X1: Now while I am not the great legal mind of the 21st century, I see what is clearly going on here… There are lots of stories/false stories floating around out there. I am just trying to figure out what they all mean in legal terms. I mean I recall statement that was made about Murray being with a call girl and I just wondered legally how that would affect the case. I am also wondering where this information came from. There has not ever been one verifiable source to come out and say yes I know for a fact he was with a call girl because I saw him with my own eyes. Now if there are any Jackson insiders that have this bombshell revelation and know this to be a fact wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would become a witness for the prosecution?
I know that if I had this information I would be on the next plane to LA to tell the police what I know-so that we could gain some Justice 4 Michael! If this statement is true it goes to the timeline concerning the day Michael died. Being that there is so much information out there we must really see what it means in terms of legality and if it will stand in court testimony-will it ever even make it to court? Yes, this is worth the exploration…
*THE TIME IS NOW!
**Introducing TEAM INX LEGAL CORRESPONDENT SAMANTHA JELLY TO X1 BLOGGER WELCOME SAM!
Geraldine Hughes: Conrad Murray needs to tell the truth. If the truth was known about what really happened the early morning hours before Michael Jackson died, he should be charged with murder, not manslaughter.
Samantha Jelly: "Speculation and conjecture by a party can NOT be considered TRUTH and is merely considered hearsay, and not admissible in a court of law. For such facts to be presented as truth, they would have had to have been presented by way of legal documentation, such as, police interviews, witness statements and/or sworn testimony, and other confidential information ON THE RECORD.
Hearsay Evidence Code
California Evidence Code 1200-1205
1200. (a) "Hearsay evidence" is evidence of a statement that was
made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that
is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.
(b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
(c) This section shall be known and may be cited as the hearsay
rule.
1201. A statement within the scope of an exception to the hearsay
rule is not inadmissible on the ground that the evidence of such
statement is hearsay evidence if such hearsay evidence consists of
one or more statements each of which meets the requirements of an
exception to the hearsay rule.
1202. Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that
is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in
evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of
attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and
has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent
statement or other conduct. Any other evidence offered to attack or
support the credibility of the declarant is admissible if it would
have been admissible had the declarant been a witness at the hearing.
For the purposes of this section, the deponent of a deposition taken
in the action in which it is offered shall be deemed to be a hearsay
declarant.
1203. (a) The declarant of a statement that is admitted as hearsay
evidence may be called and examined by any adverse party as if under
cross-examination concerning the statement.
(b) This section is not applicable if the declarant is (1) a
party, (2) a person identified with a party within the meaning of
subdivision (d) of Section 776, or (3) a witness who has testified in
the action concerning the subject matter of the statement.
(c) This section is not applicable if the statement is one
described in Article 1 (commencing with Section 1220), Article 3
(commencing with Section 1235), or Article 10 (commencing with
Section 1300) of Chapter 2 of this division.
(d) A statement that is otherwise admissible as hearsay evidence
is not made inadmissible by this section because the declarant who
made the statement is unavailable for examination pursuant to this
section.
1203.1. Section 1203 is not applicable if the hearsay statement is
offered at a preliminary examination, as provided in Section 872 of
the Penal Code.
1204. A statement that is otherwise admissible as hearsay evidence
is inadmissible against the defendant in a criminal action if the
statement was made, either by the defendant or by another, under such
circumstances that it is inadmissible against the defendant under
the Constitution of the United States or the State of California.
1205. Nothing in this division shall be construed to repeal by
implication any other statute relating to hearsay evidence."
_____________________________________________________
Geraldine Hughes: The truth is, Conrad Murray left the premises completely after putting Michael Jackson under Propofol to meet with a call girl. When he returned, it is speculated that Michael Jackson was already dead.
