TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Dr. Murray Will NEVER Cop a Plea in MJ Death

6/25/2011 6:20 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Sources directly connected to Dr. Conrad Murray tell TMZ ... the Doc will not accept any plea bargain from the L.A. County District Attorney in the Michael Jackson manslaughter case.

0624_conrad_murray_mj_ex

We're told Dr. Murray feels so strongly about his innocence, even a plea with no jail time would be out of the question. 

Fact is ... Dr. Murray shouldn't hold his breath, because no plea bargain has been offered and sources tell us the D.A. will not offer one.

As for Murray's defense ... we're told the centerpiece revolves around the fact that only two people were in the room around the time MJ died, and Murray insists he did not administer the fatal dose of Propofol.

The operating theory of Murray's lawyers -- when the Doc left to go to the bathroom, a frustrated MJ woke up and administered the fatal dose himself in a desperate attempt to get some sleep.

So we ask ...



tmz-top-comments-banner
Lyell Dmariejrzy

I had thought Michael did slowly kill himself, with all his doctors that enabled him. Rabbi Schmuli has tapes of Michael and he was very unhappy and very aware of his actions. Dr. Conrad is guilty, but not of murder, but of neglect and greed. We lost the King of Pop by so many factors, he was a genius who was very intelligent.

Mr. Clean jealous of kate

It will never ever end, MJ's fans will always think of him as a God who was not a drug abuser, who was a SAINT, and was murdered. Others see him-some as a pedophile, where some kids have never come foward (and yes, I know, the last case was BS, a family smelling $$$$), a con artist that stole tapes from Paul Anka, (big embarrassment for the estate with that BIG Thing with the handcuffs and briefcase escorting the case to be delivered and it was an old so so song of Anka's, and Anka was NICE ABOUT IT). MJ was in deep debt when he died, but he still was a big enabler to his family ('cept Janet, maybe laToya, and not to Reba)Those idiot brothers NEVER GREW UP BECAUSE OF HIM. NEVER LEARNED RESPONSIBILITY. In Debt, he put his mother into a MANSION! She did not need a mansion, a nice house maybe, but not a mansion and all that money a month. HE WAS THE SUPREME ENABLER AND BECAUSE OF THIS, NOT ONE OF THEM HAD THE BACKBONE TO COME FORWARD TO TRY TO HELP HIM COME CLEAN. His death, HIS FAULT, BUT HIS FAMILY STOOD BY AND WATCHED! They did not want to lose their allowances, so it was better not to talk to him then to help him or keep him from DYING!!!! So, in guilt, they blame others!!!!

SUN Scottt

In my opinion Dr. Murray was at worst an "ENABLER", and is not a murderer, quite the opposite. Wether he died with the Propofol or not, it was going to happen sooner than later. I (being a former prescription pain killer addict), know that it was just a matter of time. This addiction leads to 2 things: Jail, or Death, and being Michael Jackson, you don't go to jail....

tmz-top-comments-banner
Lyell Dmariejrzy

I had thought Michael did slowly kill himself, with all his doctors that enabled him. Rabbi Schmuli has tapes of Michael and he was very unhappy and very aware of his actions. Dr. Conrad is guilty, but not of murder, but of neglect and greed. We lost the King of Pop by so many factors, he was a genius who was very intelligent.

Mr. Clean jealous of kate

It will never ever end, MJ's fans will always think of him as a God who was not a drug abuser, who was a SAINT, and was murdered. Others see him-some as a pedophile, where some kids have never come foward (and yes, I know, the last case was BS, a family smelling $$$$), a con artist that stole tapes from Paul Anka, (big embarrassment for the estate with that BIG Thing with the handcuffs and briefcase escorting the case to be delivered and it was an old so so song of Anka's, and Anka was NICE ABOUT IT). MJ was in deep debt when he died, but he still was a big enabler to his family ('cept Janet, maybe laToya, and not to Reba) Those idiot brothers NEVER GREW UP BECAUSE OF HIM. NEVER LEARNED RESPONSIBILITY. In Debt, he put his mother into a MANSION! She did not need a mansion, a nice house maybe, but not a mansion and all that money a month. HE WAS THE SUPREME ENABLER AND BECAUSE OF THIS, NOT ONE OF THEM HAD THE BACKBONE TO COME FORWARD TO TRY TO HELP HIM COME CLEAN. His death, HIS FAULT, BUT HIS FAMILY STOOD BY AND WATCHED! They did not want to lose their allowances, so it was better not to talk to him then to help him or keep him from DYING!!!! So, in guilt, they blame others!!!!

