Conrad Murray

[lapsedhibee]

Guilty.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think like so many things in MJ's life, it's never particuarly easy to get to the truth.

No idea if he's guilty or not, but wouldn't be surprised if there was much more to this story than we know.

The one thing I haven't heard is a motive.

[Hibs Class]

I think like so many things in MJ's life, it's never particuarly easy to get to the truth.

No idea if he's guilty or not, but wouldn't be surprised if there was much more to this story than we know.

The one thing I haven't heard is a motive.

Presumably money and/or the ability to pull decent birds because he was MJ's Dr.

[lapsedhibee]

The one thing I haven't heard is a motive.

Not sure if you would expect there to be a motive where the charge is involuntary manslaughter though. Isn't that more of a negligence/dereliction of duty/whatever sort of thing? :dunno:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Not sure if you would expect there to be a motive where the charge is involuntary manslaughter though. Isn't that more of a negligence/dereliction of duty/whatever sort of thing? :dunno:

genuinely no idea mate, not up on this stuff tbh

[magpie1892]

Guilty.

Utter *****.

Jackson was a drug addict for roughly 25 years, after the Pepsi advert 'incident'.

Plus he was as strange as LH thinks I am.

Murray might have dropped the ball but I'll bet you now, £100 for the charity of our choosing, that this is not murder, and this is not manslaughter.

The prosecution case is as weak as a dysentric kitten.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Utter *****.

Jackson was a drug addict for roughly 25 years, after the Pepsi advert 'incident'.

Plus he was as strange as LH thinks I am.

Murray might have dropped the ball but I'll bet you now, £100 for the charity of our choosing, that this is not murder, and this is not manslaughter.

The prosecution case is as weak as a dysentric kitten.

I had to google dysentric, i'm still no clearer:greengrin

[Hibs Class]

Utter *****.Jackson was a drug addict for roughly 25 years, after the Pepsi advert 'incident'.Plus he was as strange as LH thinks I am.Murray might have dropped the ball but I'll bet you now, £100 for the charity of our choosing, that this is not murder, and this is not manslaughter.The prosecution case is as weak as a dysentric kitten.I think it's involuntary manslaughter he has been charged with, which sounds the same as gross negligence. On that basis I reckon there is a decent chance of a conviction.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Utter *****.

Jackson was a drug addict for roughly 25 years, after the Pepsi advert 'incident'.

Plus he was as strange as LH thinks I am.

Murray might have dropped the ball but I'll bet you now, £100 for the charity of our choosing, that this is not murder, and this is not manslaughter.

The prosecution case is as weak as a dysentric kitten.

:agree: scapegoat

[Sir David Gray]

Is it just me or is anyone else completely fed up with the constant live coverage on Sky News every single night for hours on end?

It's extremely tedious stuff and I have absolutely no inclination to sit with a box of popcorn and watch every single detail of this case, like it's some kind of epic film.

A simple report on what the verdict was at the conclusion of the trial, with some of the vital aspects of the evidence that was presented in court will do for me.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Is it just me or is anyone else completely fed up with the constant live coverage on Sky News every single night for hours on end?

It's extremely tedious stuff and I have absolutely no inclination to sit with a box of popcorn and watch every single detail of this case, like it's some kind of epic film.

A simple report on what the verdict was at the conclusion of the trial, with some of the vital aspects of the evidence that was presented in court will do for me

. no its not just you falkirk, dont know if its a murdoch thing with his sky/american thing , but its actually annoying now seeing the constant coverage, this has put me right off sky news and im sure many others.

[magpie1892]

I had to google dysentric, i'm still no clearer:greengrin

Everything starts with a (missing) 'e'..!

[magpie1892]

I think it's involuntary manslaughter he has been charged with, which sounds the same as gross negligence. On that basis I reckon there is a decent chance of a conviction.

I doubt it, even in America. Fancy taking the bet?!

[lapsedhibee]

Utter *****.

Jackson was a drug addict for roughly 25 years, after the Pepsi advert 'incident'.

Plus he was as strange as LH thinks I am.

Murray might have dropped the ball but I'll bet you now, £100 for the charity of our choosing, that this is not murder, and this is not manslaughter.

The prosecution case is as weak as a dysentric kitten.

Prosecution case has nothing to do with my verdict. For me it's about skin tone.

[lapsedhibee]

Is it just me or is anyone else completely fed up with the constant live coverage on Sky News every single night for hours on end?

