Some of the odd things at trial & outside courthouse so far

[starlight30]

That is a good find the missing star on the cd.
Today on HLN, a male reporter was in the hallway outside the court room. I guy with a black hat and white fuzzy hair walks by and goes out the door. Then next scene, reporter is back and guy is standing behind him. "Bystander" and fluffy beard and a jean jacket with white patches on the shoulders was looking around. It was very funny.
Jane Velez was talking about LaToya and her conspiracy theory, Jane said thousands of people would have to agree to go along it.
Patient Gerry Causy of Dr. CM kissed CM on the forehead. All too funny.

[PureLove]

Is it me or does Dr White look like this actor? 
 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I thought he looked familiar then remembered the "doctor" in the movie Patch Adams.  Anyone else thinks it's the same guy? Keep in mind he looks older in court and wears glasses.

Here's the trailer to Patch Adams.

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/1gTwkAL3kLY[/embed]

Robin Williams is one of my fave actors and I don't think he looks like him at all. Here is a recent picture of Mr Williams.

[everlastinglove_MJ]

I previously posted an article about Murray's 5 ex-patients who testified today as character witnesses for the defense. I was searching for other witness patients. I found one: ex-patient, Robert Russel, who was testifying on September 30. He was quite frustrated because he felt abandoned by dr. Murray after the doctor told him he was leaving his practice to care solely for Michael Jackson. It strikes me that this only 1 "less positive" testimony about Murray was scheduled earlier and the 5 "positive" witnesses were scheduled closer to the date of verdict, which could have an influencial effect on the jury, I suppose. :?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[Snoopy71]

I previously posted an article about Murray's 5 ex-patients who testified today as character witnesses for the defense. I was searching for other witness patients. I found one: ex-patient, Robert Russel, who was testifying on September 30. He was quite frustrated because he felt abandoned by dr. Murray after the doctor told him he was leaving his practice to care solely for Michael Jackson. It strikes me that this only 1 "less positive" testimony about Murray was scheduled earlier and the 5 "positive" witnesses were scheduled closer to the date of verdict, which could have an influencial effect on the jury, I suppose. :?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment
Defenses focus-------->Character

The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication.

In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient).  When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)
 

So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...) then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...) (character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".

 
All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient.
 

People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting.  So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.


I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.

I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case"

...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).

[everlastinglove_MJ]

I previously posted an article about Murray's 5 ex-patients who testified today as character witnesses for the defense. I was searching for other witness patients. I found one: ex-patient, Robert Russel, who was testifying on September 30. He was quite frustrated because he felt abandoned by dr. Murray after the doctor told him he was leaving his practice to care solely for Michael Jackson. It strikes me that this only 1 "less positive" testimony about Murray was scheduled earlier and the 5 "positive" witnesses were scheduled closer to the date of verdict, which could have an influencial effect on the jury, I suppose. :?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment
Defenses focus-------->Character

The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication.

In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient).  When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)
 

So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...) then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...) (character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".

 
All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient.
 

People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting.  So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.


I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.

I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case"

...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).

Thanks for your clear explanation. Actually, it is not long winded, on the contrary, it's interesting to see this from a juror's perspective . I have no knowledge of law cases, trials etc. and I've never seen a courthouse from the inside (glad I am).

It's more simple than most people realize.

Personally, I can't imagine that it's so simple. I mean, when you must adhere to specifics as a juror, you must be rational and block your emotions as well. I think that's not so simple, because even if you adhere to specifics rationally as a juror, hearing the loving and emotional testimonies of the patients and seeing the reaction of Murray, it will somehow touch the jurors (or at least 1 or 2). I still find the timing of the testimonies of the patient witnesses striking. Convenient timing for the defense, because they are close to the date of the verdict. I believe that recent remarkable testimonies or situations will always stick into the memories of the juror. But that's from my own perspective and I'm not a juror and I guess I will never be. I find it very interesting though  .
 
With L.O.V.E.