SUN Scottt

In my opinion Dr. Murray was at worst an "ENABLER", and is not a murderer, quite the opposite. Wether he died with the Propofol or not, it was going to happen sooner than later. I (being a former prescription pain killer addict), know that it was just a matter of time. This addiction leads to 2 things: Jail, or Death, and being Michael Jackson, you don't go to jail....

Lyell Carl

Enabling an addict is a crime, especially when it is a doctor doing it. Yes, Michael, like all people, are ultimately responsible for their own actions. But when others do actions that are obviously harmful (directly or indirectly) to another person they need to be held accountable. Basically, if Murray and other doctors refused to knowingly give him harmful medications Jackson would probably be alive today.

Mr. Clean wow

Dr. Murray accepted the position knowing full well what it entailed. He wanted all the perks that came with the job and along with that came the responsibility. He can't have it both ways. Dr. Murray took an oath to act in the best interest of the patient and he failed miserably. He should lose his license. MJ was a kind and gifted person. He was a humanitarian with a wonderful smile but he wasn't perfect and lived in a "bubble" at times. It's unfortunate he became addicted to painkillers and propofol for he was always against drugs. Unfortunately, it can happen to anyone as only too many know. It's a shame he couldn't find an alternative to propofol for his insomnia or at least taken better precautions.

SUN KikiOttawa

Dr. Murray is guilty of failing to put MJ’s health and wellbeing before everything else. Did Dr. Murray make MJ an addict? No, MJ did that but Dr. M certainly enabled, provided legal access to drugs and assisted MJ in his addiction. He deserves to be punished in an appropriate manner. That is to say, the public trial is not fair as had his patient been Joe Blow from Noweheresville, Arizona, none of this attention would be on him. He did wrong, but the prosecution seems to be geared to who the patient was not what the doctor did. He should be subjected to the same sanctions for his part in MJ’s death as he would in Joe Blow of AZ.

Lyell Stef

MJ was a drug addict...no doubt about it..but Dr. Murray was a doctor who did NOT keep the oath he took when he became a doctor to 'do no harm'. He, along with others, supplied MJ with drugs and in Murray's case, Propofol-something that was NOT to be used outside of a hospital/surgical facility setting and more importantly is NOT used to treat insomnia. Of course he's responsible. He left the room and left his patient while giving him the Propofol. He's an a**. Heaven help the morons who continue to use him as their physician.

Mr. Clean Satish Desai

Here is a suggested defense for Dr. Murray that might get him out of trouble:

Dr. Murray was a paid employee of Michael Jackson's promoter company - whatever the name was. In other words, Dr. Murray was not free to act on his own, as an independent professional who had control on what treatment he can give to his patient, without the fear of loosing his job. He was rather, obligated to follow the instructions of his employer, or else get fired.

As such, Mr. Murray (not Dr. Murray in this case) can not be held responsible for injuries or death caused by his actions which were performed under immediate control of his employer. The state would have to prove that Murray injected certain drug without the consent of MJ, in defiance of MJ's instructions, and with the intention of harming MJ.

To prevent such tragedies in the future, the State of California would have to pass a law prohibiting employment of physicians by their patients.

SUN Ziggy

I love Michael dearly, but he was an addict. I believe he was impatient, and frustrated, and likely gave himself a massive dose when he couldn't get to sleep. Having said that, Mr. Murray illegally brought Propofol into the house. He did not monitor Michael while he was under the influence of the drug, and he left the drug alone with the patient. These careless actions led to the death of Michael, therefore, he is guilty.