Samantha Jelly: "Regardless if Murray was meeting with a call girl or out in the hallway, the fact remains that he was NOT in the room with Michael. Again, without concrete evidence or witness testimony that he left the premises, the claims are refutable and considered nothing more than speculation and hearsay. With regard to the aforementioned speculation of Michael Jackson being already dead; the time of death is determined by the coroner-the forensics team then assesses other forensic evidence. It can quickly be proven or disproven that he was already dead at that point. (Reference above Hearsay Evidence Code)"
Geraldine Hughes: Everything he did afterwards was to cover his tracks. He has given two timelines. He told the police that he gave Michael the Propofol at 10:40 a.m. and when he returned from the bathroom at 10:50, he found Michael not breathing and immediately began CPR. However, the problem with that story is that the 911 call was not made until 12:21 p.m. Then his girlfriend told police that she was talking to Murray at 12:05 p.m. and at approx. 12:13 p.m. he dropped the phone and was doing CPR on Michael. The problem with this alibi (from his girlfriend) is that at 9:00 a.m. Murray's employees in Texas were removing boxes from storage, and the paramedic stated that when they arrived at 12:30, MJ appeared to had been dead for hours. They would have, under normal circumstances, taken Michael to the coroner's office, but Murray insisted that they take him to the hospital.
Samantha Jelly: "By law, since Murray holds the MD degree, the patient care is deferred to him, rather than the paramedics on scene. He holds senior rank, and if he is on scene and does not pronounce the patient dead, the paramedics must continue resuscitation attempts until at which time a doctor in charge pronounces the patient dead"
"With regard to speculation:
Personal Knowledge/Speculation (FRE 602)
The personal knowledge requirement is simply that a witness must have personally seen, heard, or otherwise sensed the event or situation they are testifying about. For example, if the witness was at an intersection and saw the color of the light when an accident occurred, she could testify about the color of the light. But if the witness was in a store during the accident and only later “learned” what color the light was in a conversation, she doesn’t have personal knowledge of the light color. She would have personal knowledge about what the person told her in the conversation, but that is not enough to give her personal knowledge of the light color."
"With further regard to hearsay:
Hearsay (FRE 801-807)
“Hearsay” is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the statement. For example, if the witness testifies that someone said “the light was green when I went through,” and you offer the testimony to show that the light was, in fact, green, that’s hearsay. Also, it doesn’t matter if the witness is the declarant; their prior statements are still hearsay if the statements meet the definition and aren’t excepted. Basically, if someone will testify “she told me xyz,” you need to think of why that’s either not hearsay, or is an exception to the hearsay prohibition. The easiest is probably party opponent (801(d)). This means the person who made the original statement is the opposing party (or an agent, etc.). Any witness, even the opposing party, can be asked about statements the opposing party made."
"Hearsay exceptions that apply even where the declarant is available:
* Excited Utterances: statements relating to startling events or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. This is the exception that may apply to the 'police officer' scenario listed above. The victim's cries of help were made under the stress of a startling event, and the victim is still under the stress of the event, as is evidenced by the victim's crying and visible shaking. An excited utterance does not have to be made at the same time of the startling event. A statement made minutes, hours or even days after the startling event can be excited utterances, so long as the declarant is still under the stress of the startling event. However, the more time that elapses between a startling event and the declarant’s statement, the more the statements will be looked upon with disfavor.
* Present Sense Impressions: A statement expressing the declarant’s impression of a condition existing at the time the statement was made, such as "it's hot in here", or "we're going really fast". Unlike an excited utterance, it need not be made in response to a startling event. Instead, it is admissible because it is a condition that the witness would likely have been experiencing at the same time as the declarant, and would instantly be able to corroborate.
* Declarations of present state of mind: Much like a present-sense impression describes the outside world, declarant’s statement to the effect of "I am angry!" or "I am Napoleon!" will be admissible to prove that the declarant was indeed angry, or did indeed believe himself to be Napoleon at that time. Used in cases where the declarant mental state is at issue. Present-state-of-mind statements are also used as circumstantial evidence of subsequent acts committed by the declarant, like his saying, "I'm gonna go buy some groceries and get the oil changed in my car on my way home from work."
"Hearsay exceptions not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness.
* Dying Declarations: and other statements under belief of impending death: often depicted in movies; the police officer asks the person on his deathbed, "Who attacked you?" and the victim replies, "The butler did it." However, case law has ruled out this exception in criminal law, because the witness should always be cross examined in court; however, there is an exception to this exception for criminal cases: even though generally inadmissible to matters relating to criminal law, the exception has been carved out for actions relating to homicide cases[Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(2)].
* Declaration against Interest: A statement that would incriminate or expose the declarant to liability to such an extent that it can be assumed he would only make such a statement if it were true. It would be assumed that one would lie to further one's interests, so a statement against his interests (such as exposing oneself to criminal or civil liability) likely would not be made unless it were true.
