By now we have all heard the verdict in the Dr. Conrad Murray Involuntary Manslaughter case. It was no surprise that he was found guilty, but what I did find extremely bizarre was the way the verdict was read. There was a word used in the verdict that made me pause and go… huh? The word was alleged. Now in case you don't know the definition of alleged here is the one that I found at the free dictionary website on the Internet:
alleged: represented as existing, or as being as described but not so proved; supposed, without proof.
Usage Note: An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar, but against whom no charges have been proved. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place, but has not yet been verified or proven. In their zeal to protect the rights of the accused, newspapers and law enforcement officials sometimes misuse alleged. Someone arrested for murder may be only an alleged murderer, for example, but is a real, not an alleged, suspect in that his or her status as a suspect is not in doubt. Similarly, if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely mislaid, then we may safely speak of a theft without having to qualify our description with alleged.
Now if you were to watch the verdict on YouTube you will hear the word alleged used three times, once when the judge made note of the jury foreman changing the date on the verdict form from June 9, 2009 to June 25, 2009, and once to describe the victim, (it stated as the alleged victim, Michael Joseph Jackson), then it's used again for the date, the alleged date of June 25, 2009. As I said above, "say what?"
Tell me something, has such a word ever been used in the reading of a verdict in the past that any of you reading this have heard in a court of law? I tried going to YouTube, and looking up some high profile verdicts from the past and the only one I could locate was Casey Anthony's. Guess what I never heard one alleged. To be honest I can't recall hearing such a word used in a courtroom verdict that I can ever remember; a preliminary hearing where the individual is innocent till proven guilty yes, but never in a verdict, which from my understanding usually consist of definitive words, which alleged isn't. All right so it could be argued that Murray may not actually be guilty of murder; involuntary manslaughter yes, but murder is still sketchy, so maybe alleged victim may not be wrong terminology. But what about the alleged date? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Michael Jackson did supposedly die on June 25, 2009, right? So why is the date alleged? Does this have to do with the fact that the date was recorded wrong at first with June 9, 2009, which is an issue all in itself, but still it was corrected and we were all told June 25, 2009 was the date of his death. So when it comes to the date of death there is really nothing alleged about it. This really bothered me because this verdict is a court legal document. So what is so alleged about it?
I have to be honest when I heard the verdict and I heard the word alleged used, my first reaction was, is this another clue to the death hoax? After all if Michael Jackson did stage his own death then the victim and date would be alleged wouldn't they?
One last thing when I started to write this blog I really thought I would squash all this death hoax nonsense. But, now I have to admit that I'm starting to truly understand where these death hoax beLIEvers are coming from. I truly believed back when I started writing this blog that I was 99% sure that Michael Jackson was dead, but in the five months that I've been writing this, I am now only 50% convince that he is deceased. The reason I am 50/50 on this now is something just isn't right here. So beLIEvers keep the faith.