0624_mj_through_years_footer
298 COMMENTS

No Avatar
226.

Zest    

I truly believe that Dr. Murray is fully responsible for Michael Jacksons death. He claims when he got hired by the company to be his personal doctor, that he had no idea of MJ's addictions. Once he became aware of MJ's lifestyle, he continued to administer propofol, pain medication and several other sedatives.
Murray also claims he was weening MJ off the propofol, but how are we to actually know that? The fact of the matter is, he still administered the drugs.
He was hired to take care of MJ, the care he provided was reckless, and illegal. Murray lied, and covered up the events that led to MJ's death.
The only thing we know as fact is that MJ is dead, and Dr. Murray was present.
We are being told that MJ administered the fatal dose of propofol, even if MJ did do as the defense is saying. Murray is still resposible. He was supposed to be in the room with MJ at all times. He wasn't hired to take breaks nor to leave illegal drugs laying around in plain view. There were children in this home, what if it had been one of those children that found the unattended drugs?
Had Dr. Murray done what he was hired to do, MJ would still be alive. Had Murray stayed in the room and watched over MJ instead of phoning girlfriends and wandering around, MJ would still be alive. If Dr Murray would have called for assistance immediately instead of trying to hide the propofol bottles and whatever else he had in that room, MJ would have at least had a fighting chance at survival.
Dr Murray in my opinion is the main reason MJ is dead today! He simply failed at all levels. He was reckless, careless, neglectful, irresponsible. He lied, he hid evidence, and he administered a drug that should never have been administered outside a hospital setting. He knew he didn't have the proper equipment, he knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal, and he most certainly knew that Michael was an addict, yet he still continued to be an enabler. He needs to be held accountable for what he did. He may not have murdered MJ with the intent to kill, but he certainly is responsible for his death. RIP MJ

1027 days ago
227.

Maximus    

Susy 1 day ago

IF Michael is dead, that bastared must get life sentence, so he would name who ordered him to kill our treasure Michael.I love you Michael from the bottom of my heart...forever.

==============================================================

Don't be so naive, Susy. We ALL know who ordered MJ killed. The CIA wanted MJ dead because he was gonna blow the lid off the JFK assassination. According to my sources, it all had something to do with Area 51 and pedophilia ... Oh, wait, no ... I mean, it was all about diddling little boys ... dammit! Alright, here's the truth, Susy. MJ was a undercover government operative who's job it was to infiltrate the super-secret conspiracy called Majestic 12, a group of "devilish" potentates who run the World Bank and UN. MJ got close, real close ... then got distracted when he saw a little boy ... er, yeah, um ... and accidentally overdosed on propofil. The End.

1027 days ago
228.

Nikea Jackson     

First off want to say rest in peace Michael Jackson 6.25.09 We Miss you still, and secondly I want to say I think there are to many factors in this matter to blame one person I think Michael Jackson has to take some blame for what happen to him but when you die all your sins and mistakes are forgiven However Dr. Conrad and I Say Dr Very loosely should be held responsible I don’t know what Doctors think they get paid for but even if Michael asked him to shoot him full of acid or anything that would bring him harm given in the wrong fashion he should have said NO Hell no in fact!!!!! He is a professional and should have asked someone for help. I love and respect Michael Jackson and his whole Family and I hate to say this but it is clear now that he had some form of Addiction Issues but that doesn’t give Mr., Conrad the license to behave badly. At the end of the day its all so tragic and I try not to read or listen to these stories anymore Michael is gone and we should respect him and his memory. This statement goes to all the Michael Jackson Fans at first When Michael Jackson died and it bothered me so much my boyfriend at the time said "why are you crying so much ... you didn’t even know him" but every memory I have I can think of Michaels Music. music is everything to us so it hurts inside it feels like a big chunk of your life is affected but if you really loved Michael then we need to move on and not make a mockery of his life anymore then the media already does never forget his music and what it did for you but don’t engage in any thing that is negative. Michael Jackson Where ever you are you are missed and loved and no matter what anyone says I want to thank you and your Brothers( yeah haters I said it his brothers ... they have talent to ) for giving me and so many others the soundtrack to our lives

1027 days ago
229.

