[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
Nervously fidgeting in a hot Lima courtroom, Joran Van der Slootlistened to his sentence at the end of a 2-hour hearing. The 3-judge panel sentenced Van der Sloot to spend 28 years in prison and pay $74,000 in reparations to the heirs of his victim Stephany Flores. The 2-hour hearing listed the charges and overviewed facts of the case. In the end, Van der Sloot was found guilty of the most serious crime of Qualified Murder, which is “murder for profit or pleasure.” Additionally, he was also found guilty of Simple Robbery for stealing the victim’s money, credit cards and vehicle after the murder. Van der Sloot was given credit for time already served, and will be released 28 years from the date of his arrest, on June 10, 2038. Once he's released from prison, he will be deported.
On January 11, 2012, Van der Sloot pled guilty and offered a “sincere confession” to the judges. Perhaps it was his smirking, his overt condescension of the proceedings, or perhaps it was his yawning throughout the hearing a few days before. The judges must not have believed the defendant’s sincerity in his brief statement of remorse (“I feel bad”). Or perhaps it was the way he beamed at the judges after pleading guilty to the brutal beating and strangulation of Stephany Flores. Perhaps the judges saw the happy, jubilant Van der Sloot as being prideful of his acts. And perhaps the judges were very correct in doing so. Van der Sloot offered the world a master’s class in how not to behave in a courtroom if one actually expects leniency. It rivals the American trial of Bob Ward, whose daughters pled for leniency in statements laced with profanities.
The judge chairing the panel sat behind a large crucifix on the bench, which is more than a little ironic. Jesus appeared as a criminal defendant only once in his short life and it did not work out well for him. Most scholars agree that the sentence he received was unjust, the charges trumped up, the witnesses false. Prominently displaying the image of an unjustly treated defendant in a modern courtroom probably is not the best message a panel of judges can convey. Nevertheless, by all appearances, on this day a criminal defendant was rightfully sentenced and justice was done
Consider that it was possible the judges in the Flores murder trial could have reduced Van der Sloot’s sentence to as little as 7 years. Instead, the sentenced was mitigated only 2 years from the maximum. Therefore, the sentence was reduced for what the sincere confession was worth. In America, we learn of this news with some satisfaction, knowing that the suspected murderer of Natalee Holloway has come to justice somewhere; however, at the cost of the life of another victim. There may be justice for Stephanie Flores today but it is likely there will never be justice for Natalee Holloway
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
Unable to refrain from smirking at the all-woman three judge panel, Joran Van der Sloot pled guilty to Murder today in Lima, Peru. He was charged in the June 2010 murder of Stephany Flores, a 21 year-old student and daughter of a prominent Peruvian family. Van der Sloot, responding to questions from the bench said, “I want to give a sincere confession. I am truly regretful for what I have done. I feel very bad." Van der Sloot did not make a narrative confession; however, attorney Luis Jimenez said on behalf of his client that, because it was the 5th anniversary of the disappearance of 17 year-old Natalie Hollowayon the island of Aruba, van der Sloot was very sensitive.
When Flores was caught going through Van der Sloot’s computer, allegedly to look for connections between Van der Sloot and Holloway’s disappearance, Van der Sloot was so sensitive that he snapped and killed Flores. After van der Sloot answered questions from the judge, he sat down and beamed at them.
With his “sincere confession” Van der Sloot enabled the judges to reduce his sentence. The prosecutors cannot rebut a confession in this case; nor would they, since it is the end-product of negotiations between the state and the defense. The defense blamed the murdered victim for inciting Van der Sloot to violence and with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the prosecutors. Although the bench warned that facts of another case (meaning the Holloway case) cannot be considered in sentencing, the genie was out of the bottle and the judges heard Jimenez’ statement nonetheless.
It is not a given that Van der Sloot’s sentence will be reduced to the minimum, but it is now virtually impossible for him to receive the 30 year maximum sentence. Jimenez’ argument was also ill-placed before the panel of judges; it presumes they are unable to reason.
Here’s why. Jimenez told the judges that Joran Van der Sloot is such a sensitive young man that, when confronted with the possibility that he had killed a young American girl, he brutally strangled and beat a Peruvian girl to death, robbed her and then fled the country. Frankly, that doesn’t sound like the kind of response one might expect from a sensitive guy falsely accused of a crime. Anticipate the judges will be able to see through this display of smoke and mirrors. On the other hand, one might also anticipate that Jimenez was trying to be as transparently contemptuous of his own client as his ethics would allow, offering a tissue thin excuse for murder. However, Van der Sloot’s sentence will be reduced because he sincerely confessed, even to nonsense; and so, as his client’s lawyer, he provided adequate representation.
On a final note, it is entirely possible that Van der Sloot may serve more time in the United States for Extortion than he will in Peru for Murder. If Van der Sloot serves only a few years for Murder, recall that he will be extradited to America thereafter to stand trial for extorting $25,000 from Natalie Holloway’s family. And a conviction in that matter could lead to a 10 year sentence in a federal penitentiary. After that, one can hope he will return to Aruba and live out his life without murdering anyone else. Well, one can hope.
Van der Sloot will be sentenced in Lima on Friday the 13th.
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
A bored, yawning Joran Van der Sloot announced in a Peruvian court today that he was prepared to make a “sincere confession” but did not like the plea agreement that prosecutors had offered him. Chastising the defendant for failing to show sufficient respect for the court proceedings, van der Sloot’s request for additional time to consider the government’s offer was granted by the three judge panel hearing the matter, the case continued until January 11th.
Van der Sloot is charged in the 2010 murder of Stephany Flores, 21, in his Lima hotel room. Video surveillance shows van der Sloot meeting Flores in the hotel casino and then later both entering his room. Van der Sloot is later shown exiting the room, but alone. Flores was discovered later that day, beaten and strangled to death.
Van Der Sloot confessed to Peruvian police, following extradition from Chile. He confessed that indeed he had committed the murder after having sex with the victim, first beating Flores in the head with his elbow until she bled and then strangling her with his hands for about a minute, “until she stopped breathing.” According to Van der Sloot’s attorney Luis Jimenez, his client was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder at the time of his confession, a result of being questioned by Aruban police in the disappearance and suspected murder of American Natalie Holloway five years earlier.
Under Peruvian law, motive is among the deciding factors in the severity of punishment for one convicted of Murder. A “sincere confession” in Peru is often sufficient to reduce a Murder sentence substantially and a “spontaneous act” is a mitigating factor in sentencing under Peruvian law as well. And so, sincerely confessing to a spontaneous act is what Van der Sloot was expected to do this morning. Mr. Jimenez, who has affirmed his client’s guilt, speculated that his client would tell the court how, after having sex with Flores, van der Sloot caught her searching his computer, ostensibly to find evidence of other women in his life. Outraged, van der Sloot attacked Flores and killed her. Prosecutors paint a different picture, albeit an equally unbelievable one.
According to Peruvian authorities, and anticipating the official version of the state’s case regarding motive, Van der Sloot picked up Flores in the hotel casino, and then lured her to his bedroom to rob her of her winnings. After the murder, he took Flores’ money and fled the country. It is entirely possible that after the murder Van der Sloot took Flores’ winnings, and it’s equally probable that this is all the state can prove; but it appears that neither side has a grasp on a far more likely motive.
Van der Sloot displays many signs of a classic sociopathic sexual predator. He has displayed a striking lack of empathy for his victim or victims, he has displayed no signs of remorse for his crimes and, at present, he is also under federal indictment in the U.S. for extorting money from the parents of Natalie Holloway (money received in exchange for confessing where he had disposed of the child’s body). It is not uncommon for sexual predators to murder immediately after sexual contact (although in Ted Bundy’s case it was murder first, then sex). In either case, the victim is considered an object by the sexual predator, to be used and then discarded. Frankly, I would have liked to examine the decedent and look for bite marks or other signs of so-called sexual frenzy.
It crosses my mind that Van der Sloot is about to outsmart himself. The prosecution is offering thirty years imprisonment and $73,000 in restitution, allowing his “sincere confession” to reduce the sentence, perhaps to as little as eight years. Anticipating that van der Sloot rejects this offer and the case goes to trial, his attorney may present the PTSD defense before the judges. Judges in Peru are surely wise enough to read into the defense that the accused standing before them in the Flores murder has been suspected of a similar crime elsewhere, the murder of a young girl. Although this will not rise to the level of evidence against him, the inference is clear. Van der Sloot is a killer, adangerous predator of women who should be locked up for as long as the law allows. One must consider that Mr. Jimenez is well aware of this too.
ForJoran Van der Sloot, delaying justice may actually keep him behind bars decades longer than he had hoped or expected. And that surely is not justice denied.
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the latest sighting of Casey Anthony. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
The mystery around the "illegal" release of Casey Anthony's video blog offers more food for thought about Casey Anthony's plan to come back out into the spotlight and her hopes to get paid for TV or internet appearances. Sure, her lawyers say it was hacked via Skype -- but let's recall the photos of Casey that appeared last fall -- those were orchestrated -- with careful placement of an Ohio ball cap on Casey's head and studious glasses that allowed people to recognize her eyes. Someone paid big money for those photos (that's my educated guess) because they were taken with Casey openly shopping in a store window on an empty sidewalk. If real paparazzi had been after her -- we would have seen photos of her fighting off the cameras, wearing dark shades, and covering her face. Right?? Now, on January 5, 2012, we see an October 14th video clip released to a Facebook site. Take a careful look at this "private video blog" and you will notice that this clip was edited in such a way that oddly, tells us nothing of significance, AND it's in black and white, which signals that it was doctored. Allegedly, someone leaked Casey's blog to a "Casey" Facebook site and wanted $3 per view.
IMO, Casey needs money, but moreover, she misses being a "star" and wants to test the waters to see how much attention she can garner. After all Casey is, first and foremost, a narcissist. In the short four minute video clip she uses the word "me" or "mine" over 40 times. Casey's world is still all about HER. It's sick that she mentions her newly adopted dog, not her dead baby, not her wounded parents. She also mentions she wants to use the blog as a way to get used to the camera. Huh?
This woman has a PhD in mugging for the camera. Someone doctored and edited this "video blog" and I have a good hunch about who's behind it... More to come...
[ Pat LaLama's stellar career in broadcast journalism is a chronicle of some of the most iconic events in modern history. Here's her take on Casey Anthony's lastest stunt. Read her Bio >> ]
Casey Anthony is picking up right where she left off…as an insufferable self-serving manipulator with an insatiable urge to draw attention to her sociopathic self. In her first “video diary” posted on YouTube, the once accused baby killer sports a new chic, short blond hairstyle and offers up nearly four and half minutes of vacuous mutterings.
Naturally, as the posting is introduced into the public consciousness, we the media, with our own “can’t look away from the train wreck” sensibility, must ponder and analyze Anthony’s senseless, empty utterances which offer no socially redeeming message.
Let’s begin with her feigned fear of making the video in the first place. “I don’t know whether to look directly at myself or look up or…this is a little scary because I hate being on camera,”she utters timidly into the lens. Let’s get this straight. Casey Anthony’s world class love affair with herself is the driving force behind this “production”. She’s addicted to attention—got plenty of it throughout her life and was soaked in it during her sensational trial. Now she’s suffering from withdrawals.
Anthony makes absolutely no mention of her daughter, her parents or her trial. “The good thing is that things are starting to look up and things are starting to change in a good way,” she offers. What things? What’s good? What’s changing? Is there any self-reflection? Remorse? Anger? Sorrow?
Anthony is thrilled that technology will help plaster her conscienceless self-promotion all over the globe. “I’m excited that I’ll be able to Skype and obviously keep a video log, take some pictures…”
How fabulously convenient for you Ms. Anthony. A worldwide forum all for yourself—and you don’t even have to respond to a single question about your beautiful, dead baby girl. AND you can use this technological tool to raise money. AND in your inimitable fashion, perhaps you can market yourself to the hordes of clueless men who somehow find you “hot”.
“Now I in some ways have someone to talk to even when I am by myself so I am not bothering the poor dog who I have adopted and I love,” she says. Love? Did you say love, Ms. Anthony? Imagine the sweet conversations you could have been having with a certain adoring little girl.
Boredom sets in quickly watching this abomination. It didn’t take long for my eyes to wander off Anthony’s giant black framed glasses onto the picture frames that serve as a background for the video. There is not a single photograph of her deceased child.
Anthony doesn’t tell us where she is—she only mentions that she will remain in the undisclosed Florida location until February, while she completes the terms of her probation for check fraud. She does promise more videos in the future. “This is the first of many, and I’m looking forward to this”.
One of Anthony’s lawyers insists she did not post the video diary—that it was hacked. I’ll let you be the judge on that.
Finally, I’m particularly troubled by one thought offered by this classic narcissistic. “I have something to call mine”, says the sympathy-seeking Anthony. Well Ms. Anthony, the thing you once had that really mattered was a wonderful child named Caylee-- found dead in a swamp. But I guess that’s all in the past.
What do you think about Casey's video to the world?
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
Levi Aron has confessed to the July 2011 murder of 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky in the Borough Park neighborhood of Brooklyn, this much is clear. This tragedy, this Shakespearean catastrophe that shocked a peaceful Hasidic community has become the stage on which many speculate a circus trial will begin late next year. The supporting cast of characters already has begun to assemble in the wings.
For example, Aron’s attorney Howard Greenberg is publicly preparing an insanity defense for his client. To plea a defendant “not guilty by reason of insanity,” the defense first concedes that the accused actually did the crime; however, at the time of the crime he either did not know right from wrong or suffered in some way from a misperception of reality (very simply put). Early psychological reports say that, although Aron apparently is deeply troubled and suffers from schizoid tendencies, he is competent to stand trial. However, schizoid tendencies are quite a distance from a schizophrenic psychotic break from reality, which is what Greenberg would be legally obliged to prove at trial.
At the same time, “competent to stand trial” is not a decision regarding the defendant’s sanity at the time of the crime, that’s a matter for the jury to decide. If a defendant is competent to stand trial, it only means that he has the capacity to participate in his own defense. Usually these decisions are made well in advance of a trial (as is the case here); but recall that Jose Baez requested a competency hearing for Casey Anthony midway through the defense case, presumably because his client was not being any more forthcoming with him than she was with the police. The point is that this determination can be made at any time and in Aron’s case it was very early.
In open court Greenberg speculated that because Aron is the offspring of an incestuous relationship, he is genetically deformed. “Everybody knows when blood relations have offspring, there can be genetic defects.” He added that if Aron isn’t found “not guilty,” he will quit the legal profession. These dramatic and gratuitous remarks aside, linking genetic flaws stemming from an incestuous relationship, specifically genetics that predispose someone to violent psychosis must be proven scientifically to be introduced in court as evidence. And that means Greenberg’s remark that “everyone knows ... ” will have to be backed with a little empirical research. And “can be genetic defects,” must be proven to be “genetic defects discovered.”
To pull this off, first, the defense must show that Aron was the product of incest. Next, the defense must show that, specifically as a result of incest, the accused is genetically flawed. Next, evidence must show that empirical research demonstrates that it is possible to be predisposed to violent psychosis because of the genetic flaw caused by incest (recalling that not all psychosis is violent, by far). And finally, it must be shown that, with all of the factors present, the genetic predisposition to violence was the proximate cause of Aron’s psychotic break that lead to young Leiby Kletzky’s death.
It strikes me that it would be much easier to find a psychiatrist to testify that Aron was psychotic at the time of the crime and leave genetics out of it. Still, one must wonder aloud why Greenberg is considering the genetic flaw defense, unless he has serious doubts that there are any board-certified psychiatrists who would testify that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense. This is not to suggest that Aron will be adjudged sane and, therefore, culpable. Frankly, the barbarous acts surrounding the murder of Leiby Kletzky speak quite loudly for themselves and at this moment in time one must concede the possibility that Aron is quite insane and in a legal sense too. There is much yet to be learned about the defendant and his mental state at the time of the murder. However, to connect this act of unspeakable violence to genetics is a path that likely shall lead to nowhere.
Mr. Greenberg is well-advised to scan Monster.com in the coming months -- he has an uphill battle.
By Hemanshu (Hemu) Nigam, former federal computer-crime prosecutor.
Cybercrime touched the lives of so many Americans in 2011 that it felt as pervasive as the common cold and as painful as the flu. According to a report by security giant Symantec, someone is a victim of a cybercrime 14 times every second. In the last year, over 430 million people have been the victims of cybercrime. All this information does not mean that we need to throw out all our fancy digital devices and gadgets. Instead, these staggering statistics mean that careful attention to cyber security is a necessary part of smart living.
But to understand how to be prepared, we need to look back at cybercrime in 2011.
More “Catchy” Viruses
Viruses and malware were the most common types of cybercrime last year. Viruses are usually transmitted through unsuspecting users who visit or download from corrupt sites and who open emails containing malicious software -- or “malware.” In 2011, 54 percent of online adults experienced a virus or malware attack.
Many of the most potent viruses this year were transmitted via links to corrupted sites or email attachments, often hitting as a disguised news story.
We’re used to getting emails about packages being delivered. This year, hackers exploited that comfort and sent out emails impersonating DHL that launched a virus into the user’s computer.
A popular “news” scam was a report about Fidel Castro’s death that launched a virus.
Lady Gaga’s Twitter account was hacked and attackers sent out a link to a site where users could get a free iPad 2. Users were directed to a corrupted website.
[ Pat LaLama's stellar career in broadcast journalism is a chronicle of some of the most iconic events in modern history. Here's her take on the Penn State sex scandal. Read her Bio >> ]
A civil suit just filed in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is the latest legal salvo fired at former Penn State assistant coachJerry Sandusky. The newest accuser in the schools sex abuse scandal has a shocking account of a 2004 sexual assault allegedly perpetrated by Sandusky. It involves whiskey and sodomy. Investigation Discovery has exclusive details.
