GUILTY: Dr. Conrad Murray schuldig gesprochen (Die Diskussion)

[Brandon]

Brandon, was willst Du von mir hören:

Hippo, ich hatte dir doch zugestimmt. Mein Nichtverstehen bezog sich nicht auf die ganze Murray Thematik, sondern auf die Aussagen von Leuten wie z.B. Jones und Wiesner und warum die oft bei Usern hier nicht gut ankommen. Und das lag eben an meinem selektiven Lesen.
Zu MJs Schuld oder Nicht-Schuld, zur Rechtmäßigkeit des Urteils hatte ich mich gar nicht äußern wollen.

Erstaunlich, dass Murray, wie ich gerade im Posting von Dreamerdancerin las, in seiner Dokumentation erzählt, Michael habe ihm gesagt, die Schläge seinen nicht alles gewesen, was er in seiner Kindheit habe erleiden müssen. Ob es Michael bei dieser Andeutung beließ oder aber Murray in seinem Film, es sei dahingestellt.

Schlimm, daß dieses düstere Kapitel nun auch wieder an die Oberfläche kommt (war hier vor zwei Jahren schon heftig und schmerzhaft Thema).

Wie gesagt, es ging um eine -nicht provokante- Verstehensfrage, die mir von dir und anderen Usern gut beantwortet wurde. Danke dafür

[rip.michael]

Liebe helen mj,
ich hoffe du bist einverstanden, wenn ich meine anmerkungen zu deinem post in diesem thread mache.
Es geschieht aus dem grund, da das am thema "Guilty - Urteil" vorbeiführt.

With L.O.V.E. and respect
Lg rip.michael

[helen mj]

@ rip. michael,
ist schon alles okay. Ich habe es auch irgendwann gemerkt. Hat nur etwas gedauert. Ich habe mich ja einfach so dazwischen geklingt und bin halt moch nicht so lange dabei. Aber hippolytos hat es ja auch ganz deutlich gemacht, wobei es in diesem Thread geht. Jetzt habe ich es geschnallt
Vielleicht sollte ich das nächste Mal mal ein paar Seiten zurückblättern und mich etwas genauer informieren, bevor ich mich in eine Diskussion einklinke

[Hippolytos]

@ Brandon:

Dieses "Brandon, was willste von mir hören..." war nur so ne Floskel. Besser wäre gewesen: "Brandon, was soll ich sagen.." oder so was ähnliches.

Mir war nur wichtig, dass ich das mal schreibe über meine Sicht auf Michaels Eigenanteil (weil ich ja mitunter hier als die große "Sockelhieverin" empfunden werde.
Das ist nitnichten so, aber zur Zeit will ich das für mich ausklammern. ich esse zwar hin und wieder gern Eintopfgerichte, aber nicht alles eignet sich für Eintopfkocherei....

[TrueCrypt]

http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202532904349&slreturn=1

Discord Over Strategy on Dr. Conrad Murray's Defense Team

Unstimmigkeiten in der Strategie, na da steckt wohl mehr dahinter im Königreich CM....

The lawyers representing Dr. Conrad Murray in Los Angeles Superior Court had no reason to cheer on Nov. 8, but it wasn't just the guilty verdict that created tension on the trial team.
For much of the trial, discord dominated relations between Houston lawyer Ed Chernoff, who led the criminal-defense team for Murray, and his co-counsel J. Michael Flanagan of Glendale, Calif.'s Flanagan Unger Grover & McCool. Neither lawyer plans to represent Murray on appeal.
"This is the first time I've done a case with co-counsel in 30 years, and we had a difference of opinion about how the case should be handled," Flanagan says.

Font Size:
Discord Over Strategy on Dr. Conrad Murray's Defense Team

Miriam Rozen ContactAll Articles
Texas LawyerNovember 21, 2011
Print Share Email Reprints & Permissions Post a Comment

Ed Chernoff of Houston's Stradley, Chernoff & Alford
Image: John Everett

The lawyers representing Dr. Conrad Murray in Los Angeles Superior Court had no reason to cheer on Nov. 8, but it wasn't just the guilty verdict that created tension on the trial team.