Maximus    

Glenda in Texas 16 hours ago

Nadia - they're not obsessed with Michael, they are obsessed with pedophilia. It's so clear. On any other board, they can't talk about it but here on TMZ it's a welcomed outlet for their sick urges. They should seek help from a licensed physician immediately.

==============================================================

Ah, Glenda, at last I can say that, for once, you're partially right. Of course, it's the MJ fanatics who seem to be possessed by the "sick urge" to excuse pedophilia or rationalize child molestation ... Truly, a case of the pot calling the kettle black ...

1027 days ago
230.

Tom Joyce    

go read the autopsy report Jackson was not an addict. his liver, kidney and heart were normal and healthy. In fact the autopsy report said he was a relatively healthy 50 year old man.

1027 days ago
231.

SaraJane    

Dui... 4 minutes ago


Your question has been asked and answered a MILLION times on these boards......

''So I am dumb''-

Well, yes Dui, you obviously are :-(

1027 days ago
232.

Barb.A.    

duilama about an hour ago
-------------

I have a question for you. Since Chandler extorted money out of MJ in a civil case, why didn't he collect the money and then take MJ to federal court for the allegation he was accusing MJ? Which he was legally allowed to do, but instead they took the money & ran.

1027 days ago
233.

HumanNature    

duilama

We keep providing you with the answer but you keep refusing it!!

So, why bother with it now!!!!

We can't help dumb minded people like yourself!!

1027 days ago
234.

nan    

TSIG 19 hours ago

Nan,

You seem to have a lot of info about the 2005 trial. I was just listening to a recorded radio show online from about a year ago and the guest was some guy named Wagener. I've seen this guy on YouTube before -- I think he has some kind of law show and he has talked about MJ before. I think he also interviewed Mesereau. He seems kind of flaky to me, and I question his "facts," because in this broadcast twice he said that Janet Arviso claimed she was "raped" by the store security guards in her lawsuit, and as far as I know she claimed only that she was fondled. Anyway, this Wagener guy claimed that Michael's Neverland Ranch was raided 80-90 times by Sneddon's team. That sounds crazy. Do you know if there's any truth to that?

hi there
wm wagener has a local show in santa barbara, i believe called on second thought.i would call him a libertarian..jmo
i have seen him on occasion gets his facts wrong.he did interview tom mesereau ,who was nice enough to drive up and be interviewed by him.i noticed he made a few missteps in that interview also.i think he just speaks off the cuff and doesn't have notes with him ..

he was one of the few to say that Michael was winning that case all along and he was in the courtroom for a lot of the testimony..
if you wanted to ask him directly , go to his youtube channel and send him a message,or comment on one of his videos..he usually will reply.
i think maybe the radio show you might have seen was with katherine gross.
i know that janet arviso had added things on to her story .at first she said she was fine and needed no medical attn., no bruises , every hair in place,....then at a later time she had pictures taken with bruises...a year goes by and she says she was body slammed numerous times by the jc penny guards, her crotch was grabbed and fondled, her nipple was twisted twenty five times and she she wa***** with brass knuckles..she also said her children witness this and they were also assaulted.
gavin and starr swore under oath in depositions that they witnessed this also..
as far as how many raids i would have to look into that..i know they did go so much that if the neverland guards saw them they would just open the gates and wave them through.
the one they did the day mj album dropped included 70 sherifs and diane dimond getting footage,i have heard people say they used every police car in town but one to go search neverland.. then they came back at a later date,twice, to get dna swab..i also know there were atleast 80 search warrants, evidently they thought there was video cameras to watch unsuspecting people /children all over his home so they tore it all apart..of course there was none , sneddon had just been reading tabloids and vg book..idiot

1027 days ago
235.

HumanNature    

duilama

I'm going to try this for the LAST TIME!!!!