[Snoopy71]

I previously posted an article about Murray's 5 ex-patients who testified today as character witnesses for the defense. I was searching for other witness patients. I found one: ex-patient, Robert Russel, who was testifying on September 30. He was quite frustrated because he felt abandoned by dr. Murray after the doctor told him he was leaving his practice to care solely for Michael Jackson. It strikes me that this only 1 "less positive" testimony about Murray was scheduled earlier and the 5 "positive" witnesses were scheduled closer to the date of verdict, which could have an influencial effect on the jury, I suppose. :?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment
Defenses focus-------->Character

The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication.

In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient).  When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)
 

So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...) then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...) (character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".

 
All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient.
 

People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting.  So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.


I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.

I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case"

...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).

Thanks for your clear explanation. Actually, it is not long winded, on the contrary, it's interesting to see this from a juror's perspective . I have no knowledge of law cases, trials etc. and I've never seen a courthouse from the inside (glad I am).

It's more simple than most people realize.

Personally, I can't imagine that it's so simple. I mean, when you must adhere to specifics as a juror, you must be rational and block your emotions as well. I think that's not so simple, because even if you adhere to specifics rationally as a juror, hearing the loving and emotional testimonies of the patients and seeing the reaction of Murray, it will somehow touch the jurors (or at least 1 or 2). I still find the timing of the testimonies of the patient witnesses striking. Convenient timing for the defense, because they are close to the date of the verdict. I believe that recent remarkable testimonies or situations will always stick into the memories of the juror. But that's from my own perspective and I'm not a juror and I guess I will never be. I find it very interesting though  .
 
With L.O.V.E.

My apologies...I didn't mean to imply that jurors have to be insensitive  :lol:  On the contrary, you do get emotional and it can influence your perspective and defense attorneys count on it!  But there are certain instructions and guidelines you do have to adhere to.

Yesterdays testimony would have been hard to sit through---> I went through a box of tissue just watching it on my computer, I imagine being there was very emotionally charged. It's easy to get caught up in the science and forget there are real people behind the situation. The defense chose their character witness' well.

 /bravo/

But in terms of being on a jury, I just meant that people are sometimes "shell shocked" at how fast a jury reaches a verdict in some cases (usually only within a matter of hours) even if presenting the case had taken weeks or months! It's a very exciting experience if you ever get the opportunity. I used to dread jury duty until I was actually chosen for that first case. It definitely gives you a whole new appreciation of the legal system.

 /judge/

[fordtocarr]

OKAY!!!!  Full out facial view on top of cops desk of a
JACK-0- lantern!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On first half hour or so...then GONE   
[/b][/i][/font][/color]

[bec]

[anewfan]

Was this today, Bec? I haven't been able to watch.

[bec]

@anewfan, yes, about an hour ago.

[fordtocarr]

Maybe that means, jacko was in court..but now is gone.
Maybe it means, that he WAS JACK0, now is only the
JACK-O-lantern, which, now has disappeared/gone.
We'll see what comes back!

[_Anna_]

"DEMORAL administered by doctor in Beverly Hills"

       You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[everlastinglove_MJ]

I previously posted an article about Murray's 5 ex-patients who testified today as character witnesses for the defense. I was searching for other witness patients. I found one: ex-patient, Robert Russel, who was testifying on September 30. He was quite frustrated because he felt abandoned by dr. Murray after the doctor told him he was leaving his practice to care solely for Michael Jackson. It strikes me that this only 1 "less positive" testimony about Murray was scheduled earlier and the 5 "positive" witnesses were scheduled closer to the date of verdict, which could have an influencial effect on the jury, I suppose. :?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Prosecutions focus---->Abandonment
Defenses focus-------->Character

The defense has to "re-humanize" Dr. Murray. A man who could make a mistake, but never intentionally put his patients in "harms way." To show him as a victim of some unforseen complication.

