Page 2 of 2
Re: Why Murray was guilty of manslaughter
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:38 am
by David Johnson
"He was getting ?150,000 a month? The last thing in the world he would want was for Jacko to die."
True, but unfortunately I suspect if he had not met Jackson's requirements he would have been out on his ear. The mistake he made was letting money override his medical judgement that he was taking a big risk in administering hospital anaesthetics in a non-hospital environment.
Cheers
D
Re: Bollocks/Scapegoat?
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:26 am
by Lizard
"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?"
It's not irrelevant if you are paying a private GP to be your personal physician, he didn't obtain the drugs by stealing them, he obtained them lawfully, and when your employer is paying you ?94k per month, and ask's to to administer tranquilisers, that's generally what you would do, the issue is whether or not he was negligent, and the jury clearly thought he was. Proof the MJ didn't administer the drug himself has still not been decided, and probably never will be.
six of one etc...
Re: Bollocks/Scapegoat?
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:02 pm
by David Johnson
"the issue is whether or not he was negligent"
He was clearly medically negligent. The defence did not question the prosecution statement that the doctor administered Propofol, a hospital strength anaesthetic and left Jackson by himself. This should never happen with regard to anaesthetics. A patient would only be left to his own devices if he/she had recovered completely from the effects of the anaesthetic and all the monitoring checks such as heartbeat, blood pressure, vital signs etc were okay.
This was not done. That is why amongst other reasons he was viewed correctly as medically negligent. This is not six of one and half dozen t'other. THe reason for this is very simple. Anaesthetics can be far more harmful than the operation people have whilst under them. They can and did in this occasion, kill.
Cheers
D
Re: the jackson trial..
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:18 am
by JamesW
"Miss Alvarez was one of four women Murray was in phone contact with on the day Jackson died. He phoned her from the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Earlier, at the moment he noticed his patient had stopped breathing, he was on the phone to Sade Anding, a cocktail waitress at a Houston steakhouse. According to Miss Anding the first thing Murray said to her when they met was: ?You are too beautiful to be waiting on people at a place like this.? She said Murray lied to her, telling her he was divorced with only two children. A few hours before Jackson died Murray had also sent a text to a Las Vegas stripper, and during the day he received two phone calls from another Las Vegas stripper which he didn?t answer." (Daily Telegraph)
Re: the jackson trial..
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:29 am
by one eyed jack
Dr Conrad would've had a better verdict here I think
Re: the jackson trial..
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:36 am
by pornoshop
He probably didn't take the stand because he knew he was going to be found guilty and it leaves him free to seek the best exclusive deal he can do with the press when he's in a position to earn again