So why did Michael Jackson settle, you ask?

It appeared that the judicial system was not on his side. When civil and criminal proceedings arise over the same allegation, the defendant is entitled to a stay of discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. In Michael Jackson's case, the civil trial was scheduled to occur before the criminal trial, which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Jackson's attorney, Johnnie Cochrane, tried to get the civil trial postponed until AFTER the criminal trial but was not granted his request. He also filed a motion blocking the District Attorney's office from obtaining evidence used in the civil proceedings; again, he was not granted his request. If the civil trial had occurred, the prosecution would have been privy to Michael's entire defense strategy. This would have given them time in between the civil and criminal trials to come up with a way to counter Michael's defense. By settling, Michael did not have to go to court in the civil case and reveal his defense strategy to the prosecution.

Other reasons include the fact that the civil trial could have taken 8-9 months, which would have cost Michael millions of dollars in legal fees. Add to that the possibility of losing in court and one can see that paying the Chandlers $20 million might have actually been the cheaper alternative. Keep in mind that civil trials are very different from criminal trials in that the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. Only 51% of the jury would have to rule against Michael and he would have lost the civil trial. This could have later been used against him in the criminal trial as well. When you look at the case from a legal standpoint, Michael's decision to settle makes a lot of sense. Once the civil trial was settled, the criminal trial continued and there was not enough evidence to charge Michael.

Perhaps a more telling question is why would the Chandlers accept money from someone who allegedly molested their child instead of fighting to put them behind bars?

DO I NEED TO SAY MORE!!!!

1027 days ago
236.

HumanNature    

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' jacket sells for $1.8 million at auction

(CNN) -- In an auction featuring memorabilia from the Beatles, Madonna and Elvis Presley, it was Michael Jackson who proved to be king.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/music.memorabilia.auction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

IMMORTALITY

THE KING OF "ALL" MUSIC, MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON

ROTFLMAO

1027 days ago
237.

Sepia830    

Anyone who believes that Michael Jackson isn't more famous that Elvis or The Beatles is in SERIOUS denial. No matter where you go on the face of this earth--even in some of the most destitute countries--people know who Michael Jackson is. He visited and performed in places where Elvis never even thought of.

I suspect that some people just refuse to give that recognition to a black man.

1027 days ago
238.

mymjj5.    

I'm going to try this for the LAST TIME!!!!
_________________________________________________________
Thanks HN! Perhaps you should save that post so that you can paste it over and over. You can rest assured an ignorant hater will rephrase the same allegations/aggravation multiple times per day until infinity.....

1027 days ago
239.

HumanNature    

duilama

Apparently, you do not know, have a clue or understand how the legal system work in the United States!!!

Back in 1993, when the first set of allegations materialized, there was not enough evidence to indict Michael Jackson. The case was brought in front of two grand juries and charges were never brought. There was no corroborating evidence, no child pornography found, no witnesses to inappropriate behavior on Mr. Jackson's part and no other victims. Surely, if Michael Jackson were a pedophile, authorities would have found something incriminating against him. They searched his entire house, interviewed hundreds of children and found nothing. On top of that, there is ample evidence that proves the entire thing was a scam.

So why do people still insist that he was guilty in 1993? Most people refer to the civil settlement that Michael Jackson reached with the accusing family. Anyone who uses the civil settlement as evidence of Michael Jackson's guilt lacks a basic understanding of law and needs to do a little research before making baseless assumptions. Since most members of the "Michael Jackson is guilty" club are lazy, I've done the research for you. I've even written a little analogy to help those with no legal knowledge understand the situation more clearly. Read on to learn why Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit in 1993 and why it means absolutely nothing in terms of him being innocent or guilty...

Imagine you are a professional dancer and have been entered into two competitions. You are required to perform the exact same routine in both competitions but the second one is much more significant. The first competition offers a cash prize of $100 while the second competition guarantees the winner a highly coveted spot at one of the most prestigious dance schools in the country. You have no desire to win the first competition as $100 really wouldn't benefit you much in the long run. Your entire career, however, rests on whether or not you win that second competition.