* Prior Testimony: if the testimony was given under oath and the party against whom the testimony is being proffered was present and had the opportunity to cross examine the witness at that time-often used to enter depositions into the court record at trial.
* Admission of Guilt: if you make a statement, verbal or otherwise, as an admission of guilt of the matter at hand, that statement would not be regarded as hearsay. In other words, self-incriminating statements (confessions) are not hearsay.
* Forfeiture by Wrongdoing: the party against whom the statement is now offered (1) intentionally made the declarant unavailable; (2) with intent to prevent declarant testimony; (3) by wrongdoing. In plain English, if you get rid of a witness, statements they made can be used against you."
_________________________________________________
X1 Blogger
Geraldine Hughes: If Murray was telling the truth, then why is he lying, why did he change his timeline, and why was he on the phone during the time Michael was under Propofol. Another fact was that Murray had the heater turned up so high in Michael's room that the paramedics called it sweltering, when Michael hated sleeping in the heat. He slept with his bedroom window fully opened and would not let anyone close it.
X1: With respect to Heat and Time of Death via Forensic Pathology:
*This is a complex science and for a Coroner and a Forensic Pathologist to explain-as the time of death, body temperature, heat, and other factors will be surrounding this for certain.
#1. For the average person-other than the paramedics which arrived on the scene to state that the heat was sweltering-and how this would adversely affect Michael, at such a critical state after death-without any degree in forensic pathology would be inadmissible. This is according to what Ms. Jelly has stated above. With further regard to the paramedic profession- they are not trained to analyze forensic pathology-paramedics are trained to save lives. The paramedics were in the actual room and I trust they felt it was warm-as for any second hand information I cannot state the same.
#2. However, did they actually take a temperature of the room that the death took place in so that they can know in terms of the degree which varying heat could have affected Michael’s state? To have any conclusive evidence on how the heat factor affected Michael (if there was any/if these were not also false reports) we would need point our attentions to the discovery to determine just what the forensic pathologist stated. To further add to the time line and the time of death all of these factors need to be assessed before coming to a logical conclusion regarding anything. All the facts are required here.
#3. For anyone to factually state that Michael’s preference was to not sleep in heat they would have to have known him on a very personal level. This means the interactions of this individual would have to be someone who occupied a residence with Michael at some stage-a close friend or family member.
#4. Moreover, there are other factors that can affect the time of death like the positioning of the decedent or if they had clothing. We may presume whatsoever we like; however, without hard and conclusive forensic evidence to support any allegations they are just hearsay.
**Not unless there is information being leaked from the investigation. Or an insider has relayed such information. In any case if the proper authorities have not been notified in advance of this and if this is at all factual-the individual (s) that made the actual statements need to come forward and verify this. This person would become an actual witness for the prosecution and subject to a cross examination by defense.
X1: How would someone know these details and for certain be able to state what the heat did to Michael unless they're a forensic pathologist or a coroner? Here are the definitions below for the various individuals that may have had contact with Michael:
Coroner: Main Entry: cor•o•ner Pronunciation: \Ėkȯr-É-nÉr, ĖkƤr-\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, an officer of the crown, from Anglo-French, from corone crown, from Latin corona Date: 15th century: a usually elected public officer whose principal duty is to inquire by an inquest into the cause of any death which there is reason to suppose is not due to natural causes-compare medical examiner
Source:
Medical Examiner: Main Entry: medical examiner Function: noun Date: 1877: a public officer who conducts autopsies on bodies to find the cause of death Physician-reviewed articles on medical examiner on Healthline
Source:
Forensic Pathology: is a branch of pathology concerned with determining the cause of death by examination of a cadaver. The autopsy is performed by the pathologist at the request of a coroner usually during the investigation of criminal law cases and civil law cases in some jurisdictions. *Forensic pathologists are also frequently asked to confirm the identity of a cadaver. The word forensics is derived from the Latin forÄnsis meaning forum.
Source:
Forensic Science: (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, where by an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being. The word forensic comes from the Latin adjective forensis, meaning "of or before the forum". In Roman times, a criminal charge meant presenting the case before a group of public individuals in the forum. Both the person accused of the crime and the accuser would give speeches based on their side of the story. The individual with the best argument and delivery would determine the outcome of the case. This origin is the source of the two modern usages of the word forensic – as a form of legal evidence and as a category of public presentation. In modern use, the term "forensics" in place of "forensic science" can be considered incorrect as the term "forensic" is effectively a synonym for "legal" or "related to courts". However, the term is now so closely associated with the scientific field that many dictionaries include the meaning that equates the word "forensics" with "forensic science".
