Conrad Murray - Guilty or Not Guilty?

The 'Michael Jackson' trial is finally over. I've followed the thrust of it throughout, watching the excellent live coverage from Sky News, here in the UK. So is Conrad Murray guilty of the involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson? Here's my take on it all.

1. Murray had been administering the surgical anasthetic propofol to Jackson for quite some time, in conjunction with other drugs. The desired effect was to help the singer sleep, so that he could fulfil his performing and business commitments. The time Jackson had been using propofol and other drugs preceded his involvement with Murray, and Murray unwisely chose to continue the treatment program for money. Murray fully realised the dangers involved with using propofol, but ordered very significant quantities of it, because Jackson had asked Murray to accompany him on a forthcoming 10-month tour. One evening, Jackson ultimately died from an overdose of propofol, administered in combination with other drugs.

Does Murray's agreement to use propofol constitute the single 'substantial factor' in Jackson's death that is necessary for criminal negligence, and thereby involuntary manslaughter to be proven? I think Murray's attitude to the use of propofol was extremely unwise, but for me, the answer is no. Better to administer the drug in some form of controlled manner, than to let Jackson give it to himself.

2. There's no doubt that Murray didn't have the ideal resources available to properly administer propofol, monitor its use on Jackson, or take necessary corrective action should an unexpected event happen. Does this constitute the single 'substantial factor' required for guilt? For me, the answer is again no. Other examples came up, where propofol has been used in a non-surgical environment, for example experimentally, or in a hospice. It was recognised that in reality, such uses might not have all of the ideal safeguards in place, and for me, it wasn't proven that Murray's efforts were unreasonable, including restricting Jackson personal access to the drug.

3. Did Murray negligently administer enough propofol to kill Jackson, in conjunction with the effect of other drugs, as a 'substantial factor' in his death? I believe that Murray used a drip-feed to administer propofol to Jackson, since one or even two 25ml shots would have probably not put Jackson to sleep for long. Murray admitted to police that drip-feeds had been added on many occasions previously for this purpose. I also believe that Murray must have smuggled the drip out of the room, since none of the equipment recovered by police showed much evidence of propofol being used.

But whilst I think Murray may well have messed up the propofol drip-feed, feeding Jackson too much of the drug, I don't think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. And for me, the broken syringe on the floor constitutes reasonable doubt that Jackson might have self-administered the drug - even in a state of panic, why would a trained physician throw a valuable asset on the floor?

Finally, given the unusual setting, I don't think it was unreasonable for Murray to step into the bathroom for two minutes, and for me, it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was out of the immediate area for any longer, thereby abandoning his duty of care.   

So for me, the required 'substantial factor' was not proven here.

4. Did Murray act negligently in his attempts to save Jackson, once discovering that he was no longer breathing, as a 'substantial factor' in his death? You can imagine Murray's state of mind, upon making the discovery. Jackson was one of the most famous men in the world, and Murray faced ruin, if he couldn't save him. I think that in his state of mind, Murray forgot his medical training, and made a hash of trying to resuscitate Jackson. But I don't think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Murray's actions contributed to his death.

It's what Murray didn't do that condemns him. He didn't call 911, or organise a call to 911, in a timeframe that was anywhere near reasonable. It was quite deliberate, in my view. He gambled that he could save Jackson alone, and the world would never need to know what happened. When his gamble didn't work out, he didn't offer full information to other medical personnel, hoping that everything might go away, or at least that an investigation might be delayed.

There was no excuse for not calling emergency services, pretty much straight away. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to conduct a short attempt at resuscitation first, but he had his phone on his person, and it had a speaker. How long would it have taken to dial 911, and activate the speaker, enabling him to alert emergency services whilst continuing his efforts to save Jackson?

It's this inaction alone that constitutes the single 'substantial factor' in Jackson's death, that Murray was responsible for. Murray's delay in calling 911 denied Jackson the opportunity for paramedics to save him.

So whilst Murray is guilty as charged, I do hope there will be a little leniency for him. He was clearly placed under enormous pressure to supply propofol to Jackson, and there was a lot of money and prestige attached to having the singer as a client.

Will The Michael Jackson Trial End On Monday? A British Perspective

I've been following the trial of Conrad Murray with interest, on the excellent Sky News channel.

It seems to me that Conrad Murray and his defence team are fighting a desperate losing battle. It looks like Murray panicked, after inadvisably giving Michael Jackson propofol (a surgical anesthetic) as a sleeping draught, and later returning to the room to find he had stopped breathing.

