AP: Authorities taking their time in Jackson case

Cristine87

New member
Authorities taking their time in Jackson case




By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch, Ap Special Correspondent — 3 mins ago


LOS ANGELES — It's been almost three months since Michael Jackson's shocking death, and while Los Angeles police are close to wrapping up their investigation, the decision on whether to bring criminal charges is at least weeks and perhaps months away, legal experts say.

Last month the Los Angeles County coroner ruled Jackson's June 25 death a homicide caused primarily by the powerful anesthetic propofol in combination with the sedative lorazepam. Both were administered in Jackson's mansion by his personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray.

Murray is the target of what police term a manslaughter investigation but the probe is far broader, encompassing a half-dozen doctors who treated Jackson over the years. Police and federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents are trying to reconstruct Jackson's extensive drug history, a task made more difficult because the pop star used pseudonyms to obtain medications.

Tracking down where Jackson got drugs, who provided them, how much his prior drug use contributed to his death and lining up experts to distill complex medical information into layman's terms for a jury is time-consuming.

"There's no reason for anyone to jump the gun on this," said Greg D. Lee, a retired supervising DEA agent. "Time is on their side. There's no imminent danger to the public from Dr. Murray."

The decision on criminal charges will come from the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. Spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said a request for charges comes after a police investigation is completed and prosecutors examine the evidence themselves. "We haven't been presented with anything," she said.

Except for a brief video posted to YouTube, Murray has not spoken publicly since Jackson's death. In the video, he said: "I told the truth and I have faith the truth will prevail."

Murray's attorney, Edward Chernoff, did not return a message seeking comment but previously has said nothing Murray gave Jackson "should have" killed him.

Murray has been interviewed twice by police. According to court records, he told investigators that over about six hours he injected Jackson with two doses each of lorazepam and midazolam. Finally, around 10:40 a.m. on June 25, Murray said he succumbed to Jackson's demands and administered propofol, a drug Murray said he had given Jackson every night for six weeks to allow him to sleep.

Propofol commonly is used to render patients unconscious for surgery. It's only supposed to be administered by anesthesia professionals in medical settings and, because of its potency, requires the patient be closely monitored at all times. Using propofol strictly as a sleep agent violates medical guidelines.

The coroner's finding of homicide, or death at the hands of another, does not automatically mean a crime was committed. To bring a manslaughter charge, prosecutors must show there was a reckless action that created a risk of death or great bodily injury. If a doctor is aware of the risk, there might also be an issue of whether the patient knows that risk and decided to take it.

Dr. Jayson Hymes, an anesthesiologist and specialist in pain medication and addiction, said authorities are confronted with a central question: "It's not illegal to be a bad doctor but when does it go from bad medicine to so unbelievably stupid it's criminal negligence?"

He said investigators may be questioning Murray's claim that he was trying to "wean" Jackson off the powerful anesthetic by giving him decreasing doses.

"It makes no sense," said Hymes. "You don't wean people off propofol. People don't go around craving propofol. What he needed to be weaned off of were all the other drugs."

As for Jackson's demand for propofol, he said, "He didn't understand that anesthesia is not sleep. If he wanted restorative sleep, he was going in the wrong direction."

Los Angeles attorney Harland Braun, a celebrity defense attorney who also has represented doctors in court, suggested prosecutors may take the case to a grand jury and let it investigate the evidence and recommend action.

Loyola University Law School professor Laurie Levenson said history hangs over prosecutors as they build the case. The district attorney's office is shadowed by memories of the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake murder acquittals and the Phil Spector case that took two trials to win a second-degree murder conviction.

Prosecutors will want to make sure they have a very strong case before proceeding.

"There's no question that a bad thing happened," she said of Jackson's death. "But you need to prove to 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that it is manslaughter. That's a very high threshold."

Vesna Maras, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney who spent 12 years trying medical and pharmacological cases for the office, noted it is not illegal to simply administer propofol.