Attorney Charles Schmidt tells me his client, who will be 20 years old in January, was a participant in Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile. According to Schmidt, his client who was 12 years old at the time of the alleged incident was involved in an educational exercise where according to Schmidt, the children were answering questions about current affairs and history. Those who answered correctly were awarded a prize.
Schmidt told me that when his client correctly answered a question pertaining to a presidential quote, Sandusky announced that there were no more prizes but he would see what he could do.
According to Schmidt, Sandusky escorted the alleged victim to his office where the former coach began talking to the boy about his mother’s death the year before. (She suffered from severe diabetes and died as a result.) The boy was under a great deal of stress and still grief-stricken.
Schmidt says that after engaging the boy in conversation for a while, Sandusky brought out a bottle of whiskey, poured a glass and told the boy to drink it. Moments later, according to the accuser’s account, Sandusky “pulled his trunks down and sodomized him.” Then he says, Sandusky “cleaned him off”, gave him a couple of Penn State sports mementos, walked him back to the Second Mile area and handed him off to a counselor.
The accuser said he avoided Sandusky after the incident and never again had physical contact with him. Schmidt says for years his client was agonized by the incident believing he was the only one who had experienced something so terrible.
When the alleged victim became aware last month of the grand jury indictment against Sandusky, he says he got the courage to tell his story to police. The accuser has been interviewed by the State Attorney General which is investigating the claims. At this point he is not part of the criminal case which involves 10 other accusers.
This latest case is the second civil suit filed against Sandusky. Schmidt said he wanted to file the suit before the statute of limitations expires.
Other parties named in the suit include Penn State University and The Second Mile. “We believe our case will hold up in court. Our witness is credible”, says Schmidt. He adds, “When we interviewed him, he was in anguish. We could see the emotion in his face. It was hard to get him to talk to us. He relives the incident constantly.”
Schmidt says his client is apprehensive about moving forward with the lawsuit because of his fear of the publicity it will generate but “he’s doing it so he can get some sense of retribution. The assault took away part of his childhood.”
At the time of this posting, Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola could not be reached for comment.
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
James Robert “Bob” Ward, convicted in the September 2009 murder of his wife Diane, was sentenced to spend 30 years in prison with a mandatory minimum of 25 years served. Ward’s daughters, Sarah and Mallory, asked that presiding Judge Jenifer Davis be lenient; however, noting that their request was “laden with profanities,” the judge was unmoved. Nevertheless, defendant Ward did not receive Florida’s maximum sentence of life imprisonment for 2nd Degree Murder although, given Ward’s age (63), likely he never will be freed.
According to News 13 Orlando reporters Jennifer Fell and Mark Jenkins, Ward’s attorney James Felman made an astonishing claim after his client was sentenced. "We think this is a case where the evidence is nothing but a guess ... We have no idea what happened in that bedroom." What this infers is that Ward’s attorneys have no idea what happened in that bedroom either. And, given that Ward has changed his story five times since the murder, it may otherwise infer that they don’t believe their client any more than did the jury.
Bob Ward initially admitted to shooting his wife, and apologized for it, but later changed his story to one among several variants of either a suicide attempt or a struggle over a gun. His most recent version was that, in fact, his late wife was actually trying to kill him. Either he killed her in self-defense, or he accidentally shot her, or she shot herself (the story itself wasn’t clear). The problem with any of these stories is that forensic evidence demonstrated that the pistol was 18 inches from Diane Ward’s face when it discharged and that makes all four of the self-serving versions virtually impossible. However, if Ward merely had pointed a gun at his wife’s face and then pulled the trigger, the forensic evidence would make sense. The jury agreed with Ward’s initial admission that he had shot his wife and the conclusions of the forensic evidence, convicting Bob Ward of murder.
Still, one can’t help but wonder why Ward was sentenced to 30 years rather than to life imprisonment. Speculating, it is likely because Ward’s family didn’t blame him for the murder. This is not a normal situation in a domestic violence murder and most often relatives of the victim line up on the side of the prosecution and can’t wait to tell dark stories of the defendant’s violent past. This surely was not at issue in the Ward trial. Instead, there was anecdotal evidence that Diane Ward suffered from substance abuse problems and the entire family suffered along with her, as is usually the case. If the argument was that somehow Diane Ward had it coming and none were worse for her passing, it was an awkward stance to take. As it happens, it is just as illegal to murder a bad person as it is a good person. There are no mitigating circumstances the court may consider in sentencing that suggest the morality of the victim is a factor, although doubtless the court will hear the evidence as I’ve mentioned elsewhere.
In the end, it isn’t important what the defense believes or disbelieves happened in the Wards’ bedroom; it isn’t important what the daughters believe either. It’s apparent that the state of Florida suddenly changed its course and has begun to believe that falsehoods and deception in a criminal inquiry are a sign of guilt. And that is a remarkable change of direction, given the recent past of murder trials in Orlando.
Oh, and it’s a bad idea to swear at the judge if you’re looking for leniency too. But that’s true pretty much everywhere.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
With two civil suits looming over Casey Anthony’s horizon, speculation grows about the acquitted probationer’s testimony: about what she will and will not say. During a Nov. 1 deposition for the Zenaida Gonzales defamation suit, Anthony, 25, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 60 times and avoided answering specific questions about the disappearance of her child in 2008.
Nevertheless, it’s a mystery that anyone would expect the consummate liar to come clean about what really happened to her daughter, Caylee. Freed two weeks after a jury acquitted her of the capital murder of her child and knowing she could not be retried for the same crime, would the “most hated woman in America” make a clean breast of her role in the tragedy?
No. Truthfulness is not within the scope of Casey Anthony’s abilities.
But in a post-Casey Anthony trial world, lying, or her attorneys’ spins may not be enough to keep Casey Anthony out of more trouble.
What, though, happened to Caylee? The only person who can say is her mother, Casey, who never will divulge those facts.
Here’s why: 1. As Casey Anthony’s Svengali, her lead attorney, Jose Baez, has been creating cover stories — lawyers term them “theory of defense” — since his client first called him from jail. It’s the perfect set-up for Casey, because now, she doesn’t have to confabulate or invent people. All Anthony needs to do is sit back and let her lawyers talk. In Casey’s mind, there is no need for truth. The acquittal — a profound miscarriage of justice in many people’s eyes — is Casey Anthony’s license to lie. More than anything, although lawful, the jury’s decision reinforced Anthony’s behavior and that behavior is unlikely to change.
2. What little the public does know about Casey Anthony has enraged the majority. Hollywood Reporter writes that Los Angeles-based TV producer Scott Sternberg has been discreetly pitching a Casey Anthony, no holds barred TV interview show. For between $500,000 and $750,000, says Marisa Guthrie, the licensing media outlet can choose its own interviewer to have first crack at Casey Anthony. But to their respective credits, no networks or cable venues have said yes to the “quietly shopped” pitch. Citing fear of backlash from the public, so far, the Dec. 14 report states a presentation of whatever Casey Anthony might dish is not attractive, and rightfully so. “[A Casey Anthony interview] will get very good ratings,” one cable source told the web site. “But who would want to put their ads in that kind of show?”
3. Count on Casey’s protracted silence in her two upcoming civil suits, i.e., the Zenaida Gonzales defamation suit and Texas Equusearch’s suit to recover $15,000 spent in the search for a “missing” Caylee. Not only would Anthony be subject to perjury charges if her sworn testimony contained untruths but whatever she does reveal will be in book form -- or possibly come out during a big-ticket interview by Barbara Walters, for instance.
To land a lucrative deal, Anthony must hold back details. Her cadre of lawyers -- who so far may not have been paid for years of legal work -- will see to that.
“Imperfect Justice”
In a talk to promote his book, Imperfect Justice, Prosecuting Casey Anthony (HarperCollins, 2011), former prosecutor Jeff Ashton recently told a packed house in Sarasota that, “The only thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that [Casey Anthony] will continue to lie ... “Someday she may lie to someone who doesn’t resort to the law for their justice,” Ashton added, “but who knows what will happen with that?”
[ Pat LaLama's stellar career in broadcast journalism is a chronicle of some of the most iconic events in modern history. Here's her take on the Penn State sex scandal. Read her Bio >> ]
When I informed a prominent Los Angeles defense attorney that Jerry Sandusky waivedhis preliminary hearing today, I was surprised at his response… “That is so punk! He didn’t have the guts to face his accusers!” That’s exactly how I see it. Eleven witnesses mustered up courage-formed a united front—and prepared themselves for what would have most certainly been a painful and grueling experience, especially for the alleged victims. But the accused child molester wasn’t up for the confrontation.
That’s interesting when you consider the fightin’ words Sandusky spouted today. Wearing what seems like a perpetual “killer rabbit” smile, the former coach rattled off football terminology, vowing to “fight to the death”, “stay the course” and “fight for four quarters”. Really? It seems to me Sandusky forfeited the game “by running off the field” and having his lawyer, Joe Amendola hold an endless “Jerry is a victim” post-game news conference outside the courthouse.
Sure, I understand that legally it’s a tactical move. Imagine the horror stories the alleged victim’s would tell on the witness stand. Their accounts would be posted, tweeted and recounted all over the globe, further damaging Sandusky’s “image” and perhaps tainting the jury pool. This way, the public doesn’t get wind of the horrid details surrounding the allegations and his lawyer can spin, spin, and spin before the hordes of hungry reporters. Essentially, all you’re really going to remember today is the face of Amendola, preaching practically uninterrupted before the cameras.
This isn’t just a legal strategy—it’s a public relations tactic as well. Amendola is brilliant in his ability to control the narrative outside the courtroom, disparaging the credibility of Sandusky’s accusers by stating, “We’re pursuing a financial motivation. Finances and money are great motivators.”
Amendola praised the virtues of his client saying Sandusky is a “loving guy, an affectionate guy” who did nothing that violated the law. Amendola even drew comparisons to his own Italian-American heritage saying “everybody hugged and kissed each other.” As an Italian-American myself with lots of uncles, brothers and cousins, I can attest to the fact that everybody hugged and kissed each other. But showering together? Nope.
At least one of the accusers will not be discouragedby today’s events. He released a statement through his attorney Ben Andreozzi. It reads in part: "I can’t believe they put us through this until the last second. I will stand my ground, testify and speak the truth.”
Now the witnesses will save their testimony for the trial which will be held sometime next year. Unless of course, Sandusky agrees to a plea bargain before then. (His attorney insists there is no deal on the table.)
As of now, the beleaguered ex-coach remains under house arrest, facing more than 50 counts of sexually abusing ten boys over 12 years. His next court date is an arraignment scheduled for January 11th.
So here’s the question…
Is Sandusky gutless for waiving the preliminary hearing today?
(All along, while professing his innocence, Sandusky acknowledged that he couldn’t wait to face his accusers.) Or do we give Joe Amendola credit for masterminding the tactic that kept the accusers quiet and allowed him the lone pulpit? Cowards or brilliant strategists? You be the judge.
Photo Credit/Caption: Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, second from left, and his wife Dottie Sandusky arrive for a preliminary hearing at the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa., Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >>]
Today, Dec. 9, 2011, a New Haven jury recommended that Joshua Komisarjevsky be sentenced to death by lethal injection for the 2007 murders of sisters Michaela, 11, and Hayley Petit, 17, and their mother Jennifer Hawke-Petit. Of the 17 counts on which Komisarjevsky was convicted, six carried the potential for a death sentence. The jury applied the death penalty on all six counts.
Komisarjevsky and co-defendant Steven Hayes were convicted separately in the attack on the Petit family that left Dr. William Petit critically injured. Komisarjevsky and Hayes were alleged to have raped Michaela and her mother and then set all three bound women on fire, first dousing them with gasoline. Defense counsel argued that head trauma from an auto accident, the death of a grandparent, the potential for psychological damage to Komisarjevsky’s daughter and sexual abuse Komisarjevsky endured as a child were mitigating factors in the crimes; therefore, the defendant should not be held fully accountable for his actions. The various traumas, physical and psychological, injured the defendant permanently; hence, the death penalty should not apply as his culpability in the crimes was diminished.
To better understand exactly what the defense offered on behalf of Komisarjevsky, a few terms should be understood. First, the prosecution must show that aggravating circumstances are present for the crimes to be punishable by the death. Aggravating circumstances include murder by torture or by a particularly heinous or depraved act, multiple murders, or the murder of a child (among others). And indeed this was what the prosecution alleged during the penalty phase of the trial. On the other hand, defense counsel was faced with providing mitigating circumstances, meaning reasons the jury should lessen the prescribed penalty, and this is where the law often gets murky regarding what a jury can or cannot hear. Judges are most often quite open to broad defense arguments of mitigating circumstances rather than risk having a death penalty decision overturned by an appellate court. In other words, death penalty juries are almost certain to hear a wealth of information that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. However, there is significant precedent law that says an abused past of a defendant charged with a capital crime must be considered by the jury making the penalty decision.
Normally, a mitigating circumstance indicates that the defendant did not participate in the whole commission of the crime (but rather some insignificant part), or in some way assisted the police in solving the crime. Additionally, it could mean that the defendant's youth, diminished mental capacity, or a history of childhood abuse might be considered by the jury in deliberating punishment in a capital case. Komisarjevsky was abused as a youth, argued the defense, and there was some evidence to support this; however, Komisarjevsky was also a sexual predator according to his sister who also was one of his young victims over the course of several years. The defense strategy was to resurrect this abuse as evidence of Komisarjevsky’s past as a mitigating factor to be considered by the jury in sentencing; however, in so doing, the defense better illustrated that Komisarjevsky was a predator, not the prey.
Raising the issue over Komisarjevsky’s grandmother was puzzling, not to mention irrelevant to the issue of mitigating circumstances. Nearly everyone on the planet first experiences the death of a loved one with the passing of a grandparent. To the best of my understanding, there is no literature, no competent research at all, to suggest that the death of a grandparent is causal in the development of a homicidal personality. And there is also the defense contention that a bump on the head received by Komisarjevsky in a car accident as a youth diminished his capacity to reason. But to suggest diminished capacity is far short of proving it, and a mere suggestion is short of the mark in an affirmative defense. Then again, it’s often amazing what a jury will believe.
In a video recorded interview played for jurors in the penalty phase of Joshua Komisarjevsky’s murder trial, the defendant’s 9-year-old daughter answered questions posed by a social worker. The child’s interview was punctuated with laughter and play, and the purpose of it all often was hard to discern. Only about 20 minutes of the nearly hour-long interview were shown to the jury and only two minutes regarded Komisarjevsky, who the child calls “nana’s son.” She spoke of him as she would have if Komisarjevsky was a distant relative that she used to know. But everyone in the courtroom who heard the testimony understood that the purpose of it all was to suggest that to sentence convicted multiple murderer Joshua Komisarjevsky to death would be the same as sentencing this bright, laughing little girl to a life of misery.
Oddly enough, it was Komisarjevsky himself who objected to his daughter’s testimony. In a statement to the judge, Komisarjevsky pointed out that his daughter may be singled out and bullied for being his daughter, that her life would be a tortuous journey in the shadow of her father’s heinous acts. Defense attorneys pointed out that the execution of Komisarjevsky would not be for many years; and so, the child would grow up in the uncertainty of the pending death of her own father at the hands of the state. And that surely would be a reason not to execute Komisarjevsky.
But Komisarjevsky missed a great deal of the child’s life, having done quite a bit of prison time and only saw his daughter on occasional visiting days. Additionally, her alleged drug-abusing mother apparently was little help in rearing the child, spending time locked up in a psychiatric institution. While Komisarjevsky was imprisoned for burglary he successfully petitioned for custody of his daughter on his release, taking the child from her mother. For the most part, Komisarjevsky’s daughter was reared by her maternal grandparents and, given the character of the child in the interview, apparently they did a very nice job sheltering her from the self-made domestic disasters of her parents.
The defense managed the penalty phase with a “throw it all against the wall and see what sticks” approach. They suggested that convicted accomplice Steven Hayes was the driving force who took a simple, workaday burglar like Komisarjevsky and turned him into a murderer; therefore, Komisarjevsky isn’t fully culpable in murdering the Petit family. Komisarjevsky allegedly was raised by religious zealots and sexually abused as a child; therefore, it’s someone else’s fault that he raped and murdered the Petit family. Komisarjevsky was thinking about getting a job and talked about getting a job; therefore, Komisarjevsky was on the brink of rehabilitation when Hayes lured him back into a life of crime. Once again, Komisarjevsky isn’t fully culpable and shouldn’t be sentenced to death. And finally, if Komisarjevsky was sentenced to death, it would ruin the life of a poor little girl. But the recorded interview of the child demonstrated rather well that Komisarjevsky and his daughter were not a tight knit pair and rarely had contact. For the defense, this was a problem.
For Komisarjevsky’s defense team to play the recorded interview for the jury, presuming that they actually viewed it before playing it in court, they surely must have understood that it all might backfire. With no clear emotional tie between the father and daughter, indeed the jury might feel less compassionate toward Komisarjevsky than the defense might hope. Another downside for the defense was patently obvious: the child Komisarjevsky raped and murdered, little Michaela Petit, was about the same age as his own daughter and the vision of Komisarjevsky’s happy, bright little girl will be stuck in the jury’s collective conscience. Surely the jury can do the math.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
Blacksburg, Va. – What first appeared to be a re-broadcast of television news coverage from the April 2007 Virginia Tech massacre instead were live events related to a fatal shooting on Dec. 8 that claimed the life of a Virginia Tech campus policeman.