Now imagine that the person you're up against in the second competition will be coming to watch you perform in the first competition. Your opponent is going to be watching the entire routine, taking notes on all of your strengths and weaknesses and using this information to improve his/her own routine and make it better than yours. You approach the judge and ask that the order of the competitions be reversed so that the more important competition takes place first; this will prevent your opponent from knowing in advance what he/she is up against. The judge denies your request. You then ask that your opponent be banned from attending the first competition. Again, your request is denied.

Now you are faced with two choices. You could either a) perform in the first competition and risk your opponent having the upper hand in the more important competition or b) drop out of the first competition (since you don't care about a lousy $100 prize) and risk people thinking that your dropping out had something to do with your inability as a dancer. What would you do? Would people's opinions be more important than your own future? Would you compete in the first competition just to prove that you could win it if you tried?

If you want some insight into Michael Jackson's predicament in 1993, take this scenario and increase its magnitude by a thousand. The civil trial was supposed to take place before the criminal trial which would have been a direct violation of Mr. Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Because of double jeopardy anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves twice on the same allegation unless one trial takes place in a civil court and the other takes place in a criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993. A criminal trial is always between the State and the accused; a civil trial, on the other hand, takes place between two private parties. The civil suit against Michael Jackson was filed by the Chandlers in 1993; the criminal proceedings were completely independent.

Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place first. For example, in the O.J Simpson case, the criminal trial was resolved before the civil trial began. Jackson's attorneys filed a motion asking for the order of the trials to be reversed. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, "when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved." Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.

The family's attorney Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff- being a minor- might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy's "fragile state" was more important than Jackson's 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy's favour. Jackson's attorney Johnnie Cochrane filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost this motion.

Let's pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Mr. Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson's most critical evidence and found ways to discredit it so that he would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial. For example, let's say the defense team proved that Jordan Chandler was given the memory altering drug sodium amytal before making the allegations. Jackson's lawyers would have revealed this discovery to the court while cross-examining Evan Chandler (since he'd already admitted to using the drug for "dental purposes") and it would have been a huge factor in proving that the allegations were a lie. The defense would have also called upon medical experts to testify that sodium amytal is strictly a psychiatric drug and cannot be relied on to produce fact. Sneddon, seeing how damaging this revelation would be to his case, could have then found experts of his own who could argue that sodium amytal is actually a truth serum. Sneddon would have had months to figure out ways to downplay the significance of the use of sodium amytal.

The defense would have also called Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for Barry Rothman (the attorney who represented Evan Chandler in his custody case). Ms. Hughes would have told the court everything she knew about Rothman and Chandler's extortion plot and would have made an explosive witness for the defense. Now keep in mind that Mr. Sneddon has a history of witness tampering. He is currently being sued for $10 million by lawyer Gary Dunlap who claims that Sneddon maliciously prosecuted him. According to Dunlap, when a judge refused to change her ruling in Sneddon's favour, Sneddon brought bogus charges against her, publicly humiliated her and ruined her career. When it became apparent to Sneddon that this judge would be a witness in the Dunlap case, he threatened to bring more charges against her. Just imagine what might have happened if Sneddon knew in advance who would make the best witnesses for the defense in the criminal trial.

As you can see, if Jackson had gone through with the civil trial, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution. Although this is the most important reason for Michael Jackson settling, there were many other factors involved. One must understand the various differences between civil and criminal trials in order to fully comprehend Mr. Jackson's reasons for settling.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, the jury's verdict is based on a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the plaintiff's rights. In short, in order to be convicted in a criminal trial, the jury must be completely convinced of your guilt. In a civil trial, however, if the jury thinks you might have committed the crime, they can still rule against you.

The defendant in a civil trial also has less rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person's property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. They can even take the deposition of nonparties in a civil case and order them to bring do***ents with them. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent do***ents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute.

In criminal law, if the defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the defendant must be cooperative for depositions and testimony. If the defendant in a civil trial invokes their fifth amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display for everybody to see. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.