"If he didn't research the drug that would be conscious disregard of the risk to human life, which is second-degree murder," she said. "If he did research it, was aware of the risks and didn't exercise due caution and circumspection before administering it, that is involuntary manslaughter."

Criminal defense attorney Steve Cron cited the fact other agencies including the DEA have simultaneous probes involving other doctors who prescribed medications to Jackson and pharmacies that filled the prescriptions. If all investigations must be completed before charges are filed, it could take considerable time.

In the Anna Nicole Smith drug case, it took authorities 2 1/2 years to bring charges against her doctors and boyfriend. And the counts were less serious – supplying drugs to an addict.

Lee noted once charges are filed, "the clock starts ticking" on statutory time limits for prosecution. So, "what's the rush?" he said. "I don't see any urgency on the part of the government."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_en_mu/us_michael_jackson_legal
 

HeavenSent

New member
I see all kinds of wrong in this article, so whatever. I'm on my lunch break and was having a decent kind of day till now. I'll be back to give my opinions on this.
 

SexyChica

New member
I understand why they would say not to rush, because if Murray and anyone else are charged and are aquitted they can't go after them again for the same charges.. Remember double jeopardy rule.

I want everyone and I do mean everyone responsible for Michael's death charged and convicted of the highest possible crimes.

I just hope the LAPD, DA, DEA, etc don't look at this case as a drug addict who had it coming.

I'll continue to pray for justice.
 

DirtyDiana87

New member
This is starting to piss me off. When they thought Michael was a doing something critical, they couldn't wait to arrest him, take away his passport and put him on trial for some bogus ****. UGH this is pissing me off. :angry:
 

SexyChica

New member
DirtyDiana87;220548 said:
This is starting to piss me off. When they thought Michael was a doing something critical, they couldn't wait to arrest him, take away his passport and put him on trial for some bogus ****. UGH this is pissing me off. :angry:

I understand your anger. I too am angry it's taking so long. We all know how quick that f'ing prick Sneddon got Michael arrested and doing the perp walk and on trial for a crime he never committed.

A crime has been committed and Murray needs to pay for his actions.
 

HeavenSent

New member
This what pisses ME off.

1. The fact that they've essentially handed Murray and Co their "perfect" defense. That Michael was a druggie and that there's no way Murray could have predicted or known the adverse affects on Michael. The lawyer was very quick to play the blame game very early on by saying that Murray hadn't a clue of Michael's health before he was hired. We didn't need this article or these experts to tell us that the blame game is already in the cards. Not only that, but Conrad already cried victim in that hack youtube video, so you know where this is headed....:glare:

2.
"It makes no sense," said Hymes. "You don't wean people off propofol. People don't go around craving propofol. What he needed to be weaned off of were all the other drugs."
Yeah. We know that. That's why Murray has negligence written all over his crusty face. He had no business handling propofol, giving propofol. Not under those circumstances. Client can't sleep. You're the doctor, do what is BEST not what is 'convenient.' Negligence, people.

3.
As for Jackson's demand for propofol, he said, "He didn't understand that anesthesia is not sleep. If he wanted restorative sleep, he was going in the wrong direction."
And?? The fact of the matter is, Murray still gave it to him anyway! THAT should be the central cause of concern. Not that Michael asked for it. Geez. I'm starting to lose patience. I don't get it.

4.
To bring a manslaughter charge, prosecutors must show there was a reckless action that created a risk of death or great bodily injury. If a doctor is aware of the risk, there might also be an issue of whether the patient knows that risk and decided to take it.
Someone please help me understand this logic. Regardless if the patient knows the deadly risk, how does Murray prove to us that Michael personally begged and pleaded to be injected with it that night? After all, it is Murray's word against no one else's. This doctor was the only in the room. How can the burden of proof be reconciled? Michael's drug history will be dragged in and I can almost predict the picture they're gonna paint won't be pretty.

