Recently Dr.Conrad Murray returned back to court to try and prove that the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson did in fact cause his own death. Apparently, Conrad Murray has returned to court to try to reduce the amount of restitution he has been ordered to pay to Michael Jackson’s family (Children: Prince the 1st, Paris, and Prince the 2nd, aka Blanket). Murray wants to have evidence that was apparently excluded, (My question is: Why was it excluded?) from his trial to be looked at by the court in the hope of having the $100 million dollar restitution fine he was given lessened to half that amount.
Although, Murray is back in court he cannot, because of his conviction, argue that he had no responsibility for the death of Michael Jackson, but at the same token he wants to argue once again that Jackson self-administered the fatal dose of Propofol. His lawyer feels if they can prove this bit of evidence that the amount of restitution money that Murray owes will be most definitely reduced.
District Attorney, David Walgren was quoted as saying that Michael’s children were ‘entitled to wages or profits lost due to injury incurred by the victim’.
All right what is wrong with this statement? Well, doesn't it seem odd that Walgren didn't state the wrongful death of the victim? No, he refers to it as injury incurred. Now I know in some legal circles using injury is a proper terminology to use in such matters, but isn't wrongful death, or negligent death, or even wrongful termination also used in some way. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions here since this isn't a legal document where wording has to be just so, and this is just words coming out of someone's mouth. But this makes me take pause all the more. Think about this for a moment, isn't a person more likely to refer to this as death or the actual charge of involuntary manslaughter when talking freely. Let's face it wouldn't it have just been easier for Walgren to have just come out and said that Murray owed Jackson's children this restitution because he cost them their father. But no he talks about it as if Murray broke Michael's leg or something else; when as things stand he was responsible for killing MichaelJackson. At least that is what we have all been led to believe. Could this mean what I've stated in several previous blog entries that Michael could possibly still be alive but in a coma? I mean, Death Hoax Believers keep asking when he is coming back. Well, he might not be able to right now if he is in fact still in a coma. This is just one thought I've had, since on June 25, 2009' it was originally being reported that he was in a coma before they stated Jackson was dead.
So what is this, another case of a Freudian slip by Walgren, or is this a clue once again that this is all some kind of hoax. Think about this for a moment, first we get alleged used in the verdict more than once (still want someone to point out to me any other verdict where this happened), and now we have Walgren talking about injury not death, exactly what is going on here?
No wonder why the Death Hoax Believers continue believing Michael Jackson is still alive.