For much of the trial, discord dominated relations between Houston lawyer Ed Chernoff, who led the criminal-defense team for Murray, and his co-counsel J. Michael Flanagan of Glendale, Calif.'s Flanagan Unger Grover & McCool. Neither lawyer plans to represent Murray on appeal.

"This is the first time I've done a case with co-counsel in 30 years, and we had a difference of opinion about how the case should be handled," Flanagan says.

The California criminal trial of Murray ended with the jury convicting him of one count of involuntary manslaughter related to the death of pop star Michael Jackson. Citing Murray's significant ties outside the state of California (Murray formerly had a practice in Houston) and public safety concerns, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael E. Pastor remanded Murray into custody, noting sentencing would occur on Nov. 29.

Chernoff of Stradley Chernoff & Alford sat at the defense table with Flanagan for the entire six weeks of the trial. At the start, Chernoff lived at Flanagan's home to save on expenses, but after several weeks Chernoff says he moved out. The cause of the strained relationship? Disagreements over trial strategy, specifically how to handle the examination of expert witnesses, among other things. Plus, Chernoff says, "You can only impose on co-counsel for so long."

Flanagan says, "Dr. Murray got Monday morning-quarterbacking on his doctoring, so I don't want to be Monday morning-quarterbacking Ed's lawyering." But he notes that he disagreed with Chernoff over whether Murray should testify on his own behalf: Flanagan thought he should, but Chernoff said no. In the end, Murray did not take the stand.

"You had a doctor providing an unusual drug under unusual circumstances for an unusual person. We could never get past that as logical as we tried to be. And as much as we tried to differentiate the case from that, we couldn't get past it. There was an elephant in the room and we could never feed it enough peanuts," Chernoff says, referring to the decision not to have Murray testify.

But Flanagan says, "I think the elephant was the need for the doctor to explain what he did."

Flanagan says he also proposed a different tack for cross-examining the last prosecution witness: Dr. Stephen Shafer, an anesthesiologist. "I thought we ought to go after Shafer real hard. Ed didn't," Flanagan says. At trial, it was Chernoff who cross-examined Shafer — instead of Flanagan, as the defense team initially had planned.

The tension between Chernoff and Flanagan was apparent in the documentary "Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Fatal Friendship," which recently aired on MNSBC and other networks. In one scene, Chernoff prepares to leave Flanagan's house as Flanagan curses at Chernoff, then admonishes him saying he has the trial strategy "all mapped out. . . ."

Chernoff says "the carnival atmosphere" put more pressure on the defense team and on Murray. "The press tried to create drama; the whole thing was a reality show," Chernoff says. Thankfully, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department helped the defense team use "backdoor entrances" to avoid the press, he says. "They took my client and me away from the hordes of people out there when they could have done nothing."

Occasional weekends home in Houston and several excursions to the beach in California also eased the stress, Chernoff says.

"In a trial like this you are going to have some disagreements among the counsel, and the lead counsel has to make the decisions," Chernoff says. "And that's the way it was happening at this trial. I had to make some decisions."

Back to California
Within 48 hours of the verdict in People of the State of California v. Conrad Robert Murray , Chernoff had flown back to Houston, welcomed by his law partners who needed him to get back to work right away. But it isn't just Murrays' sentencing that will have Chernoff and partner Matt Alford back in California on Nov. 29.

Judge Pastor has ordered Alford to appear before him at a hearing related to Alford's September appearance on NBC's "Today" show. Pastor had issued a gag order in Murray's case. "In my 20 years of practice I have never knowingly or otherwise violated a court order," Alford says.

Chernoff says of the hearing, "I think it's bullshit and typical."