5.
"It's not illegal to be a bad doctor but when does it go from bad medicine to so unbelievably stupid it's criminal negligence?"
Uhhh...well for starters when that doctor waits a freakishly long time to call 911..

BTW, I understand LAPD, etc's need to secure an airtight case and I'm trying to be patient but for absolutely no movement on Murray. Kepola, I'm with you in the prayer department.
 

Saphster

New member
Cristine87;220528 said:
Propofol commonly is used to render patients unconscious for surgery. It's only supposed to be administered by anesthesia professionals in medical settings and, because of its potency, requires the patient be closely monitored at all times. Using propofol strictly as a sleep agent violates medical guidelines.

That should be enough to have some charges put against Murray!

Cristine87;220528 said:
Dr. Jayson Hymes, an anesthesiologist and specialist in pain medication and addiction, said authorities are confronted with a central question: "It's not illegal to be a bad doctor but when does it go from bad medicine to so unbelievably stupid it's criminal negligence?"

He said investigators may be questioning Murray's claim that he was trying to "wean" Jackson off the powerful anesthetic by giving him decreasing doses.

"It makes no sense," said Hymes. "You don't wean people off propofol. People don't go around craving propofol. What he needed to be weaned off of were all the other drugs."

As for Jackson's demand for propofol, he said, "He didn't understand that anesthesia is not sleep. If he wanted restorative sleep, he was going in the wrong direction."

Exactly. You don't wean people off a certain drug by giving more of that drug to a patient. Especially when you're not even allowed to give it outside of a hospital setting. A lot of fishy things went on around Michael and I don't like it. Maybe Michael was aware of the dangers. But, maybe he did not care much about them if the doctors did not express much danger. In Hollywood...when doctors see vulnerable celebrities they see big money signs floating around them. They will assure them, "Well yes there are dangers but it's perfectly fine. Nothing too extreme. This is what we do. We know what to do. Trust me." I can so picture them saying that. A lot of doctors don't give a **** about their patients. I know this because my mother has about 4 different doctors and the medicines they give her are helping her body yet damaging it at the same time. They never want to answer all of her questions. I remember one doctor said "You're asking too many questions." But, isn't that what patients are suppose to do when they're paying you? It makes me upset.
 

DirtyDiana87

New member
SexyChica;220551 said:
I understand your anger. I too am angry it's taking so long. We all know how quick that f'ing prick Sneddon got Michael arrested and doing the perp walk and on trial for a crime he never committed.

A crime has been committed and Murray needs to pay for his actions.

:thumbsup I totally agree!
 

Cristine87

New member
HeavenSent;220563 said:
Someone please help me understand this logic. Regardless if the patient knows the deadly risk, how does Murray prove to us that Michael personally begged and pleaded to be injected with it that night? After all, it is Murray's word against no one else's. This doctor was the only in the room. How can the burden of proof be reconciled? Michael's drug history will be dragged in and I can almost predict the picture they're gonna paint won't be pretty.

Carla, I wish I could prosecute this case! I don't understand what's so complicated. You mean to tell me that I can get away with killing someone if they tell me to? So let's say I shoot Murray's @ss and later on, I said he wanted me to take his life cause he felt guilty about Michael, I'm off the hook? Well, then I can kill his his dumb @ss if he's found not guilty. So there's a plan b! I must be the stupidest b*tch on the planet cause my equation is: Doctor gave person medication. Medication killed person. Doctor killed person. Yet, law enforcement officials out on the west coast feel it's not that easy cause Michael was supposedly an addict. Um, the medication Michael was taking didn't kill him, Propofol killed him and who gave him propofol? Murray! OMG, what's so hard about that?:eek:hnoyoudidnt
 

Juniorlady

New member
I think that quack was with Michael to remind him to eat, check on his health, or whatever, NOT give him medicine used only in hospitals. So he messed up big time. You can call it manslaughter, homicide, or "negligent homicide", but he's responsible for a patient's death. The amount he claimed he gave did not matched the amount found in Michael. That's enough proof for me to arrest his a** myself.
 
Top