It's extremely tedious stuff and I have absolutely no inclination to sit with a box of popcorn and watch every single detail of this case, like it's some kind of epic film.

A simple report on what the verdict was at the conclusion of the trial, with some of the vital aspects of the evidence that was presented in court will do for me.

Trial coverage should be more like MTV so that viewers with 3-second attention spans feel more comfortable. :wink:

I for one would much prefer to hear, say, a Fox News employee's interpretation of what happened rather than have the chance to see the actual events. :wink:

[magpie1892]

Prosecution case has nothing to do with my verdict. For me it's about skin tone.

I don't follow what you mean by this. Both the main players were (genetically, at least) black. I don't see that as an issue.

[s.a.m]

Trial coverage should be more like MTV so that viewers with 3-second attention spans feel more comfortable. :wink:

I for one would much prefer to hear, say, a Fox News employee's interpretation of what happened rather than have the chance to see the actual events. :wink:

To be fair, I don't think he was saying that he needed the trial interpreted for him. He's saying (if I may speak on his behalf:greengrin)that a post-case summary would have sufficed, instead of the wall-to-wall coverage that is being provided. I'm with him on that.

[lapsedhibee]

To be fair, I don't think he was saying that he needed the trial interpreted for him. He's saying (if I may speak on his behalf:greengrin)that a post-case summary would have sufficed, instead of the wall-to-wall coverage that is being provided. I'm with him on that.

Summary may not be exactly the same as interpretation, but it presumably always includes some selective inclusion and exclusion, non?

This is Tony Benn's old, old point: whenever news of industrial strife was reported, if it included the phrase "workers demanded £x" then it was an interpretation, not a summary. Such a report could have equally well included the phrase "management demanded that workers work for £y", but it never did.

[lapsedhibee]

I don't follow what you mean by this. Both the main players were (genetically, at least) black. I don't see that as an issue.

Statistically, black defendants are probably guilty. Fact.

[Hibs Class]

I doubt it, even in America. Fancy taking the bet?!

No thanks - I've a) seen enough surprising verdicts in the US inthe passt and b) yet to win any Hibs.net related bets. Feel free to come back later this month and say "I told you so, though" :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Utter *****.

Jackson was a drug addict for roughly 25 years, after the Pepsi advert 'incident'.

Plus he was as strange as LH thinks I am.

Murray might have dropped the ball butI'll bet you now, £100 for the charity of our choosing, that this is not murder, and this is not manslaughter.

The prosecution case is as weak as a dysentric kitten.


Very,very good.

Having said that, I really could not care less about this case. I'm astonished that it is receiving such coverage. Total yawnfest.

[s.a.m]

Summary may not be exactly the same as interpretation, but it presumably always includes some selective inclusion and exclusion, non?

This is Tony Benn's old, old point: whenever news of industrial strife was reported, if it included the phrase "workers demanded £x" then it was an interpretation, not a summary. Such a report could have equally well included the phrase "management demanded that workers work for £y", but it never did.

Most news coverage does involve selective reporting, yes. And while you're right that the truth can be obscured by selective editing, selection is also a necessity if the days events are to be condensed into a viewable digest, and we're not to spend 24 hours a day watching full, all-angles coverage of absolutely everything to ensure that no-one's misleading us. However, the complaint here is that coverage of the Murray case has replaced practically all other news coverage. They've engaged in their own selection, by making the assumption that their viewers think that the only thing happening in the world worth knowing about is a celebrity (if 80s pop-star counts as celebrity) manslaughter trial.

[lapsedhibee]

Most news coverage does involve selective reporting, yes. And while you're right that the truth can be obscured by selective editing, selection is also a necessity if the days events are to be condensed into a viewable digest, and we're not to spend 24 hours a day watching full, all-angles coverage of absolutely everything to ensure that no-one's misleading us. However, the complaint here is that coverage of the Murray case has replaced practically all other news coverage. They've engaged in their own selection, by making the assumption that their viewers think that the only thing happening in the world worth knowing about is a celebrity (if 80s pop-star counts as celebrity) manslaughter trial.

Agree the extent of coverage does seem a bit odd, but I've been quite glad of the opportunity to see for myself how the court works. It's not very like Perry Mason at all ...

Not sure that the Murray case has 'replaced practically all other news coverage'. Not a regular watcher of Sky News but those times it has been on in the background it seems to repeat itself every twenty minutes or so. Aren't other news events still being covered, but just not repeated as frequently as usual, while the Wacko event is on?