The gunman’s unconfirmed suicide occurred minutes later. Trauma now ripples through a scarred community, a nation still grieving, according to the Associated Press and local media reports. What was supposed to be an ordinary “reading day” before exams instead became a four-hour campus lockdown. University President Charles Steger noted during a press conference after the shootings that “Our hearts are broken again for the family of our police officer.”
The officer killed was Deriek W. Crouse, 39, of Christiansburg, Va. Crouse was an Army veteran and married father of five who reportedly hired on with the university police six months after the 2007 bloodbath.
No motive or cause for the killings has been made public.
Approximately a quarter mile from where Crouse was conducting a routine traffic stop, authorities found the body of the presumed shooter: a Caucasian male dressed in sweat clothes.
Officials not willing to reveal specific information about the dead gunman did provide a timeline of events during their televised press conference:
12:15 p.m. Officer Crouse reported a traffic stop but did not communicate thereafter. Minutes later, dispatchers failed to reach him.
12:30 p.m. A witness to the officer’s shooting contacted police and relayed what he saw -- that the gunman had left the crime scene on foot. Calls for assistance went to local, state and federal police, who quickly responded.
1 p.m. Police discovered a man with a gunshot wound at a campus parking area; a gun was located nearby.
The shooting occurred on the day Virginia Tech officials were in Washington attempting to negate a government fine relating to criticism of the university’s emergency procedures during the April 2007 shootings. The 2007 shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, 23, a profoundly troubled student enrolled at the university, killed 33 people and then turned the gun on himself.
[ Pat LaLama's stellar career in broadcast journalism is a chronicle of some of the most iconic events in modern history. Here's her take on the Penn State sex scandal. Read her Bio >> ]
Accused child molester Jerry Sandusky has come up with the funds to get out of jail. Using $200,000 dollars in real estate holdings and a check for $50,000 from his wife Dorothy (more on her later) Sandusky will be able to go home—but his freedom won’t be absolute.
There are conditions attached—such as electronic monitoring. And he’s not permitted to have any contact with victims or witnesses either. ( I wish the order read that he can’t be near ANY CHILDREN).
In the wake of allegations from two new accusers, the charges against Sandusky are mounting. He faces more than 50 counts and will be in court next Tuesday for a preliminary hearing.
One accuser says Sandusky plied him with alcohol. The other alleges that while he was being assaulted in Sandusky’s basement, he screamed for help but no one came.
Sandusky of course insists it was all just horseplay…..
Photo Caption/Credit: This Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011 photo provided by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General shows former Penn State football defensive coordinator Gerald "Jerry" Sandusky. Sandusky is charged with sexually abusing eight young men. Also, Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and Penn State vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz, 62, are expected to turn themselves in on Monday in Harrisburg, Pa., on charges of perjury and failure to report under PennsylvaniaÌs child protective services law in connection with the investigation into the abuse allegations against Sandusky. (credit: AP Photo/Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General)
[ Pat LaLama's stellar career in broadcast journalism is a chronicle of some of the most iconic events in modern history. Here's her take on the Penn State sex scandal. Read her Bio >> ]
Jerry Sandusky is back in handcuffs today, rearrested and charged with additional counts of sexual assault. Two new alleged victims told the Grand Jury they too met Sandusky through hischarity, The Second Mile. One of the accusers said the assault took place as recently as 2004.The other in 1997.
The slew of new charges, added to the 40 he already faces, include involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful contact with a minor, indecent assault, endangering the welfare of children and corruption of minors.
Get ready to be dizzy with disgust regarding details of the alleged assault on one of the two new victims. It’s graphic. According to the report, “Sandusky also attempted to engage in anal penetration of Victim 9 on at least sixteen occasions and at times did penetrate him”. The victim said that on at least one occasion, while in Sandusky’s basement, he screamed for help, knowing that Sandusky’s wife was upstairs, but no one ever came to help him
Given the ever expanding laundry list of charges, I say any judge would be well within their right to find this man to be a clear and present danger to society and simply deny bail! Or at the very least, set the bail so high, it would be the functional equivalent of no bail. (Assuming Jerry’s financially solvent buddy network doesn’t come to his rescue.) Prosecutors sought a $1million bond, but the judge set it at $250,000. As of this posting, Sandusky was not able to make bail and sits in jail.
And while Sandusky may think his well-placed interviews with various news media are helping his case, all his jabbering about being innocent doesn’t appear to be intimidating his accusers---it’s only serving to incense them.
The floodgates have opened, and accusers are finding strength in numbers. As of now, there are a total of ten.
Meanwhile, if you read my post yesterday, I made the comment that if I saw anyone sexually assaulting a child “I would tackle the creep, scream like a crazy woman and call the cops.”
That statement prompted some of my friends and colleagues to ask themselves the question… ”What would I do?”
So now I pose the question to you. This requires some really honest self-analysis.
Are you the type who simply cannot get involved?
Would you do nothing?
Would you not intervene, but tell someone in a position of authority, such as a teacher, boss or coach?
Would you call the police?
Would you actually intervene?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. There are true consequences to getting involved or becoming a witness. It takes courage and willingness to be raked over the coals by the accused and his or her defenders. One’s reputation can be shredded. There can be a backlash. Think about it.
Back to Sandusky…he’ll be in court next Tuesday for a preliminary hearing. I ask you…should he be resting in the comfort of his own home until then, or should he be denied his freedom given the seriousness of the charges against him?
Photo Caption/Credit: This Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011 photo provided by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General shows former Penn State football defensive coordinator Gerald "Jerry" Sandusky. Sandusky is charged with sexually abusing eight young men. Also, Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and Penn State vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz, 62, are expected to turn themselves in on Monday in Harrisburg, Pa., on charges of perjury and failure to report under PennsylvaniaÌs child protective services law in connection with the investigation into the abuse allegations against Sandusky. (credit: AP Photo/Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General)
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >>]
Following the recommendations of court-ordered psychiatrists, Oslo prosecutors have announced that Anders Behring Breivik was insane at the time of his attacks on July 22, 2011, in which 77 people were killed. Breivik has confessed to exploding a bomb at a government building and later, dressed as a policeman, shooting attendees at a political youth camp. If the criminal court that shall hear Breivik’s case agrees with this finding, it is doubtful that the terrorist will ever be imprisoned for the greatest mass murder in peace time Norway.
The legal systems of Continental Europe differ substantially from those of the United States, as those who have followed recent cases such as that of Amanda Knox well know. For example, the civil law system of Norway uses police, prosecutors and examining magistrates as co-investigators of criminal cases. Therefore, for a prosecutor to announce that defendant Breivik was suffering from a psychotic break at the time of his murderous rampage, rather than hearing this news from Breivik’s own attorney, is to be expected. In the U.S., this revelation more likely would surface during the opening of the trial when a criminal defendant would plea “not guilty by reason of insanity” or, in some jurisdictions, “guilty but insane.”
In any of these circumstances and no matter if here or there, if a defendant is found to have been insane at the time of the offense, different guidelines apply at trial, notably that the defendant first must admit that he or she actually committed the crime; however, at the time the defendant did not know right from wrong or in some fashion misunderstood reality. Breivik’s psychiatrists have told prosecutors that he was suffering from paranoid-schizophrenia at the time of his terrorist attacks. In fact, at the time of the murders he believed that he was the leader of an organization that didn’t exist; an anti-Islamic movement; a counter-jihad, if you will. But he led nothing, he organized nothing, no one supported him.
And so, for argument’s sake, let’s assume for a moment that Breivik was insane at the time he murdered 77 people. What will possibly happen to him? To show how the systems differ, it is possible that in the United States he could be set free. If the psychiatric evaluation shows that the defendant was suffering from a psychotic break at the time of the offense but is no longer impaired and no longer poses a danger to himself or to society, the court might simply release the defendant. In Norway things are a little more structured and a defendant found insane but guilty must serve a minimum of three years in a psychiatric institution. Thereafter, the defendant’s case will receive periodic review. And so, an insane defendant will serve somewhere between three years and life, depending on the conduct of the defendant. In the U.S., the reality is that more often than not a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity will suffer the same fate. American criminal courts frequently sentence those who have been found to be insane at the time of their respective offenses to indeterminate times of incarceration in psychiatric hospitals. One need look no further than the case of would-be presidential assassin John Hinkley for an example of one who was adjudged insane and soon may be released from confinement.
Another question that has surfaced is this: if Breivik was insane and the terrorist organization was only a figment of his imagination, were his murders actually terrorist acts? Oddly enough, the answer has some rather expansive ramifications. The families of the victims stand to receive compensation for terrorist acts; but if the acts were merely those of a madman, they might not. In this case, I believe that we should take Breivik at his word. His motives were that of a terrorist and his victim targeting was specific, not random, and intended to send a message. No matter how sane or insane Breivik was at the time of the murders, his motive was terror. There is no requirement in law that a terrorist must belong to a terrorist organization to commit a terrorist act (a nuance that al Qaeda has benefited from for years). And that should demonstrate to all that even the most pathetic among us can strike terror at will.
The preliminary date for Breivik’s trial is set for April 10, 2012.
[ Pat LaLama's stellar career in broadcast journalism is a chronicle of some of the most iconic events in modern history. Here's her take on the Penn State sex scandal. Read her Bio >> ]
As more alleged victims come forward, former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky finds himself swimming in an ever widening cesspool of heinous allegations. His attorney Joseph Amendola is denying reports that he will discuss the option of a plea bargain with his client. Amendola is continuing his media attack against the credibility of the accusers.
One of the new alleged victims (not originally part of the criminal investigation) has filed a civil suit claiming Sandusky abused him more than 100 times over a four year period starting when he was ten years old. Equally sickening, the accuser claims Sandusky threatened to harm his family if he ever told. That’s standard operating procedure for child sex predators according to famed Los Angeles attorney, Robin Sax. As a former sex crimes prosecutor, she knows the perpetrators method of operation. “There are two main ways to gain entrance and access to kids.
The first is to groom the victim through kindness, love, gifts and empty promises. The other is through fear, threats and blackmail. The predator uses them both and keeps the child conflicted”, says Sax.”
Sax is concerned about the timing of the newest accuser’s civil suit against Sandusky. “He’s certainly entitled to pursuit a civil lawsuit, but seeking monetary damage now has the potential to send the wrong message in a case that is an example of prolific, long term sexual abuse. Sax believes the criminal case against Sandusky is solid and worries a civil suit at this point might muddy the waters.
Leonard Levine, one of L.A.’s most successful sex crimes defense attorneys says a civil suit filed now can work against the alleged victim. “Every victim of alleged sexual molestation has a right to seek civil damages, but when it’s done prior to the conclusion of a criminal prosecution, it provides the defense with a claim that the accuser was motivated by financial gain and may be fabricating some or all of the allegations. The motives are less questionable if he agrees to become part of the criminal case and allows his allegations to be investigated and prosecuted.”
No doubt the alleged victims must prepare themselves for psychological warfare. Last week it was revealed that Jerry Sandusky’s first accuser was apparently bullied so badly for coming forward, he had to leave his high school. When it comes to fallout over the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal my biggest fear has been realized. The alleged victims will be victimized.
Fear, intimidation, smear campaigns, threats, taunting—it’s all part of the tactic and weaponry used in such scandals to crush those who dare to emerge from the secret painful darkness in order to shine the light of truth on their perpetrators.
I don’t know if Sandusky is guilty of any of the allegations against him. But I’ve covered enough of these cases to know what’s coming down the pike.
When I heard the former coach’s measured, seemingly emotionless response to Bob Costas’ brilliant questioning, I could feel a wave of dread pass over me. Why in the world would he speak to the media? Well, consider it the start of a well-crafted public relations campaign. Get into people’s living rooms. Call the vile allegations a matter of just “horsing around” with the kids. Discredit the whistleblower.
Today, Amendola is using terms like “jumping on the bandwagon” to describe those who are just now coming forward. Sure, that makes a lot of sense. Fabricate some lies and false accusations, subject yourself to public humiliation and private ruination, get bullied, harassed and flogged…all for the sake of “jumping on the bandwagon”. But renowned attorney Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended Michael Jackson against child molestation charges challenges my cynicism. He says these kinds of cases, when leaked to the public “whip up a frenzy” and open up a “Pandora’s Box of false accusations.”
I suppose Sandusky could argue that public access to the grand jury report is damaging to him—and that he has the right to defend himself in the same public arena. But Sandusky is part of what one might consider a bullet-proof machine and my fear is that the truth seekers will be blocked by the impenetrable two headed monster of denial and cover-up.
A MODERN DAY DAVID VS GOLIATH:
One might consider the case against Sandusky and the two Penn State top officials who are accused of lying, a modern day David and Goliath. The machine (Penn State) is flush with money, power, influence and prestige—a powerful defensive line—capable of rolling over an intimidated offense.
I read an article recently about Joe Paterno’s extraordinary rule at Penn State. The former vice-president for student affairs, Vicky Triponey says she did battle with the coach over disciplinary issues involving his players. She claims he interfered in her probes and demanded and got favorable treatment for the team. It was a battle of wills and she was ultimately forced to resign. Football reigns supreme. Everything for the sake of the “program.”
I know this world. I grew up in football crazed Columbus, Ohio and graduated from The Ohio State University. We all knew the players lived in their own sovereign universe—with their own set of rules. Oh well, we shrugged… it was beloved BUCKEYE FOOTBALL after all. Scarlet and Gray all the way!
I can tell you this…if I had witnessed anyone in the pigskin hierarchy (or anyone else for that matter) violating a child, I would have tackled the creep, screamed like a crazy woman and called the cops. I know that’s easy for me to say—the proverbial armchair quarterback statement—but I’m pretty sure my outrage would supersede my love of the Buckeyes.
I am heartened by the fact that Penn State president Rodney Erickson promised yesterday that the university would raise the standard of ethics “to a new level”. The school is also pledging $1.5 million dollars to sex crimes advocacy organizations.
Jerry Sandusky and the alleged co-conspirators deserve media fairness and their day in court. But today I implore Penn State to allow transparency to prevail. That’s the only way to recover from the media beating your school has taken. Plus…it’s the right thing to do.
And most importantly, I implore the alleged victims to not buckle under any circumstances.
It’s going to be painful, emotionally searing, devastating, soul crunching and life-altering. But imagine what is to be gained by speaking up not just for yourselves, but for the millions who suffer in silence and need to hear your voices.
Barbara Dorris, who is a victim of child sexual assault, now runs the victim’s outreach program for SNAP. (The Survivors Network of those abused by Priests.) She tells me the phones have been ringing off the hook in support of Sandusky’s alleged victims. “It’s important for survivors to protect others. They want to do something”, says Dorris. But Dorris is convinced there are countless silent witnesses who were “in the know” at Penn State and need to speak up. “We can’t put it all on the victim’s. We need witnesses and whistleblowers to come forward. Without their cooperation nothing changes and these kids who need help are trapped into being silent.”
ABUSE STATISTICS:
If you haven’t already heard the horrifying government statistics, ponder this: between one in four girls will be sexually abused by the age of 18. For boys, it’s one in six. Those statistics are more than likely low because they don’t take into consideration the countless victims who will never find the courage to report.
When I was a correspondent with “America’s Most Wanted” I interviewed a young convict who had molested over 100 boys by the time he was 21. He told me he preyed on “sad kids with slumped shoulders”, kids who needed a friend or mentor. He told me how easy it was to get past unsuspecting parents who had no idea what clues to look for when their children were being abused.
I also interviewed a former county sheriff who molested all five of his children…in the presence of his wife. Fifty percent of child sex abusers are married! There are all kinds of reasons why spouses don’t rat out the abusers. Some are legitimately fooled. But in many cases says San Francisco clinical psychologist Dr. Carol Walser, “they are putting themselves above their child. They don’t want to threaten the stability and togetherness of the family, so they sacrifice their abused child to protect their own security. It is self-serving.” In my mind, that’s being an accessory to a crime. There’s just no excuse for looking the other way. The deniers are just as guilty as the perpetrators if you ask me.
So today, we’ve got a plethora of investigations into the Penn State scandal. Former FBI director Louis Freeh is heading up the schools internal investigation. There’s the NCAA, the State Attorney General and the federal Department of Education probes. Not good enough. I want more. I want the FBI on this. A big machine with as much firepower as Penn State.
Accuser number one may have been bullied at school and that breaks my heart and fills me with anger, but according to his mom, he has no intention of backing down from his story. Remember, the truth is your slingshot. If you are telling the truth, the giant will be slayed!
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
At Murray's highly charged sentencing hearing this morning, Judge Pastor outlined the outrageous conduct of Doctor Murray whose actions were determined to be criminal. The outraged judge told the world that Murray not only abandoned his patient, but he allowed his personal life to interfere with his professional responsibilities, playing Russian Roulette with his patient.
Worst of all, the angry judge alleged that Murray taped an incoherent Michael Jackson as an "insurance policy" to perhaps use against Michael as a bargaining chip, should the two ever suffered a falling out. The judge called Murray "a disgrace to the medical profession," and threw the book at the arrogant man who "violated the trust" of both Michael Jackson and the entire medical community.
I found it disturbing that Conrad Murray decided not to make any statement nor to apologize to the Jackson family for his medical "mistakes" and instead looked more defiant than ever as his sentence was imposed. There was no remorse, nor any shred of accountability on the part of Doctor Murray, who, it turns out, could not be sentenced to 4 years in prison, but rather was mandated to serve his 4 years in the LA County jail. The travesty about this sentence is that Murray will most likely have his sentence reduced by the LA Sheriff due to overcrowding in the LA jails.
Conrad Murray was sentenced to the maximum, but, in reality, Murray (just like Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan) might get an "out of jail" card perhaps as soon as ONE year.