You can understand Murray's state of mind, upon making the discovery. Michael Jackson was one of the most famous people in the world, and Murray would have considered himself ruined, if he couldn't save him.

What happened next is all in the statement Murray gave to police. Such was his state of anxiety, he forgot all of his training, giving heart massage to a patient, whose heart was still beating. He also forgot to promptly call the emergency services, even though he clearly had a cell phone on his person - although I'm sure a part of his failure to call 911 was a desire not to let outsiders know what was happening, since if he had been successful in saving Jackson, the world would never have needed to know.

The defence seem to be implying that some of the timings Murray gave to police were inaccurate. They have nowhere else to go but to argue that there wasn't really a negligent delay in getting help, of course. But I listened intently to defence attorney J. Michael Flanagan, pointing out to cardiologist Alon Steinberg how accurate Murray's timings of earlier dispensations of drugs to Jackson were....

It seems, then, that Murray is guilty of negligence, and therefore manslaughter, whether or not Jackson self-ingested an extra dose of propofol. But that possibility itself seems a little far fetched. Murray estimates that he was out of the room for about two minutes, after observing Jackson sleeping. Is that really enough time for a man coming round from a surgical aneschetic to get up, find the drug, and feed it to himself, before going back to sleep again - especially given that he must been attached to a propofol drip, in addition to the base dose administered? Is it alternatively possible that Murray miscalculated the amount of propofol given to Jackson, in either the base dose or the drip feed?

I do feel some sympathy for Dr. Murray. He was clearly placed under enormous pressure to supply propofol to Jackson, and there was a lot of money and prestige attached to having the singer as a client. The long weekend break from the trial is time for everyone to reflect. Perhaps Murray should plea bargain on Monday, accepting responsibility in exchange for leniency....

How Should Rising Fuel and Energy Prices Be Addressed?

I've posted previously on this subject, the thrust being that in Britain and America, large companies and corporations collude, whether it be actively or passively, to keep fuel and energy prices artificially high. Prices are raised when costs (e.g. the price of oil) go up, but the hikes are rarely returned to the consumer when costs fall again. And most continue to make multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of consumers, many of which are left sitting in the cold or dark.

I've had an idea this week as to how this problem should be addressed. I'm glad to see that the problem is now beginning to make the British political agenda, and I think that the next logical step would be for David Cameron to threaten to refer offending companies to the Competition Commission. That should wake them up, and I think they might reduce their prices, fearing that referral might break the industries up. Perhaps there is an equivalent body in America that could be used for this purpose.

I'm half-minded to write to David Cameron and Sky News with this suggestion. I'll let you know how it goes.


For my previous posts on this subject, please visit http://t.co/3tpQOmW and http://stevestonechat.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-do-we-reckon-about-rising-fuel-and_17.html

What do we reckon about...... O.J. Simpson?

Most people ask just one question about O.J. Simpson - did he really do it? My quest for the truth follows, including photos of a meeting with O.J. trial judge Lance Ito, and pictures of a journey to Nicole Brown's condominium;

In 1996, my wife Debi and I enjoyed a wonderful summer tour of the Los Angeles area. Apart from the Sun, the movie industry and the theme parks, one motivation for visiting was our fascination with the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson, who was accused of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown, and her friend Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994. We watched almost the entirety of the trial live from the UK, on the excellent Sky News channel.

One night, we dined at a Black Angus restaurant in Orange County, and struck gold. Sitting on the very next table was one of O.J. trial judge Lance Ito's court stenographers. The trial was still pretty fresh in everyone's minds, and she was talking about it with some friends. I introduced myself, and before too long, the stenographer had organised a personal appointment for Debi and myself - with Lance Ito.

That's me there, outside the Courts Building, and then in Lance Ito's office - Debi took both photos. For a couple of tourists, it was an amazing meeting - the oak door of his chamber, the red carpet, the tea and biscuits, with arguably the most famous judge in history. He couldn't talk about the trial, of course, but it was an incredible twenty minutes. He concluded by saying that the photo on the right might be worth a lot of money one day - well, I'm not sure about that, any bids please to stevestoneintrepid@live.co.uk...... I'm joking, of course.