[magpie1892]

No thanks - I've a) seen enough surprising verdicts in the US inthe passt and b) yet to win any Hibs.net related bets. Feel free to come back later this month and say "I told you so, though" :greengrin

...and I'll gladly hand over the plaudits if I'm wrong, also!

[matty_f]

I've been disappointed at the lack of hilarity in the trial, given how involved Frank Drebin is in it.

[lapsedhibee]

I've been disappointed at the lack of hilarity in the trial, given how involved Frank Drebin is in it.

:agree: It's like someone forgot to hire a scriptwriter!

[Betty Boop]

Most news coverage does involve selective reporting, yes. And while you're right that the truth can be obscured by selective editing, selection is also a necessity if the days events are to be condensed into a viewable digest, and we're not to spend 24 hours a day watching full, all-angles coverage of absolutely everything to ensure that no-one's misleading us. However, the complaint here is that coverage of the Murray case has replaced practically all other news coverage. They've engaged in their own selection, by making the assumption that their viewers think that the only thing happening in the world worth knowing about is a celebrity (if 80s pop-star counts as celebrity) manslaughter trial.

Interesting that there is little or no coverage of the 'Occupy Wall Street' protests that are spreading to cities across the US. I would have thought that would have been a bigger issue.

[Hibs Class]

Utter *****.

Jackson was a drug addict for roughly 25 years, after the Pepsi advert 'incident'.

Plus he was as strange as LH thinks I am.

Murray might have dropped the ball but I'll bet you now, £100 for the charity of our choosing, that this is not murder, and this is not manslaughter.

The prosecution case is as weak as a dysentric kitten.

Jury now out and verdict possibly in today. Still feeling confident? I won't be surprised whichever way it goes but from limited reading his defence sounded a bit weak or ill-prepared

[Pretty Boy]

Whther Conrad Murray administered the fatal dose of propofol is probably what will swing it, if the jury are convinced it was self administered by Michael Jackson then he will probably walk free.

If Murray does walk free i don't think it is entirely justice being served. Michael Jackson may have been a shambolic drug addict but his personal doctor should not have been facilitating this drug use, regardless of how muh cash he was being paid. Conrad Murray was providing a drug he was not properly trained to administer, in a setting where this drug should not have been used. This is negligence pure and simple. The counter argument that if he hadn't then someone else would have is a weak one because the fact is Murray did provide the drug.

The whole media circus that surrounded Michael Jackson in life and continues to surround him in death is beyond a joke. I think it would have been no bad thing had this case been heard in a closed court, of course that was never likely to happen.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

How long until the KILLER video reaches the screens? :-o

[Hibs Class]

Guilty. No real surprise.

[H18sry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15624869

[magpie1892]

No thanks - I've a) seen enough surprising verdicts in the US inthe passt and b) yet to win any Hibs.net related bets. Feel free to come back later this month and say "I told you so, though" :greengrin

Your prerogative to say 'I told you so'.

You were right, I was wrong.

I guess a quick and unanimous verdict means I shouldn't be as surprised as I am...

[Hibs Class]

Your prerogative to say 'I told you so'.You were right, I was wrong.I guess a quick and unanimous verdict means I shouldn't be as surprised as I am... I'm not one to gloat. I think we would agree that American justice is unpredictable. Bet you're glad I didn't take the bet though!

[khib70]

Your prerogative to say 'I told you so'.

You were right, I was wrong.

I guess a quick and unanimous verdict means I shouldn't be as surprised as I am...
No, you were right (and I don't say that too often) - the jury was wrong. The MJ fan club has its scapegoat, and MJ is exonerated of everything.

[Hibs Class]

No, you were right (and I don't say that too often) - the jury was wrong. The MJ fan club has its scapegoat, and MJ is exonerated of everything. I don't think mj is exonerated of anything other than administering his fatal dose and that scenario seemed only to be offered up as part of murray's defence. From what I saw of the trial the fact that murray killed him albeit accidentally seemed pretty clear cut. Why do you think differently / what really happened?

[magpie1892]

I'm not one to gloat. I think we would agree that American justice is unpredictable. Bet you're glad I didn't take the bet though!

Yes we can agree on that. I watched a fair amount of the trial and I am astonished that the jury returned the verdict it did.

Had you taken the bet, paying up would have been (almost) a pleasure...