In technical terms the prosecution has already proved their case (abandonment). Murray admitted on tape (police interview) that he left the patients side momentarily and then returned. The phone records (validated with witness testimony) also support this confession (time lapses in focused care of the patient).  When Murray went downstairs to the kitchen and also waiitng on the landing at the top of stairs to get help (leaving the patient yet again instead of dialing 911), these actions also supported by testimony (Chase, Alvarez). Not giving full disclosure of medications Murray used on the patient, this action supported by testimony (EMT's, Doctors at UCLA ) ----> all of which prove without a reasonable doubt abandonment. Abandonment=negligence (manslaughter)
 

So what the defense tried to do is question the accuracy of the investigation (was evidence tampered with, did the patient conceal any prior medications/addictions, dispute that the amounts of medications given could have been lethal, establish a lack of willingness for others to respond to the urgency of the matter, etc...) then they have to "re-humanize" him, (show him as a caring physician, diligent, knowledgable competent etc...) (character)to establish that the circumstances were beyond his control and unforseen; a unexplainable "fluke".

 
All it takes is "reasonable doubt". Doubt that Dr. Murray did anything that would have intentionally killed a patient.
 

People have been known to die even with all the available medical measures taken in a proper setting.  So the defense has to establish that nothing Murray could have done would have made a difference...it was not intentional.


I've sat on 3 jurys...2 criminal, 1 civil...and I can tell you, from a "juror" perspective, this case was over two weeks ago. Jurors have to adhere to specifics, testimony is given to support it, but alot of what we hear during the trial is thrown out. It's more simple than most people realize.

I am speaking of course as if this was a "real case"

...sorry so long winded, but to answer your question, the first witness was used by the prosecution because he supports (abandonment), the others support (character).

Thanks for your clear explanation. Actually, it is not long winded, on the contrary, it's interesting to see this from a juror's perspective . I have no knowledge of law cases, trials etc. and I've never seen a courthouse from the inside (glad I am).

It's more simple than most people realize.

Personally, I can't imagine that it's so simple. I mean, when you must adhere to specifics as a juror, you must be rational and block your emotions as well. I think that's not so simple, because even if you adhere to specifics rationally as a juror, hearing the loving and emotional testimonies of the patients and seeing the reaction of Murray, it will somehow touch the jurors (or at least 1 or 2). I still find the timing of the testimonies of the patient witnesses striking. Convenient timing for the defense, because they are close to the date of the verdict. I believe that recent remarkable testimonies or situations will always stick into the memories of the juror. But that's from my own perspective and I'm not a juror and I guess I will never be. I find it very interesting though  .
 
With L.O.V.E.

My apologies...I didn't mean to imply that jurors have to be insensitive  :lol:  On the contrary, you do get emotional and it can influence your perspective and defense attorneys count on it!  But there are certain instructions and guidelines you do have to adhere to.

Yesterdays testimony would have been hard to sit through---> I went through a box of tissue just watching it on my computer, I imagine being there was very emotionally charged. It's easy to get caught up in the science and forget there are real people behind the situation. The defense chose their character witness' well.

 /bravo/

But in terms of being on a jury, I just meant that people are sometimes "shell shocked" at how fast a jury reaches a verdict in some cases (usually only within a matter of hours) even if presenting the case had taken weeks or months! It's a very exciting experience if you ever get the opportunity. I used to dread jury duty until I was actually chosen for that first case. It definitely gives you a whole new appreciation of the legal system.

 /judge/

It's a very exciting experience if you ever get the opportunity.

I bet it is a very exciting experience, though I guess I will never get the opportunity to be a juror, because here in The Netherlands we have a completely different judicial system with no jury You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login. That's why it is so interesting to see how the judicial system in the US works. Ok, this trial's not a real case  , I still learn a lot. I have to admit that I was a little sceptical about the high risk of media influence on the jury, but no offense because I'm just an "outsider" who's familiar with another judicial system.
 
 
 

[Snoopy71]

Love how Ed has a matching pumpkin orange tie.  I can't even imagine where you'd shop to find a silk orange neck tie.

I know someone else who likes the color orange  :lol:

[MeandMyShadow]

As far as I know, they have not mentioned anything in regards to Dr. Klein's records of administering Demerol, that the notes are written up for a patient known as Arnold Omar.  It has been said that that is one of the many names MJ used in getting prescriptions.  But I have two questions.  One, if this was all legit and proper, why use a fake name?  Doctor/patient records should be private, so normally, no need for a fake name, right?  And secondly, is this also yet another clue in that it's not really MJ having the demerol, and the kangaroo court is assuming facts not in evidence?  After all, none was found in his system (assuming he really is dead)  NOT!