This begs the question -- will justice have been served if Murray is allowed to live with an ankle bracelet once the publicity has died down? Is this justice? Is this vengeance?
The truth is, of course, that vengeance is not ours -- but -- I guess being known as "the Man who Killed Michael Jackson" for eternity -- might just turn out to be the very worst sentence of all.
A personal friend and physician of Michael Jackson, Dr. Patrick Treacy offers his thoughts on the today's sentencing of Dr. Conrad Murray. (Read his bio)
Dr. Murray has just received four years for his involvement in the death of Michael Jackson. He will also have to pay substantial restitution to the young family and estate of the late singer. During the weeks of the trial and the utterly tasteless documentary in which he later participated, the doctor expressed no remorse for his patient's death and attempted to blame his client and others instead for his passing. This was of concern to many people as his total lack of empathy for his victim was considered contrary to the normal doctor-patient relationship.
At times, especially during the post trial documentary , Murray's self-serving behaviour, his grandiose sense of self, his pathological lying, as well as his lack of remorse shame or guilt caused many commentators to feel that the doctor displayed possible sociopathic type tendencies.
I felt Judge Pastor gave the appropriate sentence with a sense of fairness and decency. He said "There are those who feel Dr. Murray is a saint," "There are those who feel Dr. Murray is the devil. He's neither. He's a human being. He stands convicted of the death of another human being'. These words were indeed profound and gave a great sense of humanity to the proceedings. The amount of money that Dr. Murray has to pay Michael's young family and his estate means he is very unlikely to profit in the future from book sales etc. The Judge reminded everyone that Murray worked as a doctor for 20 years, with "no prior contacts with the law," and many of his patients were elderly in low-income, under-served communities. It does seems reasonable that the transgression for which he is to be judged should be viewed within the context of the larger life of which it is a part. .
The judge also said that while he had considered the entire "book" of Murray's life, he also had "read the book of Michael Jackson's life." "Regrettably, as far as Dr. Murray is concerned, the most significant chapter, as it relates to this case, is the chapter involving the treatment, or lack of treatment, of Michael Jackson." and those words summed up the reality of the situation. Whatever justice Michael may have now legally, this sad episode will never bring him back and the world will have to get used to a world without him. He will be forever remembered in his musical legacy and as I sit here writing this comment in Ailesbury, at times I think I can hear his gentle laughter still in the air. 'Treacy, I don't know whether you're trying to wind me up or not'
Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson’s physician, found guilty this month for involuntary manslaughter has been sentenced to four years imprisonment L.A. County Jail Tuesday in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson’s physician, found guilty this month for involuntary manslaughter will be sentenced Tuesday in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Murray, 58, has spent the last three weeks of the six-week trial behind bars. The trial presented the most detailed account yet of the popstar’s final hours but left many questions about Murray's treatment of Jackson with an operating-room anesthetic as he battled chronic insomnia.
Under new statewide policies in California, certain nonviolent offenders are held in county to lessen inmate overcrowding. In L.A., jail terms are often cut significantly, as county facilities are overfull.
Prosecutors emphasized the vulnerability of Michael Jackson, created by Dr. Murray and said: “this is a crime in which the end result was the death of a human being.” They asked the judge to consider Murray’s “lack of remorse” in his sentencing and asked the judge for the maximum sentencing of four year in state prison.
Murray’s lawyers contested the King of Pop’s vulnerability and said Michael Jackson was a “drug seeker” and though Dr. Murray was wrong in providing it, he was not the only one at fault. They asked for the most lenient sentence, arguing that the physician has already been punished enough with the loss of his medical license and public contempt.
"I do wonder, though, to what extent the court considers the entirety of a man's book of life, as opposed to just one chapter," defense attorney Ed Chernoff said. He described Dr. Murray’s life as coming from a poor childhood to becoming a cardiologist who helped treat the poor.
“Does any of that matter?” Chernoff asked.
The judge said that the Murray’s lawyers’ argument that if it wasn’t for Dr. Murray someone else might have done the same was, an “insult to the medical profession” and disregarded good deeds done by Dr. Murray before the treatment of Michael Jackson.
The judge found that Dr. Murray was the one at fault in the death of Michael Jackson and said “that’s the chapter to which I refer.”
The judge also talked about the lies that Dr. Murray had told, including attempts to hide evidence and found that Dr. Murray continues to be a danger to society.
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
Sentencing for James Robert “Bob” Ward in Orlando has been moved to Dec. 15 by Orange County Judge Belvin Perry, who presided over the Casey Anthony trial earlier this year. Judge Perry cited Ward’s appeal of his recent conviction for the December 2009 murder of his wife Diane as cause for the delay. Ward related in a jailhouse interview with a local television news reporter that at issue in the appeal is his newest version of what happened on the night that Diane Ward was slain and that he would like to play this new version before another jury.
Ward also suggests that near the end of his trial, jurors may have noticed defense counsel looking insufficiently confident in Ward’s acquittal; therefore, the jurors may have observed this and deduced that Ward was guilty. However, Ward's attorney Kirk Kirkconnell blamed the conviction on backlash from the Casey Anthony trial. There are more than a few problems with these grounds for appeal, mostly having to do with legal sufficiency; after all, half of all attorneys are on the losing side of a criminal case and doubtless will appear insufficiently confident from time to time. But in Orlando where the law occasionally takes a back seat to fairy dust, it may make little difference. Ward has changed his story (again) to that of a thwarted domestic murder plot. Although he says he isn’t sure what his wife Diane was doing on the night she was killed, he is now confident that she was (as the story now goes), sneaking up behind him with a gun. According to published reports, Ward now says that she pointed a pistol at him in the bedroom, not at herself. Ward told Jacqueline Fell of News 13 Orlando that he grabbed the gun and it somehow went off. Of course, there are some mechanical problems with this argument; specifically, body mechanics.
In the newest version, when an armed Diane Ward snuck up behind Bob Ward, he immediately turned to face her, saw the pistol and then grabbed it. Then the pistol discharged, striking the victim in the face and killing her. However, given those exact circumstances, when the gun discharged it likely still would have been pointing at Ward, unless somehow it had been turned completely around to point at the victim. And so, in order for Diane Ward to be both an attempted murder suspect and a murder victim, how Bob Ward turned the gun on his wife becomes very important. Let’s look at the options.
If Ward had seized the pistol from underneath her grasp and pulled up to dislodge it from Diane Ward’s grip, it would have discharged either into him or over his head as he pulled the gun up and away. Diane Ward’s finger would have been on the trigger. If he had grabbed the pistol from above and pulled down, it likely would have discharged into Ward or into the floor. Diane Ward’s finger again would have been on the trigger. However, if Ward grabbed the pistol and twisted it away from them and then pulled on the pistol, Mrs. Ward’s finger likely would have been dislodged from the trigger before the pistol could have been turned all the way around, as the maneuver would force her palm open. Bob Ward’s finger would have had to be on the trigger when the shot was fired. On the other hand, if Ward grabbed the pistol and turned it inward, putting the pistol between them as Ward twisted the pistol around to face her, the trigger likely could not have been pulled by her (it would be facing the wrong way, Ms. Ward’s fingers could not be long enough to stay on the trigger); therefore, Bob Ward would have had to pull the trigger. But if Ward turned the pistol toward the inside, leveraging it at her elbow, the pistol could have been discharged by Mrs. Ward and pointed at her head, but not at a distance of eighteen inches as experts testified in Ward’s trial. I encourage the reader to recreate this (toy guns work well, please) and with the briefest experimentation one must conclude that for Diane to have been shot in the face at a distance of eighteen inches, presuming momentarily that Ward’s most recent “sneaking up from behind” story is accurate, it appears that the only finger on the trigger when the pistol discharged must have belonged to Bob Ward.
Nevertheless, let’s assume for a moment that version 5.0 was actually a better, more exculpatory story than what we have before us. Can one appeal a conviction and ask for a new trial because he failed to come up with a winning excuse at trial? That’s going to be a hard sell for the appellate court. What this suggests is that if a convicted criminal comes up with a better story than the one offered in litigation, he has a right to a new trial. In most American appellate courts, for a new trial to be granted some new evidence must be at hand, not just a new story based on old evidence. Frankly, nothing offered by Ward appears to rise to the level of new evidence. Instead, it affirms the jury’s conviction. Then again, this is Orlando where wishes and dreams come true in criminal courts; and so, it all could be very good news for Bob Ward.
[ Pat LaLama's stellar career in broadcast journalism is a chronicle of some of the most iconic events in modern history. Here's her take on the just reopened Natalie Wood case. Read her Bio >> ]
We Los Angeles based journalists love a great Tinsel Town mystery. News that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is reopening the case involving Hollywood darling Natalie Wood—after 30 years—has shaken this “industry” town like a good old fashioned West Coast earthquake.
Having covered nearly every big celebrity case of the last 25 years, I too am salivating like Pavlov’s dog at the prospect of a compelling new chapter in the great enigma surrounding the great film star’s drowning.
One might believe there’s something substantial for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department to investigate. It’s the largest, busiest Sheriff’s department in the world—not known for wasting time, energy or resources on frivolous bits of salacious innuendo, rumor or conjecture. Lt. John Corina said the new credible information is coming from “several sources”, not just flip-flopping yacht captain Dennis Davern. He’s got a credibility problem. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Even though the very capable Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca is sometimes accused by the media of being star struck, I’m certain he isn’t the slightest bit motivated by the fact that it’s the thirty year anniversary of the tragedy off Catalina Island. Nor is he interested in playing off the CBS/Vanity Fair collaboration airing this weekend which examines the mystery. I don’t think he cares much about helping Davern sell a few books, either. If the Sheriff has credible info, then it’s a duty to look at the case with fresh eyes. And that’s exactly what they’re doing.
However, let’s cut through the fog of excitement and look at what we have. What’s really changed? We’ve got a boat skipper who claims now that he lied three decades ago. But he hasn’t really told us what exactly he’s lied about. Nor has he told us what the truth is (or his version of it.) When asked specific questions, his answers are coy and vague...as if he’s toying with us. Have we the media and the police taken the bait? Are we unwitting accomplices in his efforts to make waves? And more to the point is this a desperate attempt on Davern’s part to reinvigorate sales of his book?
The talk is that state of the art DNA technology could help solve the mystery. I doubt it. Investigators say they plan to examine the yacht, “Splendour” which is now in Hawaii. While it’s true such technology has advanced light years since Wood’s death, how would DNA be relevant in this particular case? There’s no issue as to who was on the boat and who died. We know there was arguing among all the parties. There doesn’t seem to be any disputed facts that DNA testing would solve. Does anyone really believe there’s a blood-stained fishing knife lying around on the deck thirty years later?
It’s one thing to look for new evidence and hear possible new witness accounts of the circumstances on that horrible night, but we’re a long way away from seeing concrete evidence that would lead to a winnable case. So I wouldn’t hold my breath for another “trial of the century”-- this time starring Robert Wagner or Christopher Walken.
At this point all we have is yet another alcohol fueled, celebrity party gone wrong. Unfortunately in this case, the party ended with the loss of a true Hollywood legend.
Photo Credits: Wireimage/Getty Images - Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood during AFI Salute to Fred Astaire at Beverly Hilton Hotel, 1981
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
On the approach of the thirtieth anniversary of the death of actress Natalie Wood, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office has announced that it is reopening its investigation. The official record is that Wood drowned accidentally at Catalina Island off the California Coast. She, husband Robert Wagner and co-star Christopher Walken boarded Walken’s yacht Splendor after dining on the island. Wagner and Walken had been arguing, and so, Wood left them to go to bed. However, apparently the yacht’s dinghy tied off at the side was improperly secured and was banging against the hull. It is believed that Wood tried to secure the dingy but fell into the harbor. According to Los Angeles County Coroner Thomas Naguchi, Wood was unable to get help and so attempted to climb into the dingy. Failing in that attempt, she tried to hang on to the dingy for floatation and kick to shore, but was unable to make it in time to save herself. Wood’s blood alcohol content suggested that she was very intoxicated, which Naguchi reported contributed to her accidental death.
However, now the LASO Homicide Division is reopening the case based on “additional information,” believed to originate from the yacht’s captain Dennis Davern. Davern recently approached law enforcement about reopening the case, saying that he had lied to investigators at the time of the original investigation. Davern, who also was on the yacht the night Wood perished, has told NBC that he lied about what Walken and Wagner were arguing about and that it played directly into whether or not Wood’s death was an accident.
One of the issues that surfaces when a witness changes his or her story many years after the fact (and in this case, three decades later), is motive. Why did the witness lie in the first place and why are they coming forth with the truth now, or is it a matter of the witness telling the truth in the first place but having a reason to lie now? In other words, what Davern has to say has value and that’s why the investigation is being reopened; but there will always be uncertainty about his motives, and that means no one can be certain what is the truth.
Looking at the options, assume for a moment that Davern’s motives are foul and that he had been blackmailing Wagner and perhaps Walken for years. Recall that Davern’s presence on the yacht was surely known to all who were aboard the Splendor. Recall also that at the time Wagner and Walken had just argued and surely were not on the best of terms. If extortion was what Davern had in mind, it would have been an uncomfortable arrangement. If there was controversy surrounding the argument between Wagner and Walken, likely either of the combatants would have thrown the other under a bus by now. On the other hand, consider that Davern may have kept silent about the conversation in order to protect Wood in some way. This theory has its problems too because there has been much speculation about the argument between Wagner and Walken, and most of the speculation is lurid. The best Davern could do is confirm what long has been speculated, with little if any affect on the evidence.
Davern has gone public claiming that he overheard not only the argument between Wagner and Walken, but that he also overheard an argument between Wood and Wagner that night and that soon thereafter Wood disappeared. Why, exactly, he didn’t tell investigators at the time remains unclear. But the reasons why he is talking to LASO and the media now appears to be coincidental with the release of his new book. Nevertheless, LASO homicide investigators are going to give the case a second look, thirty years after the fact.
A personal friend and physician of Michael Jackson, Dr. Patrick Treacy offers his thoughts on the Dr. Conrad Murray trial and the verdict that was reached today. (Read his bio)
The jury in the trial of The People v Conrad Murray have just returned a Guilty verdict. While it is sad to see another doctor incarcerated for a period of many years, I feel that Dr. Murray was indeed guilty of not providing an adequate standard of medical care and his reckless behaviour and neglectful actions led directly to the death of another human being, who was also a father, brother, son and in my personal instance a friend.
I would like to express my gratitude to the honorable Judge Pastor, who ensured this trial was conducted in a fair manner – Michael deserved this after the disgrace that was the Santa Maria trial of 2005. Respect should also be given to DDA David Walgren and DDA Deborah Brazil for the outstanding case they presented
In reaching this result, the Californian Court has attempted to give some dignity back to a gentle soul who had his reputation, his respect and ultimately his very life taken from him by greedy people who cared only about themselves.
Sleep my friend! For the dawn will come again in another time, And your kindly soul can find some solitude at last, Rest, as your seedlings grow and sparkle from the vine, And children laugh and play as God above looks down.
On that other morn, as sun strikes the earth with shafts of light,And ripened grapes shake and gently tremble on the boughs, As mountain streams stall and turn around their paths,The heavens open and each man falls prostrate on the ground.
Jesus comes amongst us, as prophecies of the past did fortell Your rested body then wakes from the slumber of the age, Rose scented petals fill the Temple, falling, circling all around, And you shall rise and take your rightly place by his side.
And man shall then forever know all the evil that was done, To fellow man, to starving children and also to you alone, The destitute shall then arise, the sickly smile again, And each shall know your beauty in judgment of the age.
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
Twelve jurors made history today by holding Dr. Conrad Murray criminally responsible for Michael Jackson's death. As the verdict was read, Conrad Murray seemed stunned, shocked, and even as he tied to mask his emotions. When the jurors filed out of the courtroom, Murray stood and watched and suddenly it seemed that the Guilty verdict was starting to sink in.
Conrad Murray will no doubt, be stripped of his medical license everywhere in America and he will be formally sentenced on November 29th. It's up to the court to determine whether Murray will be slapped on the wrist with probation or will be sentenced to serve up to 4 years in prison.
The ADA in this case asked Judge Pastor to remand Murray into custody immediately, not allowing Conrad Murray to walk free any longer. Now a convicted felon, guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter, Conrad Murray will await judgment of the court's sentence -- from behind LA County bars.
"This was a not a crime of a mistake of judgment," Judge Pastor said, adding that this "serious offense" by Murray, resulting in the death and killing of Michael Jackson, cannot be taken lightly. Judge Pastor deemed Murray as a risk to public safety and a flight risk as well.
Watching Murray go from the status of "highly paid medical doctor" to a man shackled in handcuffs, reduced to a common criminal, is cause for celebration among Jackson fans worldwide. Surely, Michael's family is feeling a sense of catharsis now that justice has been served, having been dragged through court system for two long years.
But we must wonder what will happen to the future of doctor/patient relationships now that a precedent has been set for a medical doctor to be held criminally responsible for their patient's death. It's a solemn thought, really, to know that doctors will perhaps turn away a patient in the future, based on this landmark court decision. Still, I would rather have doctors err on the side of being cautious, than have them use their medical licenses to be "legal drug pushers."
As I watch the jubilation in the streets of LA, I also wonder if this is a time for cheering, or a time for tears? How sad to know that Conrad Murray was the man who neglected and enabled Michael as he "went to the edge" each night for over two months. How tragic that one of the world's greatest talents was lead to his early grave by a string of enabling doctors, whose greed and inability to say "no" -- left Michael in such an alarming state. Much like the doctors who enabled Elvis Presley with prescriptions of thousands of legal meds, a host of unnamed doctors should also be sharing a sense of true guilt for MJ's demise. I agree that Murray deserves a guilty verdict, and the jury got it right -- but I also think of him as a scapegoat for all the other "quack doctors" who came before him.