Chernoff and Flanagan will represent Murray at his Nov. 29 sentencing hearing, where Murray faces up to four years in prison. Chernoff says he has turned to a sentencing specialist with a background in the California justice system for help preparing. He has not decided if he will present any witnesses at the hearing. Unlike Texas, California juries do not participate in sentencing, he says.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Murray, did not return a telephone call and an email seeking comment.

Chernoff says he has received telephone calls from prospective clients who watched him defend Murray. "I've already got a couple calls from California," notes Chernoff, who passed the California bar exam last year. [See "Houston Meets Hollywood," Texas Lawyer , Jan. 31, 2011, page 1.]

But he has no plans to take on any more California cases. "I'm not saying there is not another case; I reckon I will. But it's going to have to be a special case."

It is unknown who will represent Murray in his appeal, Chernoff says. Flanagan says he prefers trial work. Chernoff says he already has spent three months away from his Houston firm, and his partners and family "deserve better than that." Plus he has a trial set to begin in a Houston court on Dec. 15.

He believes a new lawyer who wasn't involved with the trial will have a fresh perspective and be better equipped to develop an effective appellate strategy for Murray.

Citing attorney-client privilege, Chernoff and Flanagan decline to discuss how much they charged Murray in legal fees. But so far, the financial remuneration for representing Murray has not been equal to the task, Chernoff says. "If Dr. Murray had paid me a quarter-million dollars, it was entirely too little considering the amount of work that was involved and the collateral issues that were attached," Chernoff says.

In January, Chernoff told Texas Lawye r, "If I walk out with my client at the end of the trial, it's going to have a tremendous impact on my practice. If I don't walk out [with him], I'm going to be the guy who lost the biggest trial since O.J. Simpson's." Now that Murray's trial is over, Chernoff sticks by that sentiment.

"I'm glad I did it," he says, "but, yes, it's a big loss. But as a defense attorney you are not worth a crap if you don't try these things. Defense attorneys often lose, but what differentiates those attorneys are those who are willing to get on the bull in the first place."


Chernoff hat also noch einen Spezialisten ( mit einem Hintergrund in der kalifornischen Justiz ) hinzugezogen und beide bereiten sich auf den 29. November vor......

Wieviele Spezialisten, werden denn noch rangekarrt um NUR DIE ENTSCHEIDUNG IN DEN STRAFMASS ZU FÄLLEN! Wo führt das noch hin Was kommt dabei rum??
CM erwartet sein Strafmass, 1,2,3 oder 4 Jahre, Entzug seiner Lizenz als Arzt oder nicht....was folgt sind wieder werden Spezialisten eingeladen zur Beratung, um ALLES daran zu setzen ein " Guten Abschuss für CM rauszuschlagen " !!
Michael hatte da keinen Spezialisten an Seiner Seite und auch keine Chance weiter die TII Tour zumachen.
Ich Frage nicht nach der Fairness, es würde nur wieder in einer Endlosschleife zum Gedanken kommen und zum Schluss wieder zum Ausgangspunkt kommen.
Gerechtigkeit.....und Einsicht bei dem Menschen der es verursacht hat.....aber auch das wäre wieder nur ein Wunsch von mir.....

[Brandon]

Mir war nur wichtig, dass ich das mal schreibe über meine Sicht auf Michaels Eigenanteil (weil ich ja mitunter hier als die große "Sockelhieverin" empfunden werde.
Das ist nitnichten so, aber zur Zeit will ich das für mich ausklammern.

Lach, als "Sockelhieverin" hab ich dich nun eher nicht wahrgenommen, eher als lebendes Archiv.
Deine Sicht in Post 633 fand ich gut dargestellt und kann auch persönlich was rausziehen. Der Eigenanteil von MJ gehört hier wirklich nicht hin, denn er ist viel zu komplex und würde den "Schuldig-Thread" verwässern. Ich denke aber auch, daß es für einen eigenen Thread zu dem Thema "Michael spielt das Lied vom Tod" noch viel zu früh ist. Über seine Entscheidungen und Verantwortungen kann man vielleicht zu späteren Zeiten mal diskutieren, wenn das Thema nicht mehr so emotional belegt ist.

