Conrad Murray Alleged not used in other trials

[GINAFELICIA]

Gina, I have NEVER heard a verdict read as alleged.  When the verdict is read, all the alleged stuff flies out the window, especially when that verdict is guilty of a crime.   It's then not alleged anymore.

I think some groundwork has been laid.  I don't know if he plans on coming back, but the more I think about the little things such as this alleged bit.... 

But how was it possible then, how?!?!? Nobody else heard it, the media people haven't heard it?!?!?1 Why they don't talk about it?!

[bec]

What are they going to say? Uh, we might have been wrong? This might be a hoax and we might have been fooled?

Yeah right. We get to see how blindly people follow the media, and for how long, and how deeply and obsessively.

[MJFan4444]

Gina, I have NEVER heard a verdict read as alleged.  When the verdict is read, all the alleged stuff flies out the window, especially when that verdict is guilty of a crime.   It's then not alleged anymore.

I think some groundwork has been laid.  I don't know if he plans on coming back, but the more I think about the little things such as this alleged bit.... 

But how was it possible then, how?!?!? Nobody else heard it, the media people haven't heard it?!?!?1 Why they don't talk about it?!

Gina, how is it possible that the media focused their cameras on (their words) "the seal of the great state of California" and it not even be the correct seal...32 stars and all that?  I haven't heard anyone in the media pick up on that say "Ey, yo...wait a min...isn't there 32 stars on there?"  Not one.  It seems there's a lot that isn't being picked up on, or talked about.

[GINAFELICIA]

MJFan4444 there were contradictions in the testimonies that nobody seemed to notice except us.
I don't have statistics now but if i would have enough time to go and hear it all again I am sure I could write them all down.
Let's only remember the paramedics saying different things about what they saw when they entered the bedroom, one saw Michael on the bed, one saw Micvael half on the bed, half on the floor, and Alvarez said he was still on the phone with the 911 assistant and had his phone against his shoulder because during that time he was helping Murray removing Michael from the bed to the floor.

Are they all crazy /scream/ ?!

And nobody, not the lawyers, not the jury, not the media noticed this things that don't match, except us?!?!?!?

 

[annieareyouokannie]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Scroll down to alleged. End of story!

[annieareyouokannie]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sorry, here is another one!!!!
This has to be the Clue of all Clues!!!
I love you Michael <3

[GINAFELICIA]

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

[Suzy7]

Ofcourse the media won't mention it Gina. We are aware, most are asleep; so they don't even notice the most obvious inconsistencies, let alone comment on them.

[_Anna_]

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"

[annieareyouokannie]

Exactly _Anna_  I wish the judge would give us an explanation, that would be
interesting now wouldnt it!!

[annieareyouokannie]

So they couldnt draft another form that does not say the word alleged??

[GINAFELICIA]

 For the accuracy of it they should have drafted another form of verdict. Nowadays with all the computers is not that difficult is it? I mean it is just a sentence, for God's sake. Michael Jackson deserves that much :cry:

[_Anna_]

Casey Anthony verdict forms:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Other verdict forms I found

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[suspicious mind]

it is almost like it is saying this person has been known as michael jackson but indeed is not michael jackson. make any sense or have i gone loopy again.
another thing has been buggin me.  when witnesses are sworn in they are sworn to tell the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth. well doesn't the admonishen to answer yes or no prohibit this if the counsel does not pursue the line of questioning?  see what i am saying? any thoughts? i still think there were so many other witnesses that could have been called had they wanted the truth. there has to be more coming down the line one way or another with this.  also with the closing arguments did anyone think that chernoff ended in a rather abrupt non conclusive fashion ? he almost looked like something inside of him told him to shut up and go sit down.

[ForstAMoon]

ok, I did some checking and this MIGHT BE the explanation for "alleged" victim or date.


These are official documents for jury in California (instructions, manuals).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

when you go to this doc You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login page 43

there is the following wording:  "The People allege that the defendant committed the followingcrime"
 
Then when you see how some media has phrased the news about prosecution filing the complaint with court, you can also see

"A criminal complaint filed earlier in the day alleged that Murray "did unlawfully, and without malice, kill Michael Joseph Jackson."

Source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 
Then the official complaint filed with court says:


We have prosecution (the people) that allege, plus we the date of crime is presented as "on or about".

In conclusion: maybe this is why there is alleged victim and date in the verdict. It might be the way or response as per court and jury procedures.

As far as I understand, legal language might be a bit different from non-legal language. I have some experience in English legal as far as commercial and civil documentation is concerned including US law, and I can say that sometimes the language US lawyers were using was also difficult for my US colleagues non-lawyers to follow.