbed comment I made up! I just get a bit cynical of the US litigious society.

Oh so the part about putting his family/anyone around him on trial, was that the joke?

As I said, not really a joke... more of a farce

I think we got confused here, the 'joke' I was referring to was the joke you made about the Jackson fragrance.

 

But gladly relieved you weren't serious about bringing his entire family/associated friends into account, I can see your point though, if a litigious society is to blame the doctor who prescribed the drugs then where does it stop? Well, I would think that under any circumstance if a patient is for some reason prescribed a much higher dosage of drugs and for no particular reason (Eg a reason being that the patient is out of reach to pick up their prescription regularly, and has been analysed psychologically to attain that they are in a fit and reserved mental state to have control of themselves- none of which would apply in this case as the patient was not out of reach of anything and as a long term addict could not have been analysed in any way to be able to control themselves) then the doctor would come under severe scrutiny and investigation as to why this practice was carried out, especially if the doctors story contradicted itself and often made no sense (For a cover-up).

 

I haven't found any similar circumstances from briefly looking for good ole regular civilian folk, possibly because it doesn't happen to a regular person, because a doctor would have no reason to prescribe that amount of drugs to a patient- unless they feel compelled to do so because its frikken Michael Jackson. Jacko found an idiot who would give him whatever he wanted, no questions asked, and its aptly Involuntary Manslaughter because of course there would be no attainable logic behind Murray actually wanting Jackson to die, but no doubt it was incredibly careless.

 

If anyone really believes that the media had a part to play in this, then I have to say, with the amount of evidence stacked against Murray, and the man himself being unable to fit his own pieces of the puzzle together in many ways, then if the media/fan pressure had a considerable role then we'd be seeing much worse then 4 years max.

I'm really starting to wish there was a separate forum for celebrity/Sport stuff.

Well, who knows what really went on - that's best left to a jury to decide. As far as a % of doctors prescribing too much of a given medication, at levels that are clearly dangerous or deadly, it happens, I will attest to that! Either by arrogance, ignorance, or by simple unintended mistake, it does happen. Some will simply never own up to their own mistakes, but then who else is involved may make a difference as well. I say, just let the jury decide, if there's enough truth that comes out and sheds light on what went on. Innocent unless proven guilty, let the peers decide.

Well, who knows what really went on - that's best left to a jury to decide. As far as a % of doctors prescribing too much of a given medication, at levels that are clearly dangerous or deadly, it happens, I will attest to that!

 

This is what I've been looking for, do you have any situations where a doctor has over-prescribed medication? I know I've read about it before numerous times, searching it though is impossible right now after the recent court case.

 

I'm really starting to wish there was a separate forum for celebrity/Sport stuff.

 

I thought the judicial system possibly incorrectly convicting a person would be right up your alley, loosen up that tin foil hat or you'll miss out on even more conspiracy theories.

This is what I've been looking for, do you have any situations where a doctor has over-prescribed medication? I know I've read about it before numerous times, searching it though is impossible right now after the recent court case.

 

Well, without getting too specific, in my mom's case, she had been prescribed a level of thyroid medication 10X higher than what she had been getting, and while a little increase was warranted (she was loosing energy a lot during the day), the 10X increase almost killed her from a stroke. And if that weren't enough, I spoke with a nurse at the clinic where this doctor worked, and this nurse privately explained to me that the doctor my mom had been seeing was well past retirement age and had become senile, but was too stubborn to retire or admit having made mistakes, and many other patients were given the wrong doses of medications, some with serious effects as well. But the good old boy network kept it hush-hush, or that's what was explained to me. So having that first-hand experience, I can see how it can happen, and even with competent professionals, there are mix-ups between one doctor and the next, communication mistakes that are serious in their implications.

But in this case, I trust if a jury is given as full a disclosure of the facts as is possible, they ought to make a good decision, if all other things are correct in the process. But if a doctor makes a mistake which is unintentional, calling it manslaughter seems inappropriate; maybe it could be called negligence leading to accidental death, at least saving the physician from having to wear such a harsh label.

I thought the judicial system possibly incorrectly convicting a person would be right up your alley, loosen up that tin foil hat or you'll miss out on even more conspiracy theories.

 

Yeah, heaven forbid anyone suggests people have motives!

 

Our leaders are all selfless demigods.

Oddly I was sarcastically playing into your idea of the indisputable state, which you're aware of, yet you still have this compulsion to sarcastically make it known of the states "motives".

 

It's, fascinating. It really is. Considering you didn't originally want to even see this topic in a forum section you visit, that's, fascinating.

Yeah, why didn't I just roll over and let you denigrate me?

 

It's almost like I have self esteem! Freakish!

It's incredibly difficult to differentiate when you're making a parody of yourself and when you are actually being serious, because you really are that UNPREDICTABLE LOL

I don't think I've ever been impressed with your intellectual caliber, Reilly, that's why I rarely respond to you in a serious manner.