In the end though -- we have seen justice. Of course, nothing will bring Michael back...But this guilty verdictwill begin to hold doctors accountable in a way that has never been seen before. LA DA Steve Cooley made a statement after the verdict that said it best: "we are gratified the jury saw that the overwhelming evidence in this case lead to just one conclusion -- that Dr. Murray is guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson."
Murray had his day in court. He had a fair trial. Now, while he sits behind bars, will he realize his part in this homicide, or will he continue to live in a world of denial? Only his appellate lawyers will tell him to pay his debt to society.
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
The jury is now in deliberations and we know they were riveted by the closing arguments on both sides yesterday. If only we could be a fly on the wall in there today ... It would be fascinating to know if any of them are talking about MJ "the addict," who secretly dosed himself with a lethal injection. Of course, that is not the main issue at hand for this jury panel. In fact, if they follow the letter of the law, they are being asked to decide this: Did Conrad Murray's actions or ineptitude amount to criminal negligence?
The prosecution proved that Murray acted with "gross negligence" in his standard of care for Michael Jackson -- but did they prove that Conrad Murray is a criminal? As all of MJ's fans await the verdict -- many of them reacting with raw emotion to his untimely death -- they want Murray to pay with the maximum sentence possible. Surely Michael's fans hope that this same emotion will play a part in the jury deliberation room, knowing that most of these jurors are admitted MJ fans themselves. Still, this is not a case about justice for a celebrity. No doubt this trial is being watched by the world because of MJ's superstar status -- but the actual outcome of the verdict can influence doctor/patient care standards -- forever more.
Weighing in on the other side of this trial is lead attorney Ed Chernoff, who asked the jury to consider that a case such as this would never have been brought to trial, if not for the fame of Michael Jackson. Moreover, Chernoff accused the State of California of manipulating the facts in the trial, asserting that "the prosecution wants you to convict Dr. Murray for the actions of Michael Jackson." In his passionate closing argument yesterday, Chernoff went on to insist that the prosecution "created" an IV drip "that never existed." Hmmmm. I'm not sure I can agree with that theory. With his children to think about and a future looking bright, why would Michael infuse himself with drugs that were potentially lethal? Moreover, he was paying Murray a crazy amount of money to take care of the administration of his meds.
Perhaps the first thing the jurors are doing today is putting together a timeline of the drugs given to Michael on June 25 and considering the remote possibility that MJ could have accidentally overdosed on both propofol and lorazepam tablets. Of course, if they focus on the differences between what Conrad Murray told LAPD on June 27, vs. the physical evidence and testimony, they should come to the logical conclusion that Murray's version of events do not jive with Murray's claim that he only left Michael alone "for two minutes" that morning, coming back into the bedroom to find Michael "not breathing." Still, with the defense vehemently arguing that Michael infused himself with the lethal last dose of propofol, there is room for any one juror to insist that MJ did, plausibly, cause his own death.
Let's remember that some members of the jury might take into account "the good Dr. Murray" who had five character witnesses testify that he virtually saved their lives. If this jury is smart however, they will realize that this trial is not about Murray's past behavior as a medical doctor. This case has boiled down to a fundamental question about Murray acting as an "employee" rather than a physician. It's about Murray violating the "sacred trust" between a doctor and his patient. It's about the 17 acts that Murray is accused of, all of which, prosecutors assert, directly lead to Jackson's death.
According to the instructions given to the jury by Judge Pastor, the only thing these jurors need to agree on is that ONE of the alleged acts of doctor Murray -- amounted to criminal negligence. If the panel of 12 agrees that any of Murray's actions played "a substantial part" in MJ's death, they will return a guilty verdict. Even if they find that Michael did play a part in his own death by requesting these unusual drugs, they legally cannot blame the death on MJ because the entertainer was relying on the care of a highly paid medical doctor -- who had a legal obligation to monitor his patient at all times.
But then, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We all know it's never a certainty that a jury will follow the logical conclusion set forth by a prosecutor. All we have to do is recall the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial and realize that sometimes, it doesn't matter how obvious a guilty verdict may seem to trial watchers -- all that matters is what happens behind the closed doors and the 12 people who perhaps feel "the world is on their shoulders" as they toss around two compelling sides of the story.
One thing is certain, the longer the jury is out, the more possible it is that they can get "hung" by one or two people. If they act with reason -- if they are all on the same page -- I think they will act quickly. Of course, who's to say what is reasonable when a man's future lies in your hands. We might want to be a fly on that wall, but most of us would not want to live with the responsibility of a lawful conviction that could end the career and livelihood of a doctor whom some see as, perhaps, a sacrificial lamb.
LOS ANGELES - Could you see it during closing arguments in the Conrad Murray trial? A mythical, gray elephant roamed the courtroom, towering over whichever lawyer was questioning the witness, or was giving closing remarks -- an elephant in the room meaning, “an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed.”
The elephant in the Conrad Murray trial courtroom is — what else — the volcanic Casey Anthony acquittal, still sending aftershocks four months later.
Anybody that does not recognize the elephant’s presence may wish to refocus. Though some say Casey Anthony and Conrad Murray have nothing in common, reactions to the child murder case verdict appear to have shaped — or “unshaped” — a matter that arguably is a medical malpractice proceeding.
At first pass, the two cases are states — and worlds — apart. Because you cannot compare first-degree murder with involuntary manslaughter, the actions are more than miles apart.
Below are five of numerous indications that the Casey Anthony elephant is in the courtroom in People v Conrad Murray and, even more examples that the Anthony trial may continue to unsettle legal thought. Both murder and manslaughter result in death and while it is necessary that we distinguish by law between “involuntary” and premeditated loss of life, aspects of these cases — effects of and fallout from Casey Anthony or Conrad Murray — suggest what not to do, which the prosecution and the defense likely considered.
You decide:
1. Unlike Casey Anthony, Conrad Murray was not overcharged. Faced with a monumental dilemma — how to obtain justice for the family and “fanilly” (Jackson devotees state they are many degrees emotionally closer to their idol than other fans to those they admire) -- surely the state learned from Anthony. In effect, the people of California stated, “Although there was no direct intent to do harm or injury, there was reckless disregard," a.k.a. “egregious disregard” for the life of the patient, Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray showed no concern for the standard of care. All resulting in a human being’s death.
2. In closings, both sides of the Conrad Murray trial were not about slick presentations or flashy text on free-standing exhibits. The crude IV stand and its highway of tubing were helpful exhibits to both sides. Ironically, the photographed propofol bottles, arranged in rows and totaling over four gallons of the hypnotic anesthetic, did not infuse the “milk” of human kindness. Although the Murray defense’s visuals appeared slapdash and unprofessional, this indicates the team concentrated on real depictions of their case theory. In Casey Anthony, the state mainly harnessed the ubiquitous PowerPoint text display program, while Jose Baez scuttled around the courtroom, toting large, unwieldy, elementary school-level illustrations. Relating to the cut-and-pasted pictures, the Anthony jury spoke, then fled the courthouse and went into hiding.
For the Murray case, both prosecution and defense projected hand-written text and what appeared to be last-minute edits. Were both sides saying, “Here is our case: warts and all"? Here are no embellishments — only the meat”?
3. Of the two cases neither defendant Anthony or Murray chose to testify on their own behalf. Although waiving his right to speak must have been a difficult decision for Murray, his lawyers only needed to point to the doctor’s 2009 police interview to remind him what happened when he responded to questions. Did Conrad Murray draw encouragement from the murder case, whose defendant had elected to remain silent previous to the cardiologist’s trial?
4. One lead attorney from each side in Murray gave all summation remarks. This nice flow of information added consistency to the tone of both closings.
5. Unlike Casey Anthony’s counsel, which constantly complained and filed excessive motions, each side in Murray, at least outwardly, showed a helpful manner to the other.
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
With the recent convictions of Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky for the brutal 2007 murders of Michaela and Hayley Petit and their mother Jennifer Hawke-Petit in New Haven, Conn., one might speculate how frequent or rare are crimes such as these? The simple answer is that, although the stark brutality of the Petit family murder case is unusual, pairs who murder are not rare at all.
The 1959 murders of the Herbert Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas, closely parallels the Petit family massacre in several ways. To begin with, Perry Smith and Richard Hickock, who murdered four members of the Clutter family, met in prison; Komisarjevsky and Hayes met in a halfway house after serving prison sentences. All four killers were on parole at the time of their crimes. Smith & Hickock and Hayes & Komisarjevsky burglarized their victims’ homes before killing those inside. Both pairs raped or considered rape, recalling that Hickock was about to rape Nancy Clutter but Smith stopped him. Smith later shotgunned the girl in the head. Both Komisarjevsky and Hayes raped their victims.
Smith & Hickock and Hayes & Komisarjevsky each bound their victims before murdering them and separated them from each other as well. All suspects brought a murder weapon to the crime, but Hayes & Komisarjevsky burned their victims alive, not using the pistol. All of the suspects were considered predators before the murders that brought them to prominence and, since his recent conviction, Hayes is alleged to have confessed to being a serial killer. His claims are not improbable.
In 1924, University of Chicago law students Nathan Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb murdered 14-year-old Bobby Franks in an attempt to commit the perfect crime. Believing themselves to belong to a superior race, Leopold and Loeb lured Franks into a car and bludgeoned the boy to death to defeat the system, to literally get away with murder. Convicted in a sensational trial, Leopold and Loeb proved to the world that they were mere cheap thrill killers, nothing more and certainly not supermen.
Another pair of spree killers were Charles Starkweather and Caril Fugate, who in 1957 to 1958 murdered 11 victims in a line that stretched across five states. Like Leopold and Loeb decades before, Starkweather related that after his first murder he had reached a new plane of existence that made him above and outside the law.** Although Fugate’s participation in the murders is still uncertain a half century later, Starkweather claims to have killed for his girlfriend, including murdering Fugate’s mother, stepfather and infant stepsister. Starkweather was executed in 1959 and Fugate was paroled in 1976.
In the 1960s, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady kidnapped, raped and murdered five children from Manchester, England, and buried their victims in a nearby moor. The couple often returned to the grave sites and would have sex atop the buried children’s corpses. Like Leopold and Loeb, Brady viewed himself as a superman, a master criminal who couldn’t be held to the same standards as common men. The couple was arrested in 1966 and maintained their innocence until more than 20 years after their convictions.
Fellow Britons Fred and Rosemary West murdered 10 women in Gloucestershire, U.K., in the late 20th century. Typically, they would lure women waiting at bus stops into their car and take them home to be tortured and murdered. Fred committed suicide while awaiting trial and Rosemary was convicted of murder in 1995 and is now serving a life sentence.
Over a five month period in 1979, Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered five women along California’s Pacific Coast Highway. The pair met in prison and continued their relationship once out on parole and were finally arrested after bragging about their crimes to a fellow former inmate.
Truman Capote once speculated that neither Perry Smith nor Richard Hickock were capable of committing murder alone; however, when together the pair formed a third personality, a psychopathic personality, that was homicidal. Hayes recently complained that Komisarjevsky was a poor accomplice and likely Hayes would have killed him soon if they hadn’t been arrested. Komisarjevsky was not brutal enough and didn’t measure up to Hayes’ superior standard, it appears. Perhaps this pseudo-superman phenomenon is more frequent than science has considered and when two criminal personalities merge the outcome is predictable. And, surely, such unholy alliances can have deadly consequences.
** [1] I have some doubts about the attribution of Starkweather’s statement, although it has been attributed to him in many publications. However, by all accounts Starkweather was a dullard and likely not given to reflection about his “plane of existence.”
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
Yesterday we saw the Conrad Murray trial end with a heavy reliance on expert testimony from two anesthesiologists -- Dr. Steve Shafer and Dr. Paul White -- each of whom had completely opposite theories as to how Michael Jackson died. Dr. Shafer reiterated that MJ's death was caused by a lethal IV infusion of propofol, administered by Dr. Murray, while Dr. White asserts MJ could have caused his own death by self-injecting propofol and swallowing a large amount of the sedative lorazepam sometime between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. on June 25. To this, I say: "What?!?" How can two esteemed experts come to such polarizing conclusions? Since both are top-notch men in their field and both have familiarity with the standard of care expected of a physician, why would they disagree so harshly?
The easy answer is that the defense expert, Dr. Paul White, must be testifying for the money. But these types of doctors can earn plenty of dough in their own profession -- they don't really need the money. And besides, Paul White testified that he'd only received $11,000 for his testimony -- a paltry sum for the amount of time the man has spent helping to defend Conrad Murray, to date.
So why would a highly qualified doctor stick his own neck out for the sake of Conrad Murray? Is it that Dr. White truly believes that Michael accidentally caused his own death? In my opinion, probably not. What may be a more likely scenario is that Dr. White is concerned that a guilty verdict in the Murray trial could result in opening a Pandora's Box, whereby the family of every patient who dies under "substandard medical care" could then hold their medical doctor criminally responsible for the death of their loved one. Something like this would send the medical community into a tailspin from which they might never recover. It goes against my grain to have to say this -- but, I do see a slippery slope that could follow the conviction of Conrad Murray -- where doctors might make patients sign waivers for prescriptions and medical care of any kind.
Turning to the matter soon at hand and, what the jury will be asked to consider: will anyone on the panel buy the notion that Michael was the cause of his own death? Could one juror be influenced by the testimony that Michael was addicted to narcotics and indeed, could not sleep without anesthesia? Could some juror see this death as being Michael's own fault? It surely will cross some juror's mind that, since Murray's patient was requesting the drug propofol, the superstar might be somewhat to blame for his own death. This difficult question is what this jury will deliberate and, some might argue that if MJ was dependent on this "milk," he should be held accountable for his own early demise ...
Moreover, it's easy for us to sit home and play judge and jury, but let's face it -- it's a very strange thing to be asked to determine that a doctor is guilty of homicide for prescribing sedatives and propofol (which was being used as a sleep agent). It's difficult to think about, particularly when we know that a huge percentage of Americans are addicted to prescription sleeping pills and other legal drugs these days. If any one of us took too many sleeping pills by accident, could then any state in America hold a criminal trial against our prescribing doctor? What a bizarre concept.
Still, let's not forget that is wasn't the sedatives that were listed on MJ's autopsy as the official "cause of death." The official ME's report states that MJ died from "acute propofol intoxication" which places his demise squarely on the shoulders of the doctor who provided the toxic IV infusion -- at least, that's how I see it. Now, only time will tell if the jury agrees.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – Aside from the graphs, charts and theories opining that Michael Jackson injected himself with propopol, a scenario defense expert Dr. Paul White offered in his Oct. 31 testimony. Caught in a thicket of visuals prepared by opposing counsel’s expert Dr. Steven Shafer, the hapless Dr. White found himself having to present the defense’s new theory: that Michael Jackson, dosed through the night with benzodiazapines, caused his own death by self-injection of propofol. Can you picture anyone already sedated — to Jackson’s degree as evidenced on the “impairment” audiotape — being able to inject themselves in two minutes time with a fatal dose of medications available in the room?
Is the idea that the pop singer injected himself with propofol easy for the jury to swallow? Or, will they have trouble visualizing whether an already sedated Jackson -- with IV lines attached on each side of his leg or groin, and the added presence of a condom catheter -- may have grabbed a propofol-filled syringe after he awoke from an initial large 50 mg. dose and rapid infusion of the anesthesia drug?
Dr. White and the defense certainly have an uphill battle. The team members are at odds with cognitive principles taught to college students and reconsidered in law school as tools for creating effective statements of fact as well as openings and closings. Those aspects of a defense for Murray may be lacking because their case so far has failed to effectively organize — with respect to three areas: jury cognition and psychology.
With a nod toward conviction, this discussion relates a trio of psychological effects on memory: primacy, recency and uniqueness.
1. Primacy: Although it sounds silly, who with intact cognitive faculties could forget the first letter of the alphabet? The first of anything is less likely to be forgotten. We are likely to recall, for example, our first pet or first crush. People will remember with great detail the various events in their life stories if they are the first of their kind: their first car, perhaps, or first airplane trip, date, fish caught, painting or photograph created, etc.
In the Conrad Murray trial, for example, jurors may recall the shocking “impaired” audiotape of Michael Jackson, because it is the first — and possibly only — time they heard him speak while under the (likely) influence of medication. The recordings, in fact, are unforgettable, especially when compared to the clarity of Jackson’s work, which demonstrates a consistently focused Jackson.
2. Recency: It is easier to recall something or someone if they have figured in your recent plans, impressions, communications or even in dreams. In this case, the Conrad Murray jury should have no difficulty or hesitation recalling testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Steven Shafer, whose statements and opinions appeared to greatly interest the jury. With lawyers able to re-examine witnesses at any time during the trial, it is possible Dr. Shafer’s statements and eagerness to convey to the jury the case’s science aspects may come again before the jury.
3. Uniqueness: 1. Being the only one of its kind; 2. Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled. Jurors will not forget that prosecution expert Dr. Shafer comes to court pro bono: for the good of the people, while Dr. Paul White says he expects to be paid $3,500 per day for services.
With mostly closing statements remaining, no doubt the concepts of primacy, recency and uniqueness will help to deliver justice.
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
With the defense propofol expert Dr. Paul White on the stand today, it became a battle between two experts that, quite frankly, may have confused the jury. Dr. White directly contradicted the prosecution's theory that Conrad Murray gave lethal amounts of propofol to Michael -- instead implying that Michael plausibly took an overdose of the sedative lorazepam, thus causing his own death.
