SENTINEL 9-15-2011
HomeAcademicsAlbumArticleFC BibleFirpo FilesFlashpointJWs AfricaMatthewN-WordPeople!PharaohsProof of JesusPsych SeriesSentinelContact

Muting Emotional Murray

Tears flow, tears rip

The Firpo Files

September 15, 2011

(Sentinel Sept 29, 2011 - October 5, 2011)

The Los Angeles trial of Dr. Conrad Murray finally got underway this past Tuesday. Murray is being tried for involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of Michael Joseph Jackson on June 25, 2009.

The salty tears that welled up in Murray's eyes during the defense's opening statement had little medicinal value in soothing the torn hearts of Jackson family members and fans the world over.

The prosecution came out swinging, landing hard-hitting body blows in the process, but the defense countered with a few well-placed jabs itself, or did it? Does it matter that Dr. Arnold Klein got Michael hooked on Demerol as the defense charges?

Does it really make a difference that Michael may have died at his own hands as the defense alleges?

Deadly Defense: To say that the defense has gotten off on the wrong foot would be the understatement of the year. It has shot itself in one foot and has put the other foot in its mouth--all this after painting itself into a corner. How so?

Well, they will argue that Dr. Klein addicted Michael to Demerol. So, the secret's out. Michael was an addict, and it tore another hole in my heart to hear a tape of his slurred, almost indescribable voice. That's not the Michael I remember, and I promised myself that I won't ever listen to it again.

In any event, the defense says the evidence will show that Michael swallowed eight two-milligram pills of Lorazepam (which ostensibly explains why he had four times the amount Lorazepam in his stomach than in his veins), and that he self-injected what turned out to be a lethal dose of Propofol that effectively created a "perfect storm" that killed him immediately.

The question is, If Murray knew that Michael was an addict, why would he leave potentially lethal drugs in a place so easily accessible to a known addict, and then conveniently leave the room for a restroom break? You don't have to be from "the ‘hood" to know that if you leave drugs in front of an addict desperately seeking a fix, he'll take them in the blink of an eye.

Plausible Deniability: If you leave alcohol easily accessible to an alcoholic who has no immediate plans to embark on the road to recovery, you can bet he'll indulge himself.

And, speaking of betting, if you leave money lying around when a chronic gambler has depleted her stash, you can believe she'll take it. If you leave a carton of cigarettes out in front of a pack-a-day smoker who ran out of the cancer sticks and has no intention of quitting, rest assured he'll be fired up in no time.  

Leaving the drugs where Michael could get them was analogous to the situation in one of sister Janet's songs: the moth was led to the flame, one lit by Dr. Conrad Murray. What better way to claim plausible deniability?

"I didn't shoot Michael up with drugs that killed him," Murray could claim. "Nor did I shove pills down his throat!" Yea, but you put the needle and pills in front of him, then left the room. What did you think he would do with them?

If, in fact, there was no intent to kill Michael on Murray's part, then the correct charge is criminal negligence, which is at the center of involuntary manslaughter.

Inexcusable Excuses: The defense will attempt to "humanize" Murray. Brilliant strategy. We already know he's human. He's the human who killed Michael Jackson.  The defense says we're all imperfect. True. However, we're not all trained physicians who took the Hippocratic Oath.

Here's a sampling of three other excuses Murray's team will use. They amount to nothing less than a collective red herring. My responses follow: Excuse (1): ‘Murray treated Michael for a toe fungus.' Response: Oh, why didn't he say this in the first place? That explains everything.

Excuse (2): Murray said he sat and watched Michael and left the room "only when I felt comfortable." Response: What exactly made him feel comfortable enough to leave? It seems to me that you would have left when you felt the growing discomfort in your bladder that signals you have to go.

Excuse (3): The defense says when Murray left the room "there was zero Propofol in his [Michael's] system." Response: So a "perfect storm" of other drugs, negligently made accessible, killed Michael when administered.
Note to Murray: What you're doing is speaking so loudly we can't hear what you're saying. Stay tuned.