Guilty of manslaughter........bollox.
the jackson trial..
the jackson trial..
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
Re: the jackson trial..
Dont blame it on the sunshine, dont blame it on the moonlight, dont blame it on the good times.....blame it on the Murray! Poor bloke !sad!
Re: the jackson trial..
They got their scapegoat. Bloke does what hes told to do and will end up going to hjail for it,all because the jacksons had to have their scapegoat.
Re: the jackson trial..
Only in america,lunatic murderer OJ walks off scot free,professional doctor gets time...for what? Add to that the amount of mentally ill people that are on death rown and it tells you the US law system is fucked.
-
one eyed jack
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: the jackson trial..
Personally I agree with you all even though I have no proof to suggest otherwise but deep down I suspect its not about justice as much as you all share a deep dislike for MJ as evidenced in recent years with accusations of him being an alleged kiddie fiddler and weirdo (an accusation I do not share,a gain without proof)
Either way , I think the doctor was doomed as the man who killed Michael Jackson, someone had to go down for it and the smoking gun was the Propofol.
I notice that no one was listening to the patients that turned up in support of the doc though
Thing about a lot of people is, they need closure to move on regardless of whether the man is innocent or not
Either way , I think the doctor was doomed as the man who killed Michael Jackson, someone had to go down for it and the smoking gun was the Propofol.
I notice that no one was listening to the patients that turned up in support of the doc though
Thing about a lot of people is, they need closure to move on regardless of whether the man is innocent or not
www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
Re: the jackson trial..
He was indeed a doomed man. Unfortunately he failed to be professional enough to refuse to administer the drug at such levels (whether that particular drug should have been used in the first place is another matter). Basically what he was guilty of was following his patient's orders, and not acting in the patient's best interest.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Bollocks/Scapegoat?
Most of the views expressed in this thread strike me as nonsensical.
1. Propofol is an extremely powerful anaesthetic used in a hospital environment.
2. Any doctor will tell you that anaesthetics can be as harmful/potentially dangerous as the operation itself. That is why the hospital environment with its emergency equipment is essential in case there is an adverse reaction etc etc.
3. By administering Propofol in an environment without the level of support equipment required, the doctor was clearly medically negligent.
4. Whether Jackson demanded the administration of this drug at home is obviously irrelevant. If your gran demanded a leg amputation in her front room because she had a phobia about hospitals, would that make it alright if the doctor agreed to go ahead?
5. What part of the above is so difficult to understand?
Cheers
D
1. Propofol is an extremely powerful anaesthetic used in a hospital environment.
2. Any doctor will tell you that anaesthetics can be as harmful/potentially dangerous as the operation itself. That is why the hospital environment with its emergency equipment is essential in case there is an adverse reaction etc etc.
3. By administering Propofol in an environment without the level of support equipment required, the doctor was clearly medically negligent.
4. Whether Jackson demanded the administration of this drug at home is obviously irrelevant. If your gran demanded a leg amputation in her front room because she had a phobia about hospitals, would that make it alright if the doctor agreed to go ahead?
5. What part of the above is so difficult to understand?
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Why Murray was guilty of manslaughter
In addition to the points I have made elsewhere in the thread it is worth keeping in mind, the following:
1. The defence did not dispute that Murray was responsible for the Propofol being in Jackson's house.
2. THe defence did not dispute that Murray left Jackson alone after administering Propofol even though this goes against very basic anaesthetic practice where an anaesthetist or qualified technician should be present at all times.
3. Murray delayed calling 911 to get emergency assistance. We do not know why but suspicions suggest Murray was covering his tracks. It took Murray two days before he admitted administering Propofol on a regular basis to Jackson.
4. For those of you who think that he was found guilty only because it was Jackson, yes this was an unusual case. How many people can afford to have a personal physician and pay them $150,000 a month? Obviously Murray allowed the lure of easy money to override basic medical commonsense which he would have know about.
In the light of all this, I do not see how the jury could have found Murray guilty of anything else other than involuntary manslaughter resulting from medical negligence.
Cheers
D
1. The defence did not dispute that Murray was responsible for the Propofol being in Jackson's house.
2. THe defence did not dispute that Murray left Jackson alone after administering Propofol even though this goes against very basic anaesthetic practice where an anaesthetist or qualified technician should be present at all times.
3. Murray delayed calling 911 to get emergency assistance. We do not know why but suspicions suggest Murray was covering his tracks. It took Murray two days before he admitted administering Propofol on a regular basis to Jackson.
4. For those of you who think that he was found guilty only because it was Jackson, yes this was an unusual case. How many people can afford to have a personal physician and pay them $150,000 a month? Obviously Murray allowed the lure of easy money to override basic medical commonsense which he would have know about.
In the light of all this, I do not see how the jury could have found Murray guilty of anything else other than involuntary manslaughter resulting from medical negligence.
Cheers
D
-
Porn Baron
- Posts: 993
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Why Murray was guilty of manslaughter
He was getting ?150,000 a month? The last thing in the world he would want was for Jacko to die. Seems like he was unlucky.
Re: the jackson trial..
I didn't follow this case very closely (why the fuck did Sky News think it was worthy of blanket coverage?), but the verdict strikes me as fair. I found it very odd that the doctor did not choose to give evidence in his own defence. I know that is his right, but he is an educated man, and this case revolves around his actions as a doctor. If he cannot defend those actions, that speaks volumes.