Conrad Murray Alleged not used in other trials

[_Anna_]

Ok, so everything has always an explanation that doesn't fit with our belief.
This means it's perfectly ok, the verdict is legal, the trial is real. So what else can I say?

[ForstAMoon]

Ok, so everything has always an explanation that doesn't fit with our belief.
This means it's perfectly ok, the verdict is legal, the trial is real. So what else can I say?

Anna, why are you adopting such definite view here?

First of all I said it MIGHT BE the explanation, so it does not mean it is.

But even it is, it does not change my believe it all is a hoax. I just cannot adopt hoax-friendly perspective to everything that is out there. That would be a bit too naive for me to do that. More than two years have passed, there have been things I was able to explain and things I was not, I guess same as many other members here.

The trial is just one piece of a puzzle for me. And I still do not see the whole picture of what we are to compete.

[_Anna_]

I say this because seeing that things like that- strange, illogical, absurd- can have an explanation to why they seem strange,illogical,absurd, makes me question everything we consider straight-in-our-face clue, that they can be our imagination and our mind set to see them this way.

I don't know much about law, but seeing that in any other case, even if you choose only from the high profile cases- OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony are 2 huge high profile cases like Murray's case- never did they read in the verdict "alleged victim". But I leave it this way, if even an attorney answered above that this is because the verdict forms were printed before, while Murray was an alleged criminal and Michael was still an alleged victim. More lack of sense I haven't heard, and he's an attorney. I mean Casey Anthony's verdict forms weren't drafted before the verdict? Still, they haven't written and haven't read "alleged victim".

And another thing, is this normal for jurors to write things on the forms? Like Judge Pastor said "and you put some squiggles after that?". I don't know if this is possible, to me it sounds ridiculous. First, the date was wrong, they erased and put June 25 and then some squiggles. Squiggles? How can they be allowed to draw squiggles on a verdict form?

[suspicious mind]

I say this because seeing that things like that- strange, illogical, absurd- can have an explanation to why they seem strange,illogical,absurd, makes me question everything we consider straight-in-our-face clue, that they can be our imagination and our mind set to see them this way.

so on the surface it looks like there are two options 1. the way hoaxer's see it , he is alive and in complete control of what is going on.
                                                                                               2. the way the deaders see it , he was murdered.

 can it be that what one perhaps should ask themselves , why should i  be limited to those options only? the truth has to be one of these? it can't fall somewhre in between?  could it be that is very attitude can limit the ability of those who question what has happened to put this in front of others to give them the chance to reconcider what they think they already know? just sayin'

[pepper]

Look what a lawyer answered to this question:

"When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true.
Michael Stone"

Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE
3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300
Seal Beach, CA 90740

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What I DON'T understand is- in OJ's case, in Casey Anthony's case, the victim was STILL alleged before the verdict, as in any other case, yet when they read the verdict form the victim was "VICTIM" not "ALLEGED VICTIM".

Makes no fucking sense! Why on earth OJ's victim, Anthony's victim and any other victim in a trial, while reading the verdict, they were "victim" not "alleged victim"? If they printed the verdict forms beforehand and put "alleged victim", then why only in THIS case? Why didn't they print the verdict forms with "alleged victim" in OJ's case? Or in Anthony's case? Why their forms were printed with "victim"and not with "alleged victim", if that's how it's done?

In OJ's case: verdict form printed before, read "victim"
In Anthony's case: verdict form printed before, read "victim"
In Murray's case: verdict form printed before, read "alleged victim"

Also in other cases it seems the accused stands up and faces the jury as the verdict is read.  Which was not the case with Murray.

[bec]

They said alleged because it's a hoax and MJ isn't a victim. Why do people here have such a hard time believing that? You're going to usurp logic and common sense in favor of an explanation by a self touted internet lawyer that makes no sense at all?

Come on people. Just believe already.

Some here are as bad as the non-believers. We sit and wonder when non-believers will catch on... at the same time dreaming up explanations for the clues in order to disprove the hoax. Wait, what?!?

