Monday, June 11, 2012

Did Michael Jackson Meet With Foul Play? (Part 2 of 3)

In the previous blog entry I went into the possibility that Michael Jackson could have met with foul play and was murdered. I also talked about how Michael had feared for his life, and how some could have had the motive to actually want to kill him. So we have fear, we have motive, but do we have opportunity?  I mean, after all, the man had a group of very big security guards.  There job basically was to protect him, right?


According to Dr. Conrad Murray, or should I say his cell phone records on June 25, 2009, that Murray was out of the room for about forty minutes or so making phone calls to patients and girlfriends. (Which alone is odd, because he knew he left Michael on propofol, or did he?  Let's face it no one should leave a room when doing something like administering a dangerous drug.  Now according to Conrad Murray's defense they claimed that the doctor only gave Michael 25mg. of propofol and the time that Murray sat with him with such a low dose that when he decided to leave that there was no way any propofol should have remained in Jackson's body.  Now if you've been following this case closely, as I'm sure you have, then you know that Michael's autopsy stated that he died from acute propofol intoxication and that he basically reeked of propofol.  This information doesn't add up to what Conrad Murray told his defense team, now does it?  (Now was he lying about this, maybe?)

Now I realize many of us would agree that propofol shouldn't be given in a home regardless of the milligrams used, right?  I probably would agree with you here, but if Murray is telling the truth about 25 mgs. of propofol, and Michael died from acute propofol intoxication then it would mean that someone would have had to have given him the overdose amount. (Just something to think about here). 

Now does any of the evidence support what I am saying?  Okay, let's look at involuntary manslaughter.  I will agree that ConradMurray is probably guilty of this charge.  Let's face it if he hadn't been giving this drug to Michael and then leaving him unattended, then no one if their intent was to kill him would have been able to.  So on that note I guess you can kind of understand why the charge was so low from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office.  This was definitely a charge they felt they could prove. I believe if the charge would have been higher it would have been harder to prove with the evidence that was presented.  One piece of evidence if this charge had it been charged as say; second degree murder or murder would have probably brought in a not guilty verdict from the jury was the fingerprints on the I.V. bag.  This evidence alone would have made the jury let Conrad Murray walk, but since the charge was involuntary manslaughter it was easier to prove because the moment Murray administered propofol, and walked away for over 40 minutes, and then came back and found Michael not breathing, the fact that he didn't call 9-1-1 instantly made him guilty.  Now if you're not sure about what I am talking about in regards to the fingerprint evidence check out the video below.  This piece of evidence sort of points at foul play of some kind, and  I'm amazed how the news media after that day's testimony didn't really talk about it, but boy did it wake me up to the possibility that Michael Jackson might have been murdered.


(Click Below to watch video)

 
So my question is since Conrad Murray was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter has this case been closed?  Yes, I believe Conrad Murray is guilty of this crime, but is he guilty of murder?  Like I said the charge wasn't murder but manslaughter.  So what I really want to know is did the Los Angeles District Attorney's office just put a pretty red bow on Conrad Murray and closed this case? If this is what they did then there is a possibility that someone might have gotten away with killing Michael Jackson, and right at this very moment they could be walking around with a huge smile on their face while Murray takes the fall.  Murray only got a four year sentence and it is believed that he will probably only serve two of those years, but Michael Jackson will still be dead.  So did we convict the right person?  Think about that.  If you ask me that little red bow we placed on Murray just doesn't do it for me. 

I do know one thing and that is if Michael had met with foul play, then I truly believe it was an inside job. After all, the house was well secure, or supposedly it was, and if it wasn't Murray who killed Michael then it had to be someone else who was involved, and who had to know the general layout of the house. This would explain how the person could have gotten in and how the surveillance tapes ended up missing, as reported, wouldn't it? Also, let's not forget there have been other strange deaths of people who were linked to Michael Jackson since his death, which have been labeled either accidental or suicide, but were they?

Stay tune for my next blog entry where I'll continue to discuss whether Michael Jackson met with foul play, and the things I feel sort of support this claim that I think we still need to address.  Better yet, does the District Attorney's office in Los Angeles still need to address them as well?

No comments:

Post a Comment