Source:
Geraldine Hughes: It is my guess that he gave Michael Jackson a lot of propofol to keep him sedated long enough to go out and come back. When the propofol wears off, that is when the person wakes up. Therefore, because he was going to meet with a call girl, he wanted to make sure that Michael Jackson remained sleep until he returned. That's why he gave him so much and the coroner's office confirmed that Michael was swimming in propofol. He didn't bet on him dying because he is a Cardiologist, not an Anesthesiologist. Therefore, putting people under is not his area of specialty.
For the reasons stated above, Conrad Murder (Murray) should be charged with murder, not manslaughter. There are enough facts and evidence to prove that all though he acted recklessly, his actions were so negligent that it should be considered murder.
X1: Yes the entire blog was a guess this is my point. Sedation differs from anesthesia; they are not the same thing! Psychotropic medications are different also! Here are the definitions for the words below:
Sedative: Main Entry: 1sed•a•tive Sedative: Pronunciation: \Ėse-dÉ-tiv\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, alleviating pain, from Middle French sedatif, from Medieval Latin sedativus, from Latin sedates Date: 1779: tending to calm, moderate, or tranquilize nervousness or excitement.
Source:
Anesthesia: Main Entry: an•es•the•sia Pronunciation: \Ėa-nÉs-ĖthÄ-zhÉ\ Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Greek anaisthÄsia insensibility, from a- + aisthÄsis perception, from aisthanesthai to perceive — more at audible Date: circa 1721 : loss of sensation with or without loss of consciousness.
Source:
General Anesthesia: Main Entry: Function: noun Date: 1881 : anesthesia affecting the entire body and accompanied by loss of consciousness— general anesthetic noun
Source:
Psychotropic: /psy•cho•tro•pic/ (si″ko-tro´pik) exerting an effect on the mind; capable of modifying mental activity; said especially of drugs.
Source:
X1: Michael was given many different drugs on this day. The source provided below will take you to a listing regarding what was given to Michael. I will not further elaborate on all of the drugs with the exception for one-Propofol as this was the drug that indeed caused his death as we know it to be from the various reports. To conclude this if you are giving out information-please be advised to research it so that you are not giving misinformation! How can you comment on something when your facts are not correct? There are many different factors involved when you are trying to piece everything together. It is just confusing if you reference a drug type as something it is not or issue a statement which you have no intention for providing a source for! Here, we have a fine example of something-that from the outside appears to be quite conclusive and convincing. However, if you look closely and examine the words you realize - there is very little- if at all any substantial and of contextual merit here.
-X1
Propofol
Brand: Diprivan
Propofol is an intravenous drug that slows the activity of your brain and nervous system. It is used to help you relax before and during general anesthesia for surgery or other medical procedure. Propofol is also used in critically ill patients who require a breathing tube connected to a ventilator. Side effects may include: seizure (convulsions), weak or shallow breathing, or fast or slow heart rate. (Photo by Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)
*Here is the link to the various drugs they claim that Michael was taking:
Soruce:
*Propofol can be given as a general or regular anesthetic. It is very versatile in nature here is a reference to the Propofol (INN, marketed as Diprivan by AstraZeneca) is a short-acting, intravenously administered hypnotic agent. Its uses include the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, sedation for mechanically ventilated adults, and procedural sedation. Propofol is also commonly used in veterinary medicine. Propofol is approved for use in more than 50 countries, and generic versions are available. Chemically, Propofol is unrelated to barbiturates, and has largely replaced sodium thiopental (Pentothal) for induction of anesthesia because recovery from Propofol is more rapid and "clear" when compared with thiopental. Propofol is not considered an analgesic, so opioids such as fentanyl may be combined with Propofol to alleviate pain. Due to its amnesic effects and appearance as a white liquid, Propofol has been humorously dubbed "milk of amnesia" by doctors drug as I know it:
Source:
Book Excerpts Taken From: Forensic pathology of trauma: common problems for the pathologist By Michael J. Shkrum, David A. Ramsay:
*Source:
All references to Geraldine Hughes are excerpts from her blog it can be found at the following url:
*Source:
*All word definitions come from http://www.meriamwebster.com (Online Dictions) with the exception of those denoted.
