I am a veteran.
Not of any wars. But I am a veteran of having covered not one but two O.J. Simpson trials (criminal and civil); one Robert Blake trial; and, one Michael Jackson trial. I think I know how defense lawyers think and have dealt with the best and worst of them. I also have a pretty good take on how prosecutors operate.
So, I will tell you right now and with no fear of contradiction: Should Dr. Conrad Murray's case on involuntary manslaughter charges ever go before a Los Angeles jury (and more about that a bit later), the doctor's defense lawyers, if they are any good (and I think his current one is!) will no doubt try and turn the trial into a prosecution of Michael Jackson.
Lawyers for O.J., in his criminal trial, zeroed in on the LAPD; while lawyers for Robert Blake took aim at his dead wife's, shall we say, "background."
I'm afraid that Michael Jackson's life is ripe for the defense picking.
Dr. Murray has pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. And, it is telling that, despite considerable pressure from Jackson's family and fan base, the Los Angeles County District Attorney correctly opted for the least possible criminal charge they could go for, involuntary manslaughter--which history shows is often the most difficult charge to actually prove in a court of law. Even if convicted, the maximum sentence is four years.
An eight month investigation....a relatively light criminal charge. (If any criminal charge can ever really be thought of as "light"?)
The California state Medical Board is reportedly considering whether to suspend Murray's medical license, but that would only stop him from practicing in California. He practices in Texas and Nevada, too.
Jackson's father, Joe, went on Larry King to say that "I was looking for justice, and justice, to me, would be a murder charge."
He went on to tell King, referring to Dr. Murray, "To me, he's just a fall guy. There's other people, I think involved with this whole thing."
On that, the senior Jackson may have a point, but not for the reason he thinks.
He seems to be implying some sort of sinister murder conspiracy aimed at his son, without offering, I hasten to add, any evidence, though that seldom stops talk shows from exploiting such comments for dramatic effect, not to mention ratings.
But should this case go to trial, the doctor's defense lawyer (lawyers?) will no doubt try to paint a picture of Michael Jackson that his family, and certainly his own children, may not wish to hear: That the singer was apparently an addicted drug addict (certainly it would seem to the surgical anesthetic propofol); that many, many doctors before Dr. Murray was even hired contributed to the deceased superstar's addictive personality and lifestyle (not to mention who knows how many drug stores that gladly filled prescription after prescription, made up names or not); and, I'm afraid to say, even Jackson family members who may have, over the years, acted as enablers, all in the name of keeping the Michael Jackson performing machine going at full steam ahead, will probably become part of the defense argument.
Yes, Joe Jackson is probably correct. Other people are involved in the singer's untimely death. In one way or another.
That is why I think it is probably in the best interests of justice, and Michael Jackson's reputation and legacy, that this case never go to trial. Dr. Murray is not likely to know all the previous medical people who played a role in Michael Jackson's addiction. Jackson's family and fans probably do not need to have Jackson's name dragged through the LA mud once again, as certainly it will be during any trial.
I understand that Dr. Murray wants to clear his name. He certainly enjoys the cloak of innocent until proven guilty that our criminal justice system provides. But if I were a prosecutor, I would push hard for a plea bargain, one that would strip the doctor of his ability to practice medicine. The poor doctor was apparently just the last link in a very long chain that, unintentionally, led to Jackson's death. It seems unfair to him that he should shoulder the entire burden. By the same token, Michael Jackson was, indeed, a victim, but one whose own hands had some blood on them. His small children have suffered enough. Do they really need to hear all the sordid details that will surely emerge about their dad's lifestyle should this case go to trial? I, for one, don't think so.
Charles Feldman is a journalist, media consultant and co-author of the book, "No Time To Think-The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle." He has covered police and politics in Los Angeles since 1995 and is a regular contributor of investigative reporting to KNX1070 Newsradio.
Follow Charles Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cfeldman1
This man and his family (mainly his children) have been through enough. I don't want this trial to become a referendum on "well he asked for it"! How utterly arrogant of Dr. Murray to think that he did nothing wrong. I am a health care worker and am utterly appalled at the treatment that was provided to Michael while he was dying. This is a very easy case to prove criminally negligent homicide. The autopsy alone proves that there were no other drugs in Michaels system except the ones he was given by Dr. Murray. And for him to say what he gave him shouldn't have killed him is utterly irresponsible and stupid. And medical professional knows that with the medications that he was giving Michael that there is always a chance of death caused by respiratory depression leading to cardiac arrest. I don't know what disgusts me more, Dr. Murrays utter lack of regard for his pt or the need to drag a person he claimed was a friend even further through the mud just to save his own ass.
Doctor Murray, however, did. And It was within his scope, remit and responsibilty to determine whether or not his treatment would help or hinder his patient – not the other way round.
Muddling the issue with talk of Michael being part-guilty is residue 'It's Michael, so it's his fault' stigmatization the media still seems unable to help itself from peddling.
Anyone who ever suffered with chronic insomnia knows how utterly horrendous it is, and I am sure Michael tried many, many options over the years.
And I agree with others that his past life should have no bearing on this. The people who were around him in the last months say they saw no evidence of drug use. However, it really does not matter if it was the drugs that Murray gave him that killed him, and that's what the autopsy says and Murray has admitted to.
Also, I read in one article that his kidneys and liver were healthy and normal that doesn’t sound like a drug abuser; again it really doesn’t matter since it was Murray’s drugs that killed him.
Stop repeating the meme that Michael Jackson was a drug addict. It's not borne out by the autopsy - MJ's vital organs were in excellent shape and the only drugs in his system were those administered by Murray. No one could have survived the ministrations of Conrad Murray, no matter what their physical condition.
It's laughable to think that Michael Jackson's family and fans are afraid of anything the defense may bring up in court. This is a man whose home was raided by 70 law enforcement officers, on the word of proven liars. The "justice" system stripped him naked and forcefully photographed his private parts. Even in death, the disrespect shown Michael Jackson is unprecedented - almost every night, cable news trots out some peripheral figure in MJ's life to trash his existence.
Stop blaming Michael Jackson or his family for his death. I'm with Joe Jackson and La Toya on this one - there are others involved. The involuntary manslaughter charge is a travesty. But at least it is a charge. Conrad Murray needs to pay for what he did.
Murray may or may not plead out. Who would be willing to pay for his silence, or lack thereof is the defining question.
The Jackson family I find foolish. They continually blame others while avoiding personal responsibility.
But there is always a problem of the victim's consent, or the victim's request that the drugs be provided. Should the doctors have known that this amount of drugs would kill, or there was a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm? I would say yes. But Michael Jackson wanted the drugs, and requested them, and apparently told his doctor that he had used them before without consequence.
Michael Jackson was a drug addict, which is a terrible shame. And this doctor should not have used his professional license to help provide drugs. But I think ultimately a good part of the responsibility lies on the deceased. Tough case.
Micheal got what Michael wanted. I f this doctor had told him "NO," he would have been tossed out and a doctor who would get the drugs would have been brought in.