[Lena]

Upps, auch Chernoff wird Murray nicht bei einer Berufung vertreten. Chernoff meint es ist besser, wenn ein neuer Anwalt den Fall übersieht. Chernoff u. Flanagan verweigern Auskünfte über ihre Forderungen an Murray. Aber Chernoff sagt:" Auch wenn Murray eine viertel Million gezahlt hätte, es wäre zu wenig für den Aufwand an Zeit und die umfassenden Themen die zu bearbeiten waren"

Discord Over Strategy on Dr. Conrad Murray's Defense Team

The lawyers representing Dr. Conrad Murray in Los Angeles Superior Court had no reason to cheer on Nov. 8, but it wasn't just the guilty verdict that created tension on the trial team.

For much of the trial, discord dominated relations between Houston lawyer Ed Chernoff, who led the criminal-defense team for Murray, and his co-counsel J. Michael Flanagan of Glendale, Calif.'s Flanagan Unger Grover & McCool. Neither lawyer plans to represent Murray on appeal.

"This is the first time I've done a case with co-counsel in 30 years, and we had a difference of opinion about how the case should be handled," Flanagan says.

The California criminal trial of Murray ended with the jury convicting him of one count of involuntary manslaughter related to the death of pop star Michael Jackson. Citing Murray's significant ties outside the state of California (Murray formerly had a practice in Houston) and public safety concerns, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael E. Pastor remanded Murray into custody, noting sentencing would occur on Nov. 29.

Chernoff of Stradley Chernoff & Alford sat at the defense table with Flanagan for the entire six weeks of the trial. At the start, Chernoff lived at Flanagan's home to save on expenses, but after several weeks Chernoff says he moved out. The cause of the strained relationship? Disagreements over trial strategy, specifically how to handle the examination of expert witnesses, among other things. Plus, Chernoff says, "You can only impose on co-counsel for so long."

Flanagan says, "Dr. Murray got Monday morning-quarterbacking on his doctoring, so I don't want to be Monday morning-quarterbacking Ed's lawyering." But he notes that he disagreed with Chernoff over whether Murray should testify on his own behalf: Flanagan thought he should, but Chernoff said no. In the end, Murray did not take the stand.

"You had a doctor providing an unusual drug under unusual circumstances for an unusual person. We could never get past that as logical as we tried to be. And as much as we tried to differentiate the case from that, we couldn't get past it. There was an elephant in the room and we could never feed it enough peanuts," Chernoff says, referring to the decision not to have Murray testify.

But Flanagan says, "I think the elephant was the need for the doctor to explain what he did."

Flanagan says he also proposed a different tack for cross-examining the last prosecution witness: Dr. Stephen Shafer, an anesthesiologist. "I thought we ought to go after Shafer real hard. Ed didn't," Flanagan says. At trial, it was Chernoff who cross-examined Shafer — instead of Flanagan, as the defense team initially had planned.

The tension between Chernoff and Flanagan was apparent in the documentary "Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Fatal Friendship," which recently aired on MNSBC and other networks. In one scene, Chernoff prepares to leave Flanagan's house as Flanagan curses at Chernoff, then admonishes him saying he has the trial strategy "all mapped out. . . ."

Chernoff says "the carnival atmosphere" put more pressure on the defense team and on Murray. "The press tried to create drama; the whole thing was a reality show," Chernoff says. Thankfully, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department helped the defense team use "backdoor entrances" to avoid the press, he says. "They took my client and me away from the hordes of people out there when they could have done nothing."

Occasional weekends home in Houston and several excursions to the beach in California also eased the stress, Chernoff says.