The defense focused on the fact that MJ had lorazepam readily available, that MJ had a history of taking the sedative orally in the past and that since traces of lorazepam were found in MJ's stomach, that sufficed as proof that the superstar overdosed. They pounded on the theory of accidental overdose as being the only explanation the jury should believe. The problem with our justice system, at times, is that the defense only has to put in a plausible theory to create a reasonable doubt; they do not have to prove anything.
In this case, the defense managed to misconstrue the simulation charts brought in as evidence, utterly rejecting the prosecution's claim that MJ's "self-ingestion" of sedatives and/or propofol was not possible. Dr. Paul White called the prosecution's theory "ludicrous," but as the medical testimony continued, I wondered if any of the jurors were getting as overwhelmed as I was. The medical jargon is so difficult to decipher and combined with dueling opinions, the defense has managed to murky the waters in this trial.
Now, all they need is one person to agree that it was possible that MJ swallowed 8 or 10 additional pills on June 25, 2009 -- and we could be looking at a hung jury. One thing that was quite interesting, however, was that star defense witness Dr. Paul White inadvertently referred to MJ's bedroom as "the crime scene." Maybe his Freudian slip is telling us all something.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – A defense witness told the jury on day 18 of the People vs. Conrad Murray manslaughter trial that the accused man in their sights — both literally and figuratively — had snatched him from death’s grip, despite a previous consultation with another doctor who had advised he could not operate.
After reviewing Dennis Hix’s radiological films, a self-assured, confident Murray confirmed to the angina sufferer, “I can fix that” — and did, placing stents into blood vessels near the man’s heart and performing another stent fix for Hix four weeks later.
Circumstantially, the long-suffering heart patient told the jury why the initial work-up and surgery refusal by a previous doctor did not result in stenting: the desperate man’s occluded or blocked blood vessels in areas of concern were too small.
Dr. Murray had the hospital order smaller equipment to keep from “blowing out” his veins, Hix said.
“He’s Not Greedy ...”
What’s more, Hix said, “There’s no way ... [Dr. Murray’s] not greedy ... and, I’ve sent patients to him, including my own brother who was uninsured.”
Hix, who said “insurance didn’t hardly pay [sic] for nuthin,’“ related how his health-coverage-lacking brother did not want to lose his house, but needed treatment and Dr. Murray advised he would arrange for there to be no charge for treatment.
While Hix’s brother Jerry was waiting to qualify for Medicare (which provides coverage at age 65), Hix quoted Dr. Murray, who said, “I will treat you for free until you turn 65.”
Being briskly but gently questioned by both legal teams, successive witnesses — most of them elderly and with cardiac complaints -- provided the jury with examples of Dr. Murray’s reportedly excellent medical care.
Praising Dr. Murray, another patient named Gerry Causey noted, “He’s “your best friend,” during today’s abbreviated court session. Five witnesses testified, in order to establish that Dr. Murray was neither the man — nor the doctor — the prosecution described as being “egregious” in his care of Michael Jackson.
During the day’s shorter court schedule, the 58-year-old defendant periodically used tightly folded tissues to wipe his tear-flooded eyes, as his supporters described their own cases and how Dr. Murray had helped them.
Walgren could not play the heavy during these patients’ testimony; the prosecutor found other ways to measure standard of care by asking the defense witnesses how many other people were in the room during their procedures and if they could see any “machines.”
The line of questioning was an indirect reminder to the court recalling the lack of medical equipment at Michael Jackson’s house.
Ruby Mosley
Articulate and spry Ruby Mosley, 84, an Acres Homes community board secretary, knew Murray’s physician father who in his lifetime provided medical care to Houston area residents in the predominately black community of mostly senior citizens and the indigent.
Through Mosley came the account of a grieving Dr. Murray who pledged to open a clinic to fill the void his father left in the disadvantaged area. Murray did open an Acres Homes office and alternated weeks with seeing patients at his main Houston office.
Plainly, today was the defense’s most energetic and successful court session.
Photo: Gerry Causey, character witness and former patient of Dr. Conrad Murray, testifies during Murray's involuntary manslaughter trial in the death of performer Michael Jackson in Los Angeles Superior Court on October 26, 2011, Los Angeles, California. (Credit: Getty Images)
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
Yesterday was a total disaster for the Conrad Murray defense. All I can say is: Nurse Cherilyn Lee seemed to help the prosecution more than anyone thus far. In hindsight, the defense should have thought twice about calling a seemingly hostile witness who they were unable to interview prior to her testimony.
The nurse practitioner, who earned a Ph.D. in nutrition schooled via online studies, was so shaken up by the thought that propofol killed her former patient Michael Jackson, she actually appeared faint and was granted a "rest period" by the judge so she could compose herself in order to testify. When Cherilyn Lee finally appeared an hour later to take the witness stand, she substantiated her belief in holistic medicine and explained how she tried to help MJ with his sleep problems by making special smoothie drinks and giving Michael non-toxic supplements in April of 2009. Of course, the defense was rolling the dice with this witness. They called Ms. Lee in an effort to establish that MJ had prior experience with propofol, that MJ was insistent about propofol being the only substance that could "knock him out" so he could actually get a good night's sleep. And yes, nurse Lee did confirm that MJ requested the drug propofol on more than one occasion in 2009, proving that the singer was familiar with the drug and implying that Conrad Murray was the one of a string of medical professionals who had been hit up by Michael for the anesthetic ... Still, on cross examination, Ms. Lee's tearful affect seemed to impact the jury more than the defense could ever have foreseen.
The most damning testimony from Ms. Lee came when she told jurors that she warned Michael about the dangers of using propofol outside of a hospital setting and told the court that MJ insisted: "Doctors have told me that it's safe ... I just need to be monitored." Had Dr. Conrad Murray properly monitored Michael? Did he put his life in the wrong hands? That's what Nurse Cherilyn Lee seemed to be implying. Sometimes, body language is more powerful than words. This nurse was heavy-hearted, tearful and faint. Clearly she blames Murray for playing Russian roulette with MJ's life.
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
The prosecution is finally about to rest it's case and I, for one, feel they put on a string of witnesses who have proven, beyond any doubt, that Conrad Murray acted with a conscious disregard for Michael Jackson's life. I realize many fans wanted Murray charged with 2nd Degree Murder, but hopefully people are now realizing how difficult it is to get a conviction in this instance -- that in truth, it's hard to get 12 people to agree on anything, no less homicide in a "delicate" circumstance such as this. Of course it is not a slam dunk that Murray will be found guilty -- those of us who have spent our lives in courtrooms know better than to predict how a jury will see things -- look at the Casey Anthony jury and how shocking their verdict was.
Still, I believe this LA jury is taking the matter at hand most seriously and they were paying keen attention to the demonstration of the IV drip with the propofol in the courtroom, which is a good sign. These jurors seem to be impacted by the real and present danger Dr. Murray placed Mr. Jackson in -- plying the superstar with more drugs than anyone had ever fathomed. Of course, the defense will now try to paint Conrad Murray as a "God fearing man" who served a poor community in Texas and was, allegedly, a very caring doctor.
But then, no one has said Conrad Murray is a bad man -- the charge is that he is a negligent and bad doctor. Was he a money grubbing physician who would do anything for the $150K a month salary from MJ? Clearly, the defense will argue that was not the case. What the defense will ask the jury to decide is whether MJ caused his own death ... What a charade we are all in store for, as a team of lawyers will attempt to blame MJ for being an addict who swallowed too many pills and/or injected himself with lethal doses of drugs. Let the mud slinging begin -- and MJ fans, brace yourselves -- be ready to stand up and fight!
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – Conrad Murray sat stoically at the defense table, no doubt wishing he could trade places with the persuasive doctor, Steven Shafer,M.D., eminent researcher and principal expert in the prosecution’s manslaughter case against Michael Jackson’s final physician of record.
Clearly, Dr. Shafer had a ready and authoritative locus in the body’s organs for every propofol molecule that allegedly resulted in Michael Jackson’s death. And the visibly transfixed jury, according to courtroom observers, appeared most attentive.
While the prosecutors’ cardinal witness traced the last hours of the pop star’s life, perhaps the most uncomfortable people in the courtroom were Jackson family members, present each day to gain some sense of what had happened to their much loved Michael.
As noted by Dr. Shafer, Dr. Murray failed to create or convey Jackson’s medical records to emergency room doctors. This breach also left the family with no recorded medical information and most importantly, represented significant negligence as one of Dr. Murray’s 17 “egregious standard of care” deviations, the prosecution expert said.
Michael Jackson’s Respiratory Status, 9 to 10 a.m.
Dr. Shafer described Jackson’s decline, who to Dr. Murray, observing his patient without benefit of either carbon dioxide or EKG monitors, appeared to be deeply sleeping. Ironically, carbon dioxide, a strong stimulant that triggers breathing according to Dr. Shafer, was responsible for Dr. Murray believing that Jackson was stable, all the while leading up to a crucial event that Dr. Shafer identified as the “apneic threshold.”
11 to 11:45 a.m.
Jackson’s breathing slowed to the point of apnea: a period of time during which breathing had stopped or was markedly reduced. Dr. Shafer told the jury that “apnea could have been detected with capnometry and pulse oximetry,” or, carbon dioxide and [alarm-equipped] oxygen monitors with LCD readouts.
Instead, it is during this time that Dr. Murray told detectives that he left Jackson for “about two minutes” to relieve himself and to discard his patient’s urine. Also during this time, Dr. Murray’s cell phone reportedly showed 45 minutes of telephone calls and texting to girlfriends and others.
The anesthesia expert and researcher advised the jury that it was common and expected that patients stop breathing when they are given propofol and that is when airway care and breathing become the responsibility of anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists.
Dr. Shafer: ”Physical observation of compromised breathing from a relaxed tongue” could have been addressed by Dr. Murray, who “... could have turned off the propofol and done a chin lift," actions that "would have resulted in ... no injury to Michael Jackson.".
Jackson’s Heart Stopped Between 11:30 and 11:45 a.m.
“The flow of oxygen into Jackson’s lungs stopped and his heart stopped [beating],” Dr. Shafer told the court. “He died with the infusion [of propofol] going.”
“This fits all the data in this case,” Shafer continued. “I am not aware of a single other data [sic] that fits this case,” noted the widely published chief editor of the medical journal, Anesthesia & Analgesia.
The prosecution’s expert added, ”If the [propofol] infusion ran out, [Michael Jackson] would be alive.”
At the conclusion of his compelling narrative, Dr. Shafer assembled Dr. Murray’s “drip,” or infusion and tubing apparatus in front of the jury box, allowing the markedly attentive jurors and alternates to observe the rapid descent and progress of milky-white propofol through the infusion setup, in the same manner that Michael Jackson had received the hypnotic drug.
Dr. Shafer’s cross-examination by the defense is expected to conclude the prosecution’s case in chief on Oct. 21.
Abbreviated Court Session on Oct. 21; Prosecution to Rest
The court will be in an abbreviated session on this final day of prosecution testimony due to scheduling conflicts, Judge Michael Pastor advised the jury, following the day’s powerful testimony by Dr. Shafer.
Murray’s lawyers have advised the judge that they intend to call 22 witnesses, including two experts for the cardiologist’s defense, which may rest by the end of next week.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – Conrad Murray shortchanged Michael Jackson in the most “egregious” ways, according to Dr. Steven Shafer on day 14 of the Murray’s manslaughter trial. Shafer, a practicing Columbia University anesthesiologist and chief editor of Anesthesiology & Analgesia, noted for the jury at least 17 major flaws and discrepancies that characterized the defendant’s “egregious violations” in his standard of medical care for superstar Michael Jackson.
Propofol for Insomnia
From all appearances, Jackson, who suffered from chronic insomnia, thought he had purchased sleep in the form of a doctor who would give him the surgical anesthetic propofol. Murray, a cardiologist, was to receive $150,000 per month in exchange for medical services.
Dr. Murray, who initially asked for $5 million to join the Jackson staff for the singer’s worldwide comeback tour, “This Is It,” dosed Jackson nightly with the drug: a practice that today’s final prosecution witness condemned as flagrant standard of care deviation. Dispensing the hypnotic drug without proper safeguards for the star’s breathing represented “egregious violation of standard of care” resulting in Jackson’s death.
In addition, Dr. Shafer explored at length the concept of “informed consent,” having found that even if there was an oral agreement between the star and the defendant, such consent did not exist if it was not in writing.
Dr. Shafer told the jury that informed consent meant advising Jackson that “he could die” from propofol infusion, among other potential risks and consequences that accompany use of the drug. Jackson was not given the opportunity of autonomy or the ability to make the decision for himself, given risks involved, Dr. Shafer maintained.
“No Different Than a Person Cleaning the House”
Crucial in the star’s death, testified Dr. Shafer, was that the employer/employee relationship between the two was no different than “a person cleaning the house.”
“‘Yes [you can have propofol] is not what a doctor says to a patient. Dr. Murray abandoned medical judgment ... that resulted in Michael Jackson’s death,” Dr. Shafer told the court.
Did Not Call 911
Dr. Shafer was equally condemnatory of Dr. Murray’s failure to call 911 immediately, adding that he “put Dr. Murray first” when he did not disclose to the ER doctors that Jackson had been given other drugs as well. Additionally, Dr. Murray did not create or maintain a medical chart, which was a grossly “egregious deviation in standard of care.”
Instead, Dr. Shafer testified, Dr. Murray should have told Jackson, “I am not giving you propofol. You have a sleep disorder and need to be evaluated by a sleep disorder doctor.”
“Setup for Disaster”
Supplementing a descriptive list of what Dr. Murray did not have in his makeshift anesthesia induction suite — Jackson’s bedroom — Dr. Shafer narrated a film made by a Canadian colleague that in essence was a short course in operating room anesthesia. Although some portions of the film were edited out as being too inflammatory by defense standards, the remainder likely succeeded in impressing on the jury that the standard of care lacking in Dr. Murray’s treatment of Michael Jackson was absent, given none of the devices and machines so critical to airway care were present during the nightly infusions of the powerful anesthetic drug.
“It was a set-up for disaster,” Dr. Shafer said of Dr. Murray’s propofol administration.
“Red Flags” in Chinese Study
In a tactical move, deputy district attorney David Waldren asked the Columbia University professor to comment on a novel Chinese study the defense is expected to present that claims propofol can be used to treat insomnia.
“It is the only paper ever published on using propofol in insomnia,” Dr. Shafer noted.
“When authors overstate a ... grandiose claim ... that has inadequate evidence,” the study of 64 patients “[has] red flags ... and would not have been accepted” in most journals, the anesthesiologist advised.
The defense meanwhile is reportedly researching results from the LA County Coroner on lorazepam levels found in Michael Jackson’s body. Lawyers for Dr. Murray will suggest that Jackson died from levels of the sedative he took without Murray’s knowledge.
Michael Jackson was pronounced dead on June 26, 2009, at the UCLA hospital, where the King of Pop was taken by ambulance after he stopped breathing at his Bel Air rental mansion. Jackson had been under the care of Dr. Murray, who had purchased more than four gallons of propofol among other drugs from a pharmaceutical supply company.
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
Joshua Komisarjevsky has been found guilty of 17 criminal counts including Capital Murder at his trial in a New Haven, Connecticut, court. After the jury sorted through mounds of grisly evidence, including a detailed, taped confession, Komisarjevsky now faces the death penalty. Co-defendant Steven Hayes was found guilty of Capital Murder nearly a year ago and sentenced to death in the July 2007 murders of a mother and her two children in suburban Cheshire, Conn. Komisarjevsky, alleged to be Hayes’ accomplice, is accused of tying Petit sisters Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, to their beds, sexually assaulting one child and then pouring gasoline over both before setting the house ablaze. Hayes is alleged to have raped and strangled the mother, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, in her bedroom. Dr. William Petit had been brutally bludgeoned and left to die in the basement of his suburban New Haven home but managed to escape. Hayes later complained that he was surprised Petit escaped because he believed that he had tied him well.
In the aftermath of these gruesome crimes, activists (predictably) reared their heads in protest. Calls for gun control, extended parole periods (both defendants have prior convictions for burglary) and a general call for stricter treatment of criminals were loudly demanded and all were dutifully noted in the press. Indeed, it is a natural thing for people to look for something or someone to blame in the wake of crimes such as these: the criminal justice system is to blame; there ought to be a law; if only the police had done this or that differently. But no law would have stopped this, no regulation, no procedure. No law could have stopped this. It is beyond common sense that any who callously rape and mass murder will have much regard for legal nuance. Still, in a crime so appalling it is not surprising that the general public is overwhelmed and demands an explanation.
Often criminologists in varied sub-disciplines weigh in on crime causation in aberrations such as the Cheshire murders and collectively find themselves stumbling for a suitable explanation. Psychologists will call it sociopathy; sociologists might suggest an upbringing by a loveless mother; economists will suggest impoverished desperation; and the police will suggest drugs, as they always do. Not to say that these are necessarily bad explanations, but in all fairness it is likely that no single explanation will suffice.
Criminologists are asked to identify the causes of crime, ostensibly so that society can devise solutions to stop or reduce its frequency. But nearly all criminologists (that I’ve met, at least) agree that the real causes of crime are beyond institutional control, including legal institutions such as courts or legislatures. And that leads to a very unsatisfying conclusion. I don’t know why the Petit family was attacked, it just doesn’t make sense; however, I do know there is little if anything that any of us can do about it. Deliberations regarding Komisarjevsky’s fate begin Oct. 24.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – On Day 11 in the trial of the doctor who prosecutors say caused Michael Jackson’s death from “acute propofol intoxication,” Dr. Conrad Murray’s defense team demonstrated their solid grasp of toxicology with some fancy footwork on cross examination, but will cold, hard facts trump the Jackson family juggernaut? Will family members’ presence at trial be the single aspect of the tragedy that the defense cannot manipulate?