What I am sure about is that one of the key defence arguments during the trial was timeline. On the evening of June 12, 1994, O.J. had to fly from Los Angeles, for an appointment the next day in Chicago. Taking into account his known movements, a time window of around 45 minutes was available for him to drive from his Rockingham mansion to Nicole's condominium on Bundy Drive, commit the crimes, and then return to meet his limousine taxi to the airport. 

One lunchtime during the trial, the jurors were taken on a bus trip, covering the key locations. It took the bus a long time to navigate the traffic between Rockingham and Bundy, raising the question of whether O.J. could have really got it all done in such a short time window.

We hired a red Dodge Stratus for our trip to LA, so I decided to put the timeline to the test;

I drove between Rockingham and Bundy, one busy Thursday lunchtime. I went a little over the speed limit, on what for an Englishman was the wrong side of the road, and completed the distance in exactly...... 4 1/2 minutes. That leaves 36 minutes of the time window unaccounted for, and if O.J. was at the house in the right-hand photo on the night in question, he would have driven the route on a quiet Sunday evening.

Debi is known to talk a lot, but when we arrived at Nicole's place, we got out of the car, and spent almost a full minute in silence, looking through the front gate. A feeling of sadness overwhelmed us. Then I decided to drive around to the alley at the back. It was secluded, with not much in the way of visible street lighting. Parking up, I noticed that vegitation in the nearby gardens meant that not many of the surrounding windows had a clear view of the rear of the place. 

There was a tall gate beside garages at the back of the property. Getting out of the car, my highest jump granted me only a fleeting glimpse of what laid beyond. So to Debi's amazement, I climbed onto the hire car, and got a clear view of the front gate, down the side of the place. She begged me to get down, but I stood on the car for almost a full minute.

Again, an overwhelming feeling of sadness engulfed me. But then the possible truth of what really happened that evening in 1994 hit me. Why did an old guy testify at the trial that he thought he saw O.J.'s white Ford Bronco outside the front of the place, but couldn't quite be sure? Why would someone up to no good park up at the front, when there's a quiet alley around the back? Even on a busy Thursday lunchtime, it was a full fifteen minutes before anyone came along that alley.

If O.J. was there on the night in question, maybe the old guy wasn't sure, because what he really saw was just a flash of the Bronco, on its way around the back. Maybe O.J. didn't go there to murder anyone, maybe he was really on a spying mission - it's no secret he was a jealous guy, and it wouldn't have been the first time. Maybe he pulled up at the back where I did - at night, it would have been an ideal location to sit, with the intention of observing. Maybe O.J. entered from the back, not the front, as has always been widely believed. Maybe he scaled the back gate, or quietly let himself in under the cover of semi-darkness - he owned a key to the gate, and it was also suggested in Chapter Six of his book 'If I Did It' (Beaufort Books, 2007) that the gate was broken at the time.

Maybe O.J. secretly carried a knife in the Bronco for his own protection. Maybe he kept a pair of tight-fitting driving gloves in the car. Maybe he saw the view of the front gate that I did. Maybe he saw something that enraged him. Maybe he thought the contents of the envelope Ron Goldman had for Nicole contained a romantic gift, rather than a simple pair of eyeglasses - it must have happened when Ron was handing the envelope to Nicole, because the envelope was found by police at the scene, still containing the glasses.

But the jury at the criminal trial didn't see it that way. The defence team did a marvellous job, it has to be said. DNA analysis was in its infancy at the time, and expert Barry Scheck did a great job of discrediting the almost undiscreditable. But the late Johnnie Cochran was the real star. I was transfixed to his twenty-minute summing up, right at the end of the trial. When he was talking about O.J.'s glove, who could forget the famous phrase, "....if it doesn't fit, you must acquit." I stared at the screen for a full hour and a half after he had finished speaking - that's how long it took me to re-convince myself that O.J. was indeed guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be over 13 years before an orator had me glued to the television in such a manner - it was Barack Obama, in his electrifying inauguration speech.

Perhaps it was poetic justice that O.J. Simpson was later found legally responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, in a civil trial. Maybe it was also poetic justice that many years later, O.J. was jailed on an un-related charge. Not full justice for the victims' families, perhaps, but although I'm in little doubt that O.J. did indeed do something terrible on that night in 1994, maybe we should remember that he has also achieved some good things in his life - he was 1968 Heisman Trophy winner, film actor and entertainer, sports commentator, and above all, he did a lot of work for charity.

So perhaps a small part of me wishes O.J. Simpson well, when he gets out of jail, for what will be the last few remaining years of his life. I can't say fairer than that.