"In a trial like this you are going to have some disagreements among the counsel, and the lead counsel has to make the decisions," Chernoff says. "And that's the way it was happening at this trial. I had to make some decisions."

Back to California

Within 48 hours of the verdict in People of the State of California v. Conrad Robert Murray , Chernoff had flown back to Houston, welcomed by his law partners who needed him to get back to work right away. But it isn't just Murrays' sentencing that will have Chernoff and partner Matt Alford back in California on Nov. 29.

Judge Pastor has ordered Alford to appear before him at a hearing related to Alford's September appearance on NBC's "Today" show. Pastor had issued a gag order in Murray's case. "In my 20 years of practice I have never knowingly or otherwise violated a court order," Alford says.

Chernoff says of the hearing, "I think it's bullish and typical."

Chernoff and Flanagan will represent Murray at his Nov. 29 sentencing hearing, where Murray faces up to four years in prison. Chernoff says he has turned to a sentencing specialist with a background in the California justice system for help preparing. He has not decided if he will present any witnesses at the hearing. Unlike Texas, California juries do not participate in sentencing, he says.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Murray, did not return a telephone call and an email seeking comment.

Chernoff says he has received telephone calls from prospective clients who watched him defend Murray. "I've already got a couple calls from California," notes Chernoff, who passed the California bar exam last year. [See "Houston Meets Hollywood," Texas Lawyer , Jan. 31, 2011, page 1.]

But he has no plans to take on any more California cases. "I'm not saying there is not another case; I reckon I will. But it's going to have to be a special case."

It is unknown who will represent Murray in his appeal, Chernoff says. Flanagan says he prefers trial work. Chernoff says he already has spent three months away from his Houston firm, and his partners and family "deserve better than that." Plus he has a trial set to begin in a Houston court on Dec. 15.

He believes a new lawyer who wasn't involved with the trial will have a fresh perspective and be better equipped to develop an effective appellate strategy for Murray.

Citing attorney-client privilege, Chernoff and Flanagan decline to discuss how much they charged Murray in legal fees. But so far, the financial remuneration for representing Murray has not been equal to the task, Chernoff says. "If Dr. Murray had paid me a quarter-million dollars, it was entirely too little considering the amount of work that was involved and the collateral issues that were attached," Chernoff says.

In January, Chernoff told Texas Lawyer, "If I walk out with my client at the end of the trial, it's going to have a tremendous impact on my practice. If I don't walk out [with him], I'm going to be the guy who lost the biggest trial since O.J. Simpson's." Now that Murray's trial is over, Chernoff sticks by that sentiment.

"I'm glad I did it," he says, "but, yes, it's a big loss. But as a defense attorney you are not worth a crap if you don't try these things. Defense attorneys often lose, but what differentiates those attorneys are those who are willing to get on the bull in the first place."

http://www.law.com/j...4349&slreturn=1

[Memphis]

Auch wenn Murray eine viertel Million gezahlt hätte, es wäre zu wenig für den Aufwand an Zeit und die umfassenden Themen die zu bearbeiten waren"[/url]

jetzt weiß ich auch warum da so viele unschuldig hingerichtet werden
(meinung=unabhängig von CM-prozess)

[TrueCrypt]

https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/abc7MurrayTrial

ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 29, next Tuesday, at 8:30 am PT.
22 Nov via Twitter for iPad


Urteilsverkündung ist für den 29. November, am kommenden Dienstag, um 8:30 am PT angesetzt.


ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
On another note, Judge Pastor approved our request for cameras to film sentencing of Dr Murray. We'll live stream the entire hearing.
21 Nov via Twitter for iPad


....... Richter Pastor genehmigte auf Unsere Anfrage hin die Urteilsverkündung von Dr. Murray, mit Kameras zu filmen. Wir werden die gesamte Verhandlung Live übertragen......


ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
Defense attorneys will be arguing for probation only as sentencing without any jail time. Prosecutor will probably ask for max time of 4 yrs
21 Nov via Twitter for iPad


Die Anwälte der Verteidigung werden auf Bewährung zur Verurteilung argumentieren, keine Gefängnisstrafe. Staatsanwaltschaft wird wahrscheinlich die Zeit von 4 Jahren fordern.....maximal..


ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
Defense attorneys will most likely use this ruling in the appeal process. Attorneys have until Wed to file their sentence recommendation.
21 Nov via Twitter for iPad



Die Anwälte der Verteidigung werden wahrscheinlich in die Berufung gehen, gegen diese Entscheidung
Die Anwälte haben bis Mittwoch Zeit, ihre Berufungsbegründung einzureichen.

ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
If Lidocaine was not found mixed w/ Propofol defense attorneys would make a motion for new trial based on newly found evidence.
21 Nov via Twitter for iPad


Da Lidocain gemischt mit Propofol nicht gefunden wurde, wollen die Anwälte der Verteidigung einen Antrag stellen, um eine neue Untersuchung durchführen zu lassen, basierend auf neu gefundene Beweise.


ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
Judge Pastor denied the defense request saying they should've asked for this testing a long time ago.
21 Nov via Twitter for iPad


Richter Pastor verweigerte den Antrag der Verteidigung. Er sagt dass sie schon vor langer Zeit diese Untersuchung hätten beantragen können.


ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
Attorneys said that if Dr. Steven Shafer's theory about infusion is correct, there should be Lidocaine mixed w/ Propofol in the 100ml bottle
21 Nov via Twitter for iPad


Anwälte sagen, falls Dr. Steven Shafers Theorie über die Infusion richtig sei, dann sollte es in der 100ml Flasche ein Lidocain Gemisch mit Propofol sein.....

ABC7 Murray Trial
@abc7MurrayTrial
Good afternoon from the ABC7 newsroom. Dr Conrad Murray's attorneys went to court today to ask Judge Michael Pastor to test Propofol bottle
21 Nov via Twitter for iPad



Guten Tag, Newsroom ABC7. Dr. Conrad Murrays Anwälte sind heute vor Gericht gegangen, um Richter Michael Pastor zu bitten, Propofolflasche testen zulassen....

[TrueCrypt]

21.11.2011
Antrag von Jackson-Leibarzt auf neuen Labortest abgewiesen
Begründung: Anwälte hätten den Test bereits vor Monaten beantragen können

http://www.abendzeitung-nuernberg.de/default.aspx?ID=12512&showNews=1071413

Los Angeles (dapd). Der wegen fahrlässiger Tötung verurteilte Leibarzt des verstorbenen Sängers Michael Jackson ist mit einem Antrag auf einen unabhängigen Labortest eines wichtigen Beweismaterials gescheitert. Anwälte Conrad Murrays hatten beantragt, dass ein Labor eine kleine Menge Flüssigkeit untersucht, die in einer Ampulle des Anästhetikums Propofol gefunden wurde. Nach Angaben des Verteidigers Michael Flanagan hätten die Ergebnisse des Tests die Theorie eines Zeugen bestätigen können. Dieser hatte ausgesagt, Murray habe Jackson an dessen Todestag allein gelassen, als er an eine Infusion des Narkosemittels Propofol und des Schmerzmittels Lidocain angeschlossen war.

Ein Richter lehnte den Antrag am Montag mit der Begründung ab, die Anwälte hätten den Test bereits vor Monaten beantragen können.