When the victim’s mother and other close family are present in the courtroom, the emotionally charged atmosphere intensifies. And, when family leaves the room just prior to graphic pictorial evidence, the resulting scene is testimony by emotion. It’s an awful juxtaposition: watching the bereaved Katharine Jackson and daughter absenting themselves from the proceedings, followed by one autopsy photograph. Projected larger than life, the stark tableau of Michael Jackson in death, who was the youngest and most favored of the extraordinary family of entertainers. It was best the two Jacksons left the room.
More often, though, as technology advances, cases in a court of law come down to numbers. Breaking down percentages of medication — concentrations of the anti-anxiety drug lorazepam, or Ativan — defense attorney J. Michael Flannigan argued that higher concentrations of the drug in the singer’s femoral blood, which provides a more accurate reading than blood closer to heart or lungs, implies Jackson had greater amounts of drugs onboard, thus contributing to Jackson’s respiratory failure. Crisply, Flannigan brought out that the 25mg propofol injection Dr. Murray administered to his patient over a three to five minute drip would soon wear off and that Jackson would “... wake up in five minutes.” And then? At some point, Jackson could have self-medicated.
Another possibility, according to Flannigan, was if Jackson, who enjoyed pushing his “milk” into the IV, gave himself a bolus -- or very large dose of the drug -- which could instantly reach the brain in high concentration and cause respiratory arrest. In other words, should Jackson have pushed the syringe plunger in quickly, the result would have been a lethal dose of propofol.
Did Jackson Self-medicate?
Flannigan’s shrewdly engineered cross-examination of Los Angeles County Deputy Medical Examiner, Dr. Christopher Rogers — illustrating how the pop icon could self-medicate — is a defense theory that the prosecution must overcome, although it is not safe to assume that the jury will understand or entertain so much science. Among jurors who might help explain today’s testimony is a woman who has a biochemistry degree.
Guiding the unflappable Dr. Rogers toward testimony on bioavailability -- or, the degree to which a drug or other substance becomes available to the target tissue after administration -- and after showing the jury what nine and one-half tablets of lorazepam looked like, Flannigan informed the panel that at autopsy, Jackson’s stomach contents were measured for volume. Oops. The “dark liquid” ladled from the singer’s post-mortem stomach was not toxicologically screened, which raises the specter of doubt that Michael Jackson’s death was as declared: too much propofol.
At the end of the trial predicted to last five weeks, if found guilty, Dr. Murray could receive up to four years’ jail time and the loss of his medical license.
Should the jury become impatient with, or even doubt the science, other salient factors including: the girlfriends’ testimony; the doctor’s miserably inadequate setting that lacked medical equipment to administer propofol or provide airway support; potential greed and Dr. Murray’s lies that included not disclosing propofol administration -- may all be “numbers” enough to convict.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – At the two week mark, jurors in the manslaughter trial of Dr. Conrad Murray are entertaining evidence based issues that the defense is hoping will crack open the prosecution’s clear-cut case. Suddenly, the state’s pristine account of what happened in the months the defendant came to work for Michael Jackson may have lost its luster.
As the second week of testimony ended, Friday, Oct. 7 marked a particularly aggressive day for Dr. Murray’s lawyers. Not flinching at prosecutors occupying the adjacent table — a setting made claustrophobic by the small courtroom — lead attorney Ed Chernoff argued that in the state’s “sloppy investigation ... the head does not know where the hand is.”
Defense arguments, including their claim of crime scene slip-ups by lead coroner’s office investigator, Elissa Fleak, have headed in predictable directions.
“Who took those pictures?” Chernoff asked Ms. Fleak.
“I don’t know,” the CSI answered.
“You do not know who took the pill bottle pictures?” Chernoff queried.
Indicating the close of that line of questioning, Chernoff added threateningly, “Is there anything you are keeping from us, Ms. Fleak?”
Slowly Unfolding, Brown Paper Bag Environment
There is no doubt that the defense’s strength lies in their meticulous, seemingly x-ray vision of evidence-gathering by LA CSI. Far from the compelling TV drama that excites and entertains its audience, real-life evidence lives in a slowly unfolding, brown paper-bag environment, where mistakes are frequent: objects are moved before documenting and mysterious fingerprints — cash cows for the accused doctor — seem to appear at will. The most prominent of such prints has been identified as Fleak’s, who hadn’t a clue how her thumbprint contaminated a syringe found on Jackson’s nightstand. Taking aim at state’s evidence, defense examines the examiners, pointing to poor CSI work and for every Dr. Murray wrongdoing, his defense sees good.
When the jury speaks, will the seven men and five women recognize Dr. Murray as the rogue physician who ordered alarming quantities of propofol shipped to a girlfriend’s apartment? Or, will they support Dr. Murray the do-gooder, following in his physician father’s footsteps and who launched a Houston clinic for a poor, underserved population?
Underscoring a key aspect of defense’s theory, Mr. Chernoff, for example, argued that Jackson did not die because Murray gave him propofol, but because the doctor stopped giving him the drug. Anything is possible in this account, which Mr. Chernoff likely doesn’t know for sure.
So far, the defense has not supplied a reason why Dr. Murray did not tell emergency room physicians that his patient had been given propofol and a cascade of other drugs.
“First, do no harm.”
In closing remarks, we would hope the jury is reminded of the Hippocratic Oath’s primary dictum, which entreats physicians to, “First, do no harm.”
Was Dr. Murray thinking of the Hippocratic Oath when he ordered over four gallons of propofol for his employer?
Freed on a $75,000 bond, Dr. Conrad Murray, 58, is charged with reckless manslaughter -- which if he is found guilty, the doctor could be sentenced to a maximum of four years in jail and loss of his license to practice medicine.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – One of the most talked about aspects of the Conrad Murray/Michael Jackson manslaughter trial: propofol. It's the powerful sedative that Dr. Murray administered to Jackson, so that the interventional cardiologist’s patient could sleep before a scheduled rehearsal for his “This is It” world tour.
Coroners ruled Michael Jackson’s death to be homicide, which launched a comprehensive investigation that involved several states, medical supply businesses and numerous medical and private settings. After the world learned about the four-plus gallons of propofol Dr. Murray had stockpiled and illegally had sent to girlfriend Nicole Alvarez’s Santa Monica apartment, public interest increased about the drug that felled global phenomenon, Michael Jackson.
Same-day crime scene photographs depict Jackson’s upstairs bedroom at his Los Angeles home, as a drug-strewn wasteland, a crudely constructed, slapdash medical “clinic” that somehow had brought its blight into the Bel Air mansion. Open containers of propopol littered the floor, along with IV component parts, tubing, a container of Jackson’s urine and prescription drug bottles on a nightstand next to Jackson’s bed. Michael Jackson’s autopsy report, issued by the Los Angeles County Coroner, attributes the 50-year-old entertainer’s death to acute propofol intoxication.
Was Dr. Murray — charged with involuntary manslaughter — either so unfamiliar with the drug or did he underestimate its potential for respiratory collapse and sudden death?
Getting to Know You: Readers, meet propofol. Propofol, meet readers. With some common sense and stringent safety precautions, you all should get along.
1. You likely have been given propofol if you have had surgery. “Probably at least 75 percent of the anesthetics given in the United States involve propofol. It’s huge,” says Dr. Alexander Hannenberg, president, American Society of Anesthesiologists. If anyone has been admitted to an inpatient or day surgery hospital for a procedure requiring general anesthesia, more than likely they have been given propofol. 2. Propofol has a rapid onset (about 40 seconds) and a short duration of action. Use of the anesthetic allows patients to wake up, recover and return to baseline activities and diet sooner than some other sedation agents. No doubt the insured’s shorter down time pleases insurance companies. 3. Propofol reduces the need for opiods (morphine, codeine, hydrocodone, fentanyl, Vicodin), thus resulting in less post-operative nausea and vomiting. 4. Propofol was first introduced in 1977 by Imperial Chemical Industries, now Astra-Zenica. Following reports of anaphylaxis, Cremophor EL, as it was first named, was withdrawn from the market, when it was reformulated to a soy oil/water emulsion. 5. Michael's "Milk" - The high volume of fat in solution causes propofol to look like milk. 6. How does propofol work in your body? Propofol binds to GABAa receptors in the central nervous system. Once blocked, the central nervous system can experience reduced anxiety and the patient goes to sleep. Propofol binds to these CNS sites and in sufficient doses, the drug can induce deep anesthesia and coma-like states of unconsciousness. 7. Propofol is approved for use in 50 different countries and also is available in generic form. Propofol is used in veterinary practices as well. 8. Not counting Michael Jackson’s death, only three deaths and possibly four have been recorded -- all but one have been related to propofol abuse, in which medical professionals were attempting to use the drug in a non-medical setting. 9. As yet, propofol is not on the schedule of controlled substances. Several special interest groups are petitioning for that end. 10. Reportedly, few companies make propofol, because it is complicated to manufacture. The emulsion (see #4, above) must be stored very carefully, because bacteria can contaminate it more easily than other drugs.
Expect Dr. Conrad Murray’s legal team to raise doubts about the drug and their attempts to shift blame for Michael Jackson’s sudden death from the physician to the drug companies that made the two or more brands of propofol found at Jackson’s house. The defense may be able to raise doubts by airing civil actions against Teva, which is a main supplier of the substance. The pharmaceutical company Teva is in fact the subject of several civil actions.
Teva has announced it will cease production of the hypnotic in 2012, due to “manufacturing issues." The company is also facing a rash of propofol-related civil suits related to a hepatitis C (the most dangerous genotype of the virus) outbreak in Las Vegas.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES – Prior to Michael Jackson’s death, the lay public knew little or nothing about the anesthesia drug, propofol, a.k.a., diprovan, until it achieved widespread notoriety when the injectable liquid was cited in the autopsy following Jackson’s death on June 25, 2009. The drug is used often in surgical procedures, including outpatient colonoscopy. One of its advantages is its rapid uptake and clearance.
Death by Propofol
Classified as a homicide, Michael Jackson’s official manner of death was attributed to “acute propofol intoxication.” The Los Angeles County coroner’s office also determined that lorazepam, another sedative sold under the brand name Ativan, contributed to the 50-year-old pop icon’s death.
Coroner’s Investigator Visited Jackson’s House the Day MJ Died
From other evidence collected by Coroner Investigator W. Fleak, who visited Jackson’s rental mansion the day of his death, an additional substance, flumazenil, “was detected in approximately 0.17g of white tinted fluid from a 10cc syringe” along with propofol and lidocaine.
During testing of four components of the intravenous system (or IV) three days after Jackson’s sudden death while under Dr. Conrad Murray’s care, Fleak also detected flumazenil (brand name, Romazicon) “from a short section of IV tubing attached to a Y connector.”
Of drugs that have been associated with Jackson’s murder, flumazenil is a substance that reverses the effects of certain medications and is used to counteract and treat drug overdose. Flumazenil “can cause seizures.”
MedicineNet.com includes a warning for flumazenil, saying the drug “... can cause seizures, especially in patients who have been on benzodiazepines (e.g., diazepam, or Valium) for a long time, or if patient has taken too much of a benzodiazepine (overdose).”
Clear warnings of drug interactions are included in product enclosures and on manufacturers’ websites for each of the drugs Dr. Murray administered to Jackson.
· “Unpredictable and profound effects." Propofol dosing ... is variable, based on the patient’s tolerance to the drug. Profound changes can occur rapidly. A patient can go from breathing normally to a full respiratory arrest in seconds, even at low doses, without warning from typical assessment parameters.” In other words, the danger of arrest is possible even when the patient’s vital signs, etc. are being monitored. · No reversal agent. Unlike other sedatives, e.g., midazolam (Versed), morphine, there is no reversal agent for propofol, says the ISMP. Adverse effects must be treated until the drug is metabolized. · Financial incentives. Unwillingness of insurers to reimburse anesthesia care for some procedures ... has increased the use of nurse-administered propofol. Untrained nurses may be caught in the middle of the debate and feel pressured to administer. · Recommendations/warnings. Various anesthesia-credentialing boards and medical specialty associations believe that only persons trained in the administration of general anesthesia, and that are not simultaneously involved in the procedures, should administer propofol to non-ventilated (airway-supported) patients. If this is not possible, the American Society of Anesthesiologists also suggests non-anesthesia staff who administer propofol should be qualified to rescue patients whose level of sedation becomes deeper than intended and who enter, if briefly, a state of general anesthesia.
Even in the first days of the People v. Dr. Conrad Murray, as indicated by the quantity of drugs he ordered sent to girlfriend Sade Anding’s address, the physician seems to have shown no moderation or self-discipline concerning either his career or his personal life.
Perhaps the most remarkable and frustrating aspect of Dr. Murray’s decision to administer propofol to Michael Jackson is that a basic familiarity of the product’s mechanism of action — how it works in the body and warnings — are available to anyone with Internet access.
Weighing nearly two decades spent acquiring his education against known dangers and warnings for the drugs Dr. Murray was heaping upon Jackson, his story models Shakespeare given all the physician stands to lose. Did the doctor’s compulsive womanizing — or a more profound reason — govern his behavior?
Michael Jackson’s death from acute propofol intoxication is bound to result in the drug being placed sooner in the CSA Schedule of Drugs. Two months after the entertainer and philanthropist died, some U.S. medical associations that were contacted by media stated that they had been considering propofol prior to Jackson’s death, to include it in the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of controlled substances.
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
The judge read the verdict in the Amanda Knox murder conviction appeal on October 3, 2011. The conviction for murder was overturned. The conviction for sexual assault was overturned. The conviction for liable stands but the sentence was reduced. Amanda Knox is to be released at once, announced the judge. And with this brief verdict, four years of confinement came to an end for Amanda Knox, convicted in the 2007 murder of her university roommate Meredith Kercher along with boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito and neighbor Rudy Guede. Without DNA evidence entered at the original trial, there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions of either Knox or Sollecito; therefore, both defendants were ordered released by the court.
Rudy Guede remains imprisoned having pleaded guilty to rape and murder. His sentence was reduced because he was promised as much by Italian prosecutors if he implicated Knox and Sollecito in his crimes. He did so and his sentence was cut to 16 years. In retrospect, he played the Italians like a cheap fiddle.
Nevertheless, several issues have clouded this case from the beginning, issues that we may never have resolved. To begin with, why did Amanda Knox falsely accuse Patrick Lumumba of the crime? Next, if Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito had known each other only a short while, why would either spontaneously have agreed to commit rape and murder and, thereafter, doggedly stick to a cover story? How would have Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito convinced Rudy Guede, who the couple barely knew, to join them in a rape-murder? If Knox and Sollecito barely knew each other, why is it that neither testified against the other? And finally, those who commit sex murders are often the victims of sexual or physical abuse themselves and live lives in which they abuse others. How is it that Knox and Sollecito shared this common abuse that went unreported by them or anyone else?
However, the imponderables were somehow overcome by the Italian prosecutor. Or, if not overcome, he chose to ignore them. The appellate court did not. Elsewhere I wrote that if the appellate court was unable to sustain the acquisition and testing of DNA evidence, they would need to rely on other evidence presented at trial if a guilty verdict would be returned. The appellate court discarded the tainted DNA evidence and found that the imponderables were too great to ignore.
On hearing the verdict, Knox wept, her attorney congratulated her and when she returned to the prison to collect her belongings, the prisoners cheered. As one who has trotted around the globe for many years, an international journey is officially over when I pass through U.S. Customs where the officer checks my passport and says, “Welcome home, sir.” It always feels good to hear it. Always. Soon (at this writing), Amanda Knox will pass through U.S. Customs on her way to Seattle. I can only imagine how she will feel when the officer says to her, “Welcome home, Ms. Knox.” But I imagine it will feel very good indeed.
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conrad Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
When the first week of testimony wrapped up in the Conrad Murray trial, we learned that Murray told paramedics he only gave Michael a dose of the sedative, Lorazepam, leaving paramedics puzzled as to why MJ died. As I try to put myself in the place of a juror, I wonder if any one of them will see this key "omission" as evidence of consciousness of guilt? In my eyes, it's clear that Murray was covering his tracks. Why else would Murray lie and repeatedly try to conceal his actions as paramedics worked so hard to revive Michael?
The testimony of Michael's staff and of paramedics at the scene further confirm, in my mind, that Murray was "frantic" because he knew he did not have the proper monitoring or revival devices in MJ's home. It's interesting to watch the defense try to discredit witnesses such as Alberto Alvarez and other first responders to the scene. If Murray had been allowed back into the house on Carolwood after leaving Michael's lifeless body at the UCLA Medical Center, Murray would have removed any and all Propofol and other evidence, thwarting the ability of the LADA to pursue criminal charges.
Thank goodness MJ's assistant, Michael Amir Williams, was quick enough to tell Murray that police had taken away the keys to Michael's mansion just moments after the ambulance arrived -- otherwise, Murray's defense team would have been able to paint Mr. Alveraz (and other MJ staff) as people who were confused and mistaken about all the vials of medicine found in Michael's bedroom. Conrad Murray thought he was going to have free access to clean up his mess without anyone knowing -- but Michael's people were able to protect the integrity of the crime scene.
The Betrayal: Corey Brown seemed to be a doting husband; he’d leave love notes for his wife and make her breakfast in bed. But when Brown’s wife left in the evenings to work a nightshift, he turned his affection towards two of his daughters, who he abused, sexually, mentally and physically.