[GINAFELICIA]

Hey bec we try to find an explanation for why they said "alleged".
I do not believe there is something wrong in trying to find a reasonable explanation.

That lawyer makes a stupid explanation if you ask me.
No court of law should accept a wrong drafted verdict. What, they couldn't afford another piece of paper to write it again?

[GINAFELICIA]

@Forstamoon I must confess I can't follow your explanation.
Of course the defendant and the victim are "alleged" during a trial. This is no reason to still call the victim "alleged" after a verdict was reached.

Sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say. It is difficult for me to fully understand English.

[ForstAMoon]

@Forstamoon I must confess I can't follow your explanation.
Of course the defendant and the victim are "alleged" during a trial. This is no reason to still call the victim "alleged" after a verdict was reached.

Sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say. It is difficult for me to fully understand English.

Gina, in the nutshell, I just wanted to say that "to allege", "alleged" is used in jury manuals and instructions, as well as used while describing the case by e.g. media. Plus the date of death as described in prosecution documents was presented as "on or about 25th", what may give grounds to say the alleged date of death was 25th.

English is not my mother tongue as well, and most of all - I am not US lawyer  geek/ , so I cannot say with (any) confidence nor I can assure this what I say is right. 

[GINAFELICIA]

Of course it is all alleged until proven one way or another.
Still this doesn't explain it.

I am used to believe Americans are let's say less rigorously with the papers as we, Europeans, are.
Just see the Joseph/Joe matter. In my country such a mistake wouldn't be allowed.

But maybe they don't care too much about the form of the documents. maybe they just care for the background matter.

For example in my country I wouldn't be allowed to legitimate myself with the driving license, but to them it is normal.

[hesouttamylife]

gina, I undestand the confusion because it puzzles me too.  Unless this is definitely a hoax court, alledged woud be removed once the defendant had been found guilty of the crime.  I don’t see any other explanation for it. 

Maybe in our letters to judge Pastor, which I surely intend to write, we could ask him why is the word alledged still used after the verdict of guilty had been rendered; as well as why Murray and the defense team were able to dishonor the gag order and do interviews for a tv special during the trial with no consequences /white flag/.

[_Anna_]

Of course it is all alleged until proven one way or another.
Still this doesn't explain it.

I am used to believe Americans are let's say less rigorously with the papers as we, Europeans, are.
Just see the Joseph/Joe matter. In my country such a mistake wouldn't be allowed.

But maybe they don't care too much about the form of the documents. maybe they just care for the background matter.

For example in my country I wouldn't be allowed to legitimate myself with the driving license, but to them it is normal.

True. This Joe/Joseph still drives me insane. Jermaine in his book said "I don't know where this rumor began, about his name being Joseph. Maybe people want to believe in this myth because our father's same is Joseph, but my mother shortened it to Joe at birth.His name on the birth certificate is Joe."

Just look how he says it- " From somehwere and especially after Michael's death, a rumor began that his middle name was Joseph. Joe was his name, as recorded in his birth certificate". Rumor from somewhere? It's on all documents since June 2009. Myth?

Here it's not possible, I don't think that US is that different, after all FBI files said clearly "his real name is Michael Joe Jackson".

I even remember when I was in school, a classmate of mine was called "Daniela". people always called her "Dana", and she was used to "Dana". When we had to give and exam, she simply forgot her actual name was "Daniela" and wrote "Dana" on the exam sheet. The professor had to have her take another exam sheet and write again, because it was not matching her identity card name. And it was just a fucking exam, not a court of law case.

[GINAFELICIA]

I didn't know Jermaine said that in his book. I don't know where to find his book here .

These Jacksons are driving me crazy. So we discuss for 2+ years about his name on legal documents and they don't even notice?

Or they just do not care.

hesoutofmylife I wonder if the judge will answer to your question.

[_Anna_]

From Jermaine's book
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[GINAFELICIA]

Do these people care about us at all :cry:?

Why they don't adress this issue?

I just wish they would stop the games and tell the truth, whatever that is