Antrag von Jackson-Leibarzt auf neuen Labortest abgewiesen
Der wegen fahrlässiger Tötung verurteilte Leibarzt des verstorbenen Sängers Michael Jackson ist mit einem Antrag auf einen unabhängigen Labortest eines wichtigen Beweismaterials gescheitert.

http://www.tt.com/csp/cms/sites/tt/Überblick/Freizeitüberblick/Stars/3829776-6/antrag-von-jackson-leibarzt-auf-neuen-labortest-abgewiesen.csp

Los Angeles – Anwälte Conrad Murrays hatten beantragt, dass ein Labor eine kleine Menge Flüssigkeit untersucht, die in einer Ampulle des Anästhetikums Propofol gefunden wurde.
Nach Angaben des Verteidigers Michael Flanagan hätten die Ergebnisse des Tests die Theorie eines Zeugen bestätigen können. Dieser hatte ausgesagt, Murray habe Jackson an dessen Todestag allein gelassen, als er an eine Infusion des Narkosemittels Propofol und des Schmerzmittels Lidocain angeschlossen war.
Ein Richter lehnte den Antrag am Montag mit der Begründung ab, die Anwälte hätten den Test bereits vor Monaten beantragen können. (dapd)


Judge denies Jackson doc's bid for new testing

Monday, November 21, 2011


LOS ANGELES, CA -- A judge denied a request Monday by lawyers for the doctor convicted of causing Michael Jackson's death to have an independent laboratory test the contents of a key vial of evidence.

Just days before the scheduled sentencing of Dr. Conrad Murray, Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said defense attorneys could have sought the testing months ago or even during the doctor's six-week trial but chose not to.

"You're not involved in fishing, you're involved in foraging," Pastor said.

Murray's attorneys wanted a lab to test a small amount of liquid found in a vial of the anesthetic propofol that authorities contend was used to help Jackson sleep on the day he died.

Defense lawyer J. Michael Flanagan argued the results would reveal the accuracy of a theory by a prosecution expert who testified that Murray left Jackson's bedside while the singer was on an IV drip of propofol and the painkiller lidocaine.

Murray had been giving Jackson nightly doses of propofol to help the singer sleep as he prepared for a series of comeback concerts.

Deputy District Attorney David Walgren contended there was no legal basis for the testing and said Murray received a fair trial.

Pastor examined the propofol vial, which was found in the closet of Jackson's bedroom, before issuing his ruling.

Flanagan said it didn't occur to him that the contents of the vial should be tested until after the conclusion of Murray's trial, which ended Nov. 7 with the conviction of the cardiologist on an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Flanagan said if prosecution expert Dr. Steven Shafer's theory is correct, the small amount of liquid that remained in the vial should contain lidocaine. In that case, "that's the ballgame" and would prove Murray did leave the singer alone on an IV drip, Flanagan said.

Flanagan also argued that Shafer didn't tell jurors that he believed Murray injected lidocaine into the propofol vial until Shafer was called as a rebuttal witness in the final moments of testimony.

Walgren said Shafer and other witnesses acknowledged that they didn't know exactly what happened in Jackson's bedroom before the singer's death on June 25, 2009. Shafer was one of several experts who told jurors that he could only theorize on events based on toxicology results, Murray's statements to police and evidence found at the scene.

"Whether there was lidocaine in that bottle or not is completely irrelevant," Walgren said.

Murray is set to be sentenced on Nov. 29. Walgren said he is finalizing work on a sentencing memorandum and several people may speak during the hearing. He did not say whether members of Jackson's family, several of whom attended the trial daily, would offer statements.

Murray remains jailed and faces a possible sentence ranging from probation to up to four years.

(Copyright ©2011 by The Associated Press.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/entertainment&id=8440316

http://ww2.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/k4smdp45kbvsac45qxb4hf55/1479339545.pdf

[Vulcan]

Irgendwas stinkt hier doch gewaltig gegen den Himmel. Ich kann den CM je länger desto weniger als "Täter" ernst nehmen. Der hat sich von A- Z so komplett inkompetent verhalten, dass es kaum zu glauben ist. Und man bedenke, dass es um sehr, sehr viel Zaster ging und wahrscheinlich einige Personen wussten, dass Michael tot mehr wert war als lebendig.