The Break: Corey Brown’s wife received a call from school officials to come in to pick-up her 9-year-old daughter. When she arrived, she knew something was wrong; that her daughter had been hurt. But it was a bigger nightmare to learn that the man hurting her daughter was not someone from the outside, but a devil she knew very well: her own husband.
Brown claimed he let his relationship with his daughters get out of control; it changed from playful tickling and teasing to nights spent in his room. His wife knew he had an interest in pornography, but his background check had cleared before their marriage, and she never suspected anything sinister.
At sentencing, Judge Nancy Schneider charged Brown with 14 felony counts, which total two life sentences plus 30 years.
"Never in their lives will they ever have to deal directly with you again, but they will be dealing with the effects of what you've done to them all their lives," [Schneider] told Brown.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Chief Judge Bevin Perry unsealed on Sept. 30 a telling video that documents the Caylee Anthony murder defendant’s reaction to what the mother, 22, was told that “a small child’s” remains were discovered near the family’s Orlando home on Dec. 8, 2008.
At the time of the taped video, Anthony was in jail and awaiting her capital murder trial. The recording depicts Anthony’s reaction to the television-broadcast news. Staging a situation and setting where her reactions could be monitored and as part of detectives’ efforts to solve the murder case, Anthony had been taken from her cell to a medical space of the Orlando Women’s Correctional facility, where she was told to sit in a room to watch the 15-minute broadcast.
Although the surveillance video’s quality is largely unfocused and grainy, Anthony can be seen bent over in a chair and appearing to be nauseated. The Orlando Sentinel quoted Anthony’s lead attorney, Jose Baez, who said, “I find [the video of his client] to be torture. I guess it’s Orange County’s version of water boarding."
Judge Perry, who noted in his Sept. 30 Order Granting Motion to Unseal Videotape, the video is a public record “subject to disclosure."
“The reason for sealing — Ms. Anthony’s right to a fair trial — is no longer applicable,” Perry explained in the three-page order.
On July 7, 2011, counsel for Orlando television station WKMG-TV, Channel 6, had filed the motion, which Perry agreed to suppress. The judge concurred with Jose Baez, that when weighed against the young woman’s first-degree murder charge, the video’s contents were “inflammatory.”
In the recording, Casey Anthony appears to watch news that could relate to the two-year-old daughter she reported as missing in the summer of 2008. Looking up at a wall-mounted TV screen, Anthony bends at the waist while huddling in a chair.
Word came from an inmate supervisor that seconds after learning a small child’s remains had been discovered 15 houses from the residence Anthony and daughter Caylee shared with the child’s grandparents George and Cindy, Anthony hyperventilated, her hands sweated noticeably and the skin on her neck reddened.
Anthony requested and was given a sedative after watching the grim news.
Baez, who now represents another high-profile criminal figure — Aruban murder suspect, Gary Giordano — litigated to have the video sealed.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
Los Angeles, Calif. – By all accounts, the Jackson mansion’s unofficial timekeeper was Le Cordon Bleu graduate Kai Chase, personal chef to Michael Jackson. Chase kept a watch in her white uniform jacket’s pocket; glancing at it frequently, the timepiece was instrumental in helping pace herself, in order for the organic food-espousing professional to prepare and create three meals a day for the household’s occupants.
Serving Michael, Paris, Prince, Blanket, a nanny and a doctor meant that Chase was, by necessity, time-aware. Jackson’s varied schedule dictated that the chef anticipate variations of meal-serving, i.e., whether to prepare and serve at once or to package and refrigerate entrees and snacks for later consumption or transport, should Jackson and the children go out.
On day 4 of the trial in downtown Los Angeles, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren took state’s witness Chase through what began as a regular day in the Jackson household, with the celebrity chef arriving at the home between 8 and 8:30 a.m. on the harrowing day. The organic-food-minded chef told Mr. Walgren that upon her arrival, she set about preparing Jackson’s morning beet juice (a mixture of green apples, beets, and celery).
Chase prepared Jackson’s breakfast — granola with almond milk — then left for the market at 9:45, returning at 10:30 a.m. Things at the house seemed the same, but then, the chef never went upstairs. “It was a happy home,” she remarked.
Dr. Murray “... In a Panic”
Across from the kitchen, the then-home-schooled Jackson children played in the den. With lunch expected at 12:30, “exactly,” Chase said, she began to prepare the meal. Stating that Dr. Murray did not come downstairs to get Jackson’s juice, as was his custom, instead, the doctor “came down in a panic” at “12:05 or 12:10” p.m.
Dr. Murray’s “energy was nervous,” Chase said, “and the physician was shouting, ‘Get help! Get security! Get Prince!”
By this time, Michael Jackson likely had been in cardiac arrest for nearly two hours, according to Dr. Murray’s statements and meshing the times with Chase’s testimony. The staffer “went to get Prince,” who Chase said then went upstairs with Dr. Murray. There was no mention of Dr. Murray calling or having called 911, or if an ambulance was inbound to the Carolwood Drive home located in old money Bel Air.
Meanwhile, Chase noticed housekeepers crying; the kids “were screaming and hugging and [the group] all joined hands and prayed.” At this time on “the very devastating day,” Chase and the housekeepers “tried to comfort the children.” Soon, Chase said she was “asked to leave with the others.” Her job “was over.”
Not quite. Deputy DA Walgren who figured the defense would question the well-known chef about “paid appearances,” asked about the chef’s compensated interviews and media appearances after Jackson’s death: areas the defense almost was guaranteed to explore.
Shifting the Blame
Easing into stalking mode, Dr. Murray’s lead defense attorney began his discrediting attempts by revisiting the time on June 25, 2009, when Dr. Murray shouted from the stairs and Prince went quickly to his father’s bedroom on the second floor. The lead defense counselor’s goal: to shift blame of the significantly delayed 911 call from his client; the doctor's first call was to Jackson’s personal assistant Michael Amir Williams.
Chernoff, addressing the chef: “You saw Prince go upstairs and you went back to preparing lunch. What was your ‘downside’ to [summoning] security?”
Chernoff (now acting incredulous): “You saw Dr. Murray, frantic, eyes wide, yelling. You thought, “something is wrong with Michael?”
And finally, “did you think a 12 year old could assist” [with the most urgent emergency]?
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
In an ICU setting, Selma Calmes, MD, states the drug propofol should be administered by persons who are ACLS certified (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) and trained. The ACLS 2-year certification by the American Heart Association includes “cognitive and skills evaluation,” meaning, hands-on training, practice “codes,” (medical-speak for practicing responding to cardiac arrest) and a “mega-code” exam most physicians and allied health providers are required to attend and keep current as part of their credentials package.
Although yet to be revealed in the trial, InvestigationDiscovery.com has learned that Dr. Murray was certified to administer the drug in the past. The ACLS Certification Institute Administration did confirm Dr. Murray's past certification but whether it was current is still to be determined.
Science had the last word in Jackson’s voluminous autopsy report, which included notes from an anesthesiology consultation by Dr. Calmes. Her report is the basis for the prosecution’s case in chief and contains three questions that were answered as well. The discussion, dated 2009, set down three questions regarding Jackson’s propofol use. First discussing the proper setting for the drug’s use, the anesthesiologist consultant states that the substance only should be administered by anesthesiologists or “other supervised anesthesia providers, i.e. nurse-anesthetists.” To which our physician consultant adds that the drug should only be administered “in a controlled and equipped environment.”
Propofol and Standard of Care: Will the Jury See This?
1. Was the standard of care for giving propofol met? Dr. Calmes lists equipment found, and notes “multiple opened bottles of propofol were found, with small amounts of remaining drug. A used bottle should be discarded 6 hours after opening, to avoid possible bacterial growth. The standard of care for administering propofol was not met.
2. Could the decedent (Michael Jackson) have given propofol to himself? It is unknown where the propofol physically came from (until later in the investigation). It would have been difficult for the patient to administer the drugs (others besides the propofol were administered) given the configuration of the IV set-up. The IV catheter was in the left leg. The injection port of the IV tubing was 13.5 cm from the tip of the catheter. He would have had to bend his knee sharply or sit up to reach the injection port and push the syringe barrel, an awkward situation, especially if sleep was the goal. If only bolus injections (usually a one-time, large amount of a drug) via a syringe were used, sleep would not have been maintained, due to the short action of propofol. Someone with medical knowledge or experience would have started the IV. Anyone could have drawn up and administered the medications after the IV was started.
3. What is an anesthesiologist’s view point on the toxicology screen results? The levels of propofol found on toxicology exam are similar to those found during general anesthesia for major surgery (intra-abdominal) with propofol infusions, after a bolus induction (large amount of drug given initially to put the patient to sleep). During major surgery, a patient with these blood levels of propofol would be intubated and ventilated by an anesthesiologist, and any cardiovascular depression (lower heart rate, etc.) would be noted and treated. Dr. Calmes adds: Anesthesiologists would also comment on the presence of other sedative drugs in the toxicology screen. Lorazepam (Ativan), a long-acting benzodiazepine, is present at a pharmacologically significant level and would have accentuated the respiratory and cardiovascular depression from propofol.
If the jury considers the defense’s theory, that Michael Jackson injected himself — within the two minutes the doctor claims he was out of the room and in the bathroom — is it likely or not that the jury will find Mr. Ed Chernoff’s theory untenable?
Picturing Michael Jackson: A Man and His “Milk”
Picturing Michael Jackson drawing up his “milk” and “anti-burn” in a syringe is not a “common sense” image, nor is it a visage that appears on the horizon of dead reckoning. Michael Jackson was a man of profound talent, but unless he had a secret life as a Cirque du Soleil contortionist who happened to be medically educated — the likelihood that the sleep-seeking superstar self-administered any IV drug is nil. A common thread in this tangled case is that Michael Jackson trusted people. Michael Jackson depended on people for many things, and he depended on Dr. Conrad Murray to keep him safe and alive, albeit over-medicated at the same time.
[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]
LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The state of California is trying Murray with involuntary manslaughter because prosecutors contend the interventional cardiologist, a cardiology sub-specialist trained to perform catheter-based treatment of structural heart diseases, administered a lethal dose of propofol. A dose so lethal and quick, that Jackson did not have time to close his eyes before he died.
Among jarring exhibits, attorneys from both sides presented Jackson as the public never has known him, nor could anyone have imagined him in such a profoundly medicated state, in which he struggled to say:
“When people leave my show, I want them to say, ‘I’ve never seen nothing [sic] like this in my life. Go. Go. I’ve never seen nothing [sic] like this. Go. It’s amazing. He’s the greatest entertainer in the world.’ ”
Speculation abounds as to why Dr. Murray made the recording of Jackson’s “mutterings” six weeks before his patient’s death; likely the jury will learn the reason or reasons before retiring to deliberate.
Paging Juror Number 10
Possibly helpful to the panel, juror number 10 is a 43-year-old woman who was born in England and who has had scientific training, having worked as a pathology/medical technician in a biochemistry lab after earning a biochemistry degree. In fact, science already is electrifying the trial; it was science-based relief that Michael Jackson sought and finally received, after entreating Dr. Murray to put him to sleep. For Jackson, the Sandman never came, unless delivered in the “milk” that was propofol.
Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, leaving three bereft, school-age children and a large, extended family and countless numbers of fans that even now consider the ethereal entertainer as family too.
MJ’s Presence Felt in Courtroom
Although over two years have passed since the mega-star suffered cardiac arrest from acute propofol intoxication, few can deny the King of Pop’s magnanimous presence on Sept. 27 at the first day of the “trial of the century.” Throughout the day, Jackson’s personal physician, the defendant, Dr. Conrad Murray, appeared tense but composed; his brooding face strongly projected his dilemma as a medical professional that may have strayed from the oath he swore to “first, do no harm.” The embattled doctor’s most prominent facial feature caught by the camera lens was a seemingly ingrained frown, its deep, curving furrows holding his face hostage.
Dr. Murray Briefly Cries During Lawyer’s Speech
Dr. Murray’s expression softened during his lead attorney, Ed Chernoff’s recount in opening remarks of how the Grenada-born doctor established a medical clinic in an underserved, poor area in Houston. The defendant cried during his lawyer’s recount of the Houston clinic and disadvantaged patients the doctor served. Now, Dr. Murray is disadvantaged, although perhaps not in the same manner of his patients.
[ By Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, a criminologist at California State University. Read his Bio >> ]
Ivory Coast native Rudy Guede pleaded guilty to the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy; however, Italian Raffaele Sollecito and American Amanda Knox were also convicted of the crime. And so, with what in any major U.S. city might be described as a garden-variety sexual assault and murder, battle lines following national borders formed regarding the guilt or innocence of respective hometown heroes. Predictably, the first casualty in this drama was justice.
Rolling Stone magazine waxed rhapsodically about “ingénue” Amanda Knox, who didn‘t know that she was beautiful and reads Sartre in her spare time. BBC groused that the beautiful murder victim Meredith Kercher had been overshadowed by the beautiful murderer Amanda Knox. Even Sollecito was compared favorably to Harry Potter. Since her arrest, Americans have figuratively surrounded Knox. Legal arguments have challenged Italian competence and charged conspiracy and complicity in the case against “foxy Knoxy.” Even Congress has gotten in the act, with one representative publicly questioning the entire Italian criminal justice system. Conversely, the British have lined up against Knox in revenge for the death of beautiful Meredith Kercher. The London Times headline following her conviction read, “Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies.”
For the most part articulating the American position, Rolling Stone conceded, “Whoever murdered Meredith Kercher didn't know how to use a knife ... An experienced killer would have known better.” Although Rolling Stone magazine is likely not the first place that one might go for expertise in forensic pathology and no one on either side of the Atlantic officially has suggested Kercher’s murder was a professional hit, they make an interesting point nevertheless. In an article that is otherwise favorable to Knox, they point out that evidence shows that Kercher’s murderers (yes, likely more than one, they say), tried to stem the bleeding once she had been stabbed. Later, the murderers would cover Kercher’s body. However, these actions are not the typical acts of a garden-variety sexual murderer nor would they be the typical acts of a stranger-attacker, such as a burglar. Instead these are the kind of things that an acquaintance of the victim might do. Knox and Sollecito knew Kercher, and so did Guede, who was a neighbor to the victim. None of the accused is believed to be an experienced killer.
To further polarize the international debate, the BBC has reported that Italian prosecutors railed against those in America that are obsessed with freeing Knox. Carlo Pacelli is the Italian lawyer for Congolese Patrick Lumumba who American Amanda Knox falsely accused of the murder. The BBC reports that Pacelli described Knox as “diabolical,” and a “witch of deception,” appearing saintly but being "Lucifer-like, demonic, satanic, diabolic," and "longs to live out borderline extreme behavior." Other European reports relate that Knox’ hair is falling out and that she appears too thin; she is not as beautiful as the victim anymore.
As the appeal comes to a close, there seems to be little quest for the truth any longer and instead the international players appear to be rooting for their respective teams regardless of guilt or innocence. If pro-Knox Americans were shown concrete proof their heroine was guilty, little would change in their position. Additionally, if the British and the Italians were shown conclusively that Knox had no part in the murder, they would charge a political cover-up. Anthropologists have a name for this phenomenon: they call it tribalism.
There is a longstanding observation in American courtrooms that attractive people are convicted less frequently than those less fortunate. However, beautiful does not mean not guilty and neither does no-longer-beautiful mean guilty. Rolling Stone can mull over the relative merits of who is prettier, the prisoner Knox or the murder victim Kercher, but it is all for nothing. The BBC can report vitriol and ad hominem remarks made about Knox, but this too is for nothing. The appellate jury is expected to return its final decision in October.
[ Aphrodite Jones gives her perspective on the trial of Conray Murray. Check in for her regular reports. Read her Bio >> ]
Opening statements in the Conrad Murray trial brought home the reality of Michael's horrible medical care which, IMO, lead directly to his death. The prosecution outlined a solid case, showing how Dr. Murray failed to meet a "standard of care" on all fronts. It was ironic that Murray cried for himself when his defense spoke of his goodwill efforts in Texas, and even more ironic when the defense characterized Murray as a man who was Michael's friend, first, before becoming his doctor.
Many believe in conspiracy theories surrounding Michael, both in life, and in death. I am not willing to say Murray was a part of any conspiracy, but I will say that Conrad Murray acted in such a negligent way -- unlike any doctor who takes his oath seriously -- that he did seem to be more interested in his $150K a month salary -- than the true health of Michael Jackson. Many MJ fans wanted the LADA to charge Murray with Murder in the Second Degree, but now, seeing how difficult it may be to sway a jury, particularly when the defense will harp on MJ's history of drug use, perhaps folks will realize that being able to prove manslaughter -- which only entails showing negligence and a disregard for human life -- will allow justice for Michael on some small level.
Nothing that happens in the LA Superior Court can ever bring Michael back -- but there will be comfort given to Michael's fans, friends and family -- just knowing that Conrad Murray will pay for his wrongdoings. Yes, this will be a trial that will attempt to drag MJ through the mud, once again. But in the end, especially after hearing MJ's voice which Murray recorded on his own iPhone, it seems abundantly clear that this "doctor" knew -- all too well -- how much he was harming MJ with high doses of prescription drugs added to the "milk" MJ allegedly requested. To argue that MJ injected himself with Propofol -- as the defense wants the jury to believe -- is ludicrous. Surgeons tell me that that drug takes effect so quickly, it is virtually impossible to self-medicate with it. Soon we will discover the fate of Conrad Murray and only time will tell, but I predict the doctor will be spending a few years behind bars. Stay tuned!
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Keep up with the latest in all things crime and criminals right here. Get the details on the Casey Anthony Trial and other daily reports as they unfold.
Recent Comments