The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been up to his elbows in lawyers fees while at the same time putting his career on hold, limiting his source of income. Such a long, drawn out process would have also caused him and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to deal with. Why go through all of that twice, especially if going court in the civil trial would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the criminal trial? Why risk your chances of being acquitted when there would be absolutely nothing beneficial about going through with the civil trial? What would you have done? If you say you would have fought tooth and nail in both the civil trial and the criminal trial, well, that's very noble of you but until you are actually in the position that Michael Jackson was in, don't tell me that there's no way you would have settled the case.

Keep in mind that the settlement did not prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. The Chandlers would not cooperate with authorities; this was their own decision. Larry Feldman stated himself that the civil settlement had nothing to do with Jordan Chandler's refusal to testify. The media, however, has gone out of their way to promote the idea that Michael Jackson bought the family's silence. For example, they will use sentences like "No charges were brought against Michael Jackson after he paid his accuser $20 million." Technically, there is nothing inaccurate about that statement but the implication is that charges were never brought because of the civil settlement. This is known as false cause- when people assume that because event A occurred before event B, event B was a result of event A. In reality, however, the case fell apart because Jordan Chandler would not testify and there was no evidence to corroborate his story. The criminal investigation was completely independent of the civil proceedings and the settlement did not affect the investigation. Simply put, there was no evidence to prove or even support the claim that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. This is the only reason why charges were not brought. Michael Jackson did not buy his way out of anything.

Logically, it doesn't even make sense to say that he paid them off. Chandler asked for $20 million at the very beginning and Michael Jackson turned him away. This was before the boy had even made any allegations; Chandler basically said, "give me $20 million or my son is going to make accusations against you." Why didn't Michael Jackson pay him off at that point? If he was guilty wouldn't he have paid him to go away? What, he was just like, "Nah, turn me in first, ruin my career and get my ass investigated by the police and then I'll pay you off?" It doesn't make any sense at all.

If it is still your contention that Jackson's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which would have made it impossible for him to "bribe" the boy into not testifying. Jackson's actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler's silence.

A more logical explanation as to why Michael Jackson settled is that he was innocent and although he initially refused to be blackmailed by Evan Chandler, he had no choice in the end. Once the alleged abuse was brought to the attention of authorities, it suddenly became apparent to Jackson just how ugly things would get. The media went into overkill, the District Attorney was seeking a conviction instead of justice and the civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers had backed Jackson into a corner. He could either go through with the civil trial and risk a weakened defense in the more important criminal trial or settle the civil lawsuit and risk people thinking he had something to hide. Obviously, Michael Jackson valued his life more than he valued the opinions of other people so he opted to settle the lawsuit. Settling the civil suit was the easiest option for Michael Jackson and from a legal standpoint, his decision to settle makes sense. Unfortunately, the settlement is constantly used against Michael Jackson by a lazy media who refuse to do any research before writing a story.

An innocent man wouldn't have settled? Whatever. Do your homework before you use legal proceedings that you don't understand to prove a person's guilt.

Now, I have provided you with the "TRUTH"!!!

To bad, you and the rest of ill informed people (HATERS) in this country will refuse to believe it!!!!

Just like there are people (HATERS) that still believe that President Obama was not born in the U.S. and trying to get rid of him because he is half BLACK/WHITE!!!

Make sure that you tune in on CON "QUACK" THE MURDERER TRIAL which opening statement is September 20, 2011 and you will see and learn how the justice system work in RACIST AMERICA.

1027 days ago
240.

kiana    

Honestly we all know that Michael Jackson was an addict the whole ******* world knew that. Murray's story doesnt make any sense. First murray says "i left the room for only 2 minutes tops and when i came back in the room i found Michael on the bed unconcious". then murray goes to say "Michael collapsed". wtf then he says "Michael must have poured propofol in his juice and drank it" Michael couldnt have possibly did that in a spand of two minutes. So therefore Murray is lying about something cause the **** doesnt make sense. ! he killed michael point blank.

1026 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web