thoughts on the Michael Jackson trial?

gracy

New member
Feb 26, 2008
28
0
1
Ok, apologies if this has already been discussed, I did look, honest!

I was just wondering what the general population thinks of Dr Conrad Murray and if anyone thinks he is innocent?

I know he was found guilty, and I don't want to offend anyone, nor am I suggesting otherwise.

Just my thought, but MJ would have been his cash cow, so if I was his doc and of questionable character, I personally would have kept him just unwell enough to keep me in work, but, not SO ill as to raise suspicion I'd never murder him as then at absolute minimum I'd be out of a job!

I didn't watch much of the trial I admit, I did see an interview with Jermaine however, and he said MJ was fit as in the weeks leading up to his death and the wheelchair etc was all theatrics on MJ's part. Playing up to the media if you like.

Like I say, I was just thinking about this today, and this is how I think I'd behave if I was in Conrad Murrays position and a bad person.

And again, don't want to offend or argue with anyone, this is just how my head works!
 
He was guilty of involuntary manslaughter, nothing more. To my knowledge, he has never been seriously suspected of murder.

I don't think Murray had any ill intent whatsoever, but from the evidence that the prosecution put forward, there was little chance of acquittal.

If I had to speculate, I'd say that Jackson wanted stronger pain medication than Murray was able to ethically prescribe, but instead of putting his foot down, he capitulated and started prescribing drugs that were more and more dangerous in greater and greater quantities and eventually, his luck ran out and Jackson died.

He forgot that Jackson was his patient first and his employer second.
 
He wasn't so much shady as greedy and incompetent. He allowed financial considerations to override both his duty of care and his professional capability. The moment he sourced that propofol he was criminally negligent as he had neither the skills nor the safeguards required to administer it.
What I don't understand is how come he didn't just cut a deal?
 
Michael Jackson is dead because he was a drug addict. His doctor was effectively his dealer. It's rarely in a dealers interest for a customer to die. But like all addicts Jackson didn't know when to stop and eventually his luck ran out.

I think what people should be asking now is how a guy who was effectively Jacksons GP got hold of pain killers intended for surgery situations?
 
Not painkillers and not addictive. He was not an addict, he was someone with an illness that his doctor seemed unable to adequately treat, and rather than sending him to a specialist he resorted to extreme and dangerous treatments.
 
Propofol can be addictive, but you're right, it's not actually a painkiller.

What illness was Michael Jackson supposed to be suffering from?
 
I think he will be sentenced to 2 years, but will be out in 10 to 12 months.

Too bad he's already on suicide watch.
 
I suffered from Insomnia some years ago and the treatment was basically warm milk half hour before bed. That's pretty much all they could offer. Unless treatment has moved on somewhat, then I'm not sure what Murray could have done in terms of positive treatment.
 
I'd have to say, if it hadn't been that doctor, it would have been another. IMHO
 
Painkillers are not addictive? Really? Michael Jackson was not an addict?

The media, the lawyers and the jury would seem to disagree. In fact the jury said the addiction element was very important in their decision. He was getting Demerol from his dermatologist. Which causes insomnia. Propofol is basically a sedative.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/8875769/Michael-Jackson-trial-the-jury-who-decided-Conrad-Murrays-fate.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/oct/27/conrad-murray-jackson-trial
http://news.sky.com/home/showbiz-news/article/16098016

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propofol
 
Reading comprehension fail. Where did I say painkillers weren't addictive again (and not all painkillers are addictive anyway)?
 
I presume he's the fall guy for some grand conspiracy?

Otherwise, meh.

Honestly, the Dr was getting 100,000 a month for the couple of years he's been working for Jackson. He'll serve 12ish months. Leaving aside the death of a human being which is always regretable, a lot of people I know would do the time for the cash.

Jackson was firmly into the realms of freak pointing IMO anyway. His relevance to a few dedicated, seemingly unbalanced individuals, was in stark contrast to the majority who have quietly consigned him to the "Good Lord, some nice songs early on but that all went spectacularly wrong" pile.

Mitch
 
Understanding of addiction fail. Anything can be addictive to an individual prone to addiction.
 
I really could care less. In the medical field doctors cover up for each other all the time and the only reason he was prosecuted was because of who died. If it had been me or you he'd still be plying his own brand of medicine.
 
My thoughts on the Michael Jackson trial?
I think he probably did some innapropriate things with some kids but used his money to hush them up....wait what?...another trial? What did he do this time?
 
Misplaced snarky pedantry fail. Seriously, your compulsive need to "win" conversations gets old. We cannot write a long chain of caveats into everything we write on a social discussion forum, standard conventions have to apply. For the purpose of this conversation for something to be addictive it must be intrinsically addictive and form pharmacological dependence. Psychological dependence (even though it has a biological element) is not what is meant in general conversation when discussing "drug addiction".
Seriously, I wasn't jumping on you for your "propofol is basically a sedative" statement.
 
Back
Top