CM soll in den Knast, wenn auch nicht der Wahrheit willen, dann doch zu seinem eigenen Schutz (und für seine Inkompetenz). Zudem werde ich einfach das verdammte Gefühl nicht los, dass Murray noch mehr (zuviel) weiss, was seiner Gesundheit schaden könnte. Ist doch irgendwie komisch, dass ein Arzt, dem während seiner bisherigen Tätigkeit nie ein erwähnenswerter Fehler unterlaufen ist pötzlich zu blöd ist, einen Patienten unter Narkose zu überwachen und im Notfall zu reanimieren. Panik, Schock, akuter Hirnschwund? Ich weiss nicht...

Da steckt doch mehr dahinter...

Dem Kern der Aussage von Q. Jones muss ich wohl zustimmen. Michael in seiner Position hätte sich auch ein Meth-Labor inkl. Chemiker zulegen können. Hat er nicht, dafür aber einen Arzt, der seinen riskanten Anordnungen Folge leistete. CM wäre bestimmt nicht der einzige gewesen, der für Zaster die 5 gerde stehen lässt und mal beide Augen zudrückt. Ach Menschen, jeder hat doch seinen Preis...

Vulcan

[Christine3110]

Tja Vulcan, wie so oft im Leben, irgendwann ist immer das erste Mal.
Es war für CM seine erste intensive Begegnung mit Propofol. Er hatte es sich ja eigentl. auch nicht zugetraut damit korrekt umzugehen, denn warum sonst wollte er unbedingt Dr. Metzger überreden mit ihm zusammenzuarbeiten ???
Der hat abgelehnt u. CM in seiner Selbstüberschätzung u. Geldgeilheit, hat sich trotzdem auf diese tötliche Mission begeben.

Es nutzt nichts ständig irgendwelche andere Ausreden für ihn zu finden u. die Schuld dem großen Ungekannten zuschieben zu wollen, der wußte das Michael tot mehr wert als lebendig war , oder Michael selbst, oder dass, wenn nicht Murray, dann wäre es ein anderer Arzt gewesen...eine Argumentation, die ich sowieso nicht nachvollziehen kann
Stell dir vor, man würde bei jedem Unglück/Verbrechen mit dieser Ausrede kommen, nach dem Motto: stell dich nicht so an, wenn X dich nicht in der U-Bahn zusammengetreten hätte, wäre es halt Y gewesen, also laß ihn laufen.


Es waren 2 Menschen an diesem Unglück beteiligt:
Michael Jackson und Conrad Murray.
Letzterer soll/kann sich doch glücklich schätzen, denn er ist mit dem Leben davongekommen !


Naja...jetzt will CM ja bei der Strafmaßverkündung sein Schweigen brechen!

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/11/dr-conrad-murray-speak-sentencing-michael-jackson-death-trial

...und wieder sind nur die anderen schuld...poor Conrad Murray...

[Dreamerdancer]

Er kann doch seine tolle Doku einfach abspielen lassen, da war er sehr gesprächig,Michael hat ihn die Falle gelockt, armer Murray, na klar sind die anderen Schuld, Murray hat mit dem Tod von Michael nichts zu tun. Die Jury hat ihn völlig zu unrecht schuldig gesprochen.

[ulla]

v.Christine
Naja...jetzt will CM ja bei der Strafmaßverkündung sein Schweigen brechen!


Ist das überhaupt möglich??? Ginge doch eigentlich nur in einem Berufungsverfahren.

Ermittlungen sind abgeschlossen, alle Zeugen gehört, Urteil "Schuldig" verkündet.

Wer weis was ???

[p.anh]

Ach,der man hat schon im Doku genug geredet,oder? (ich hab 's noch nicht geguckt.)
wird bestimmt wieder : Ich fühle mich nicht Schuldig,oder ich hab nichts falsch gemacht.
Die andere sind Schuld.Der bleibt am besten im Knast und zwar 4 volle jahre lang.