Thomas Mesereau: La inculpación de Dr. Conrad Murray

9 02 2010

Con nosotros esta mañana para una entrevista exclusiva desde Los Angeles, tenemos al abogado Tom Mesereau, quien defendió a Jackson contra los cargos de abusos deshonestos a un menor en el año 2005.

Buenos dias Señor Mesereau.

Buenos dias Maggie.

Durante dias, hemos oido la familia Jackson expresar su indignación en cuanto al cargo de “homicidio involuntario” en vez de “asesinato en segundo grado”.  ¿Está esa ira justificada? ¿Se equivocó el Fiscal del Distrito de cargo en base a las pruebas?

Bueno, yo no soy parte de la investigación pero en base a lo que yo conozco, pienso que los fiscales tienen que tener cuidado con los cargos que presentan. Si presentan el cargo de “asesinato” y no lo pueden demostrar, y demostrarlo significa probar todos los elementos del cargo más alla de una duda razonable, si no lo pueden demostrar/probar él podría salir libre del cargo de homicidio involuntario y de asesinato porque a los jurados no les gusta ver unos fiscales sobre-cargar los casos. Tienen que enjuiciar este caso en una sala del Juzgado, por lo que tienen que ser muy precavidos con lo que hacen.

¿Qué lecciones piensa Usted que los fiscales han aprendido trás llevar a juicio tantos casos llamativos en los ultimos 2 años como el de OJ Simpson, Phil Spector, Robert Blake..?

Bueno…. Primero, en el caso de OJ Simpson presentaron los cargos demasiado rápido: no habian terminado la investigación, no habian terminado las pruebas forenses, la defensa se basó en el juicio oral y ellos no estaban completamente preparados.     En el caso de Robert Blake, el Fiscal del Districto de Los Angeles intentó aprender una lección del juicio a OJ Simpson. No presentaron los cargos hasta pasado un año, trás una rigorosa investigación a nivel nacional. Desgraciadamente, los resultados forenses no establecieron una conexión del Sr. Blake con el crimen y los testimonios de sus testigos eran malos.      En el caso de Phil Spector, presentaron el cargo de “asesinato en segundo grado”. Le acusaron de hacer caso omiso concientemente de la seguridad de la victima al sacar y apuntarla con  una pistola y, aparentemente, podian probar que él sacaba y apuntaba con una pistola a personas muy amenudo. Pero tuvieron un primer jurado incapaz de llegar a un veredicto (“hung  jury”), y consiguieron una sentencia de culpabilidad la segunda vez.       Yo pienso que lo que han aprendido es que,   cuando está Usted bajo un microscopio, cuando una nación, el mundo entero y todos estan observado cada uno de sus movimientos, tiene Usted que ser extra-precavido y asegurarse que esto no afecta tus decisiones.  Hay que centrarse en el caso tal y como lo hicieras en cualquier otro caso, que el caso sea llamativo/famoso o no.

Muy bien Sr. Mesereau. Muchas gracias por su tiempo.

Gracias.





Frances Inglis: Condena–> mínimo 9 años de cárcel

9 02 2010

Iré traduciendo este artículo.

From Times Online
//
January 21, 2010

Jury heckled over murder verdict for mother Frances Inglis who ‘acted out of love’

Por Lucy Bannerman

An Old Bailey jury was heckled yesterday after a mother who injected her brain-damaged son with a lethal dose of heroin to end his suffering was found guilty of murder.

Frances Inglis, 57, dijo que no tuvo otra elección que la de liberar Thomas del  “infierno viviente” de su estado vegetativo.  Esta madre de tres hijos de Dagenham, Londres Este, ya estaba en libertad condicional por intentar matar previamente a su hijo Thomas cuando se registró en una residencia  con nombre falso y le administró una inyección letal en Noviembre 2008.

Ella admitió que le causó la muerte, pero insistió en que ella actuo por compasión.

Los miembros del jurado llegaron a un veredicto con una mayoría de 10 contra 2 trás deliberar más de seis horas.

Undated Hertfordshire Police handout photo of Frances Inglis, who was jailed for life with a minimum term of nine years after being found guilty of murder at the Old Bailey, after she gave her brain-damaged son Thomas a lethal heroin injection to end his suffering.

Last night her family called for a review of the law after a judge sentenced her to life and told her that she would spend a minimum of nine years in jail. The guilty verdicts — for murder and attempted murder — prompted cries of “Shame on you” from the public gallery.

Outside the court, Inglis’s eldest son, Alex, 26, defended his mother for actions that the family believed “were done out of love” for his brother.

He said: “I want to say that all of the family and Tom’s girlfriend support my Mum 100 per cent. All of those who loved and were close to Tom have never seen this as murder, but as a loving and courageous act.

“Why is my Mum the only person who has been called to answer for her actions, which were done out of love for her son?”

He added: “What this case and a number of others have exposed is a need for a complete rethink of laws in regard to people that have been, and will be, in the same position as Tom.

“How can it be legal to withhold food and water, which means a slow and painful death, yet illegal to end all suffering in a quick, calm and loving way? It’s cruel and illogical.”

Thomas suffered serious head injuries after falling from an ambulance in the early hours of July 7, 2008. He was 22. He had suffered a cut lip during a fight outside a pub, but did not want to go to hospital.

Witnesses claimed that he jumped from the ambulance on the way to Queen’s Hospital in Romford, Essex, but hit his head on the road.

He had showed signs of improvement but required round-the-clock care. He could communicate only by blinking and squeezing his hands, and had to be fed through a tube.

Inglis, who was doing a nursing diploma, refused to believe an encouraging prognosis from one of the doctors.

During the trial she wept as she described her despair at sitting at his bedside and seeing only the “horror, pain and tragedy” of her son’s helpless condition. “For Tom to live that living Hell — I couldn’t leave my child like that,” she told the court.

She admitted ending her son’s life but said: “I did it with love in my heart, for Tom, so I don’t see it as murder.” Ten days after he was admitted to hospital, she tried unsuccessfully to procure pure heroin from a neighbour. After her first attempt at giving him a lethal injection, in September 2007, she was arrested, and released on bail, with a number of conditions, including no contact with Thomas.

Staff at the home where he was being treated kept a picture of her at the nurses’ station to alert them if she tried to visit. However, at 1.37pm on November 21, 2008, armed with full syringes and having swigged from a whisky bottle in the hospital car park, she signed herself into The Gardens Neurological Nursing Home in Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, as his aunt, “Mrs Catkins”, and found herself alone with her son.

She told the court: “I held him and I told him that I loved him and I took the syringe and injected him in each thigh and his arm. I told him everything was going to be fine, that he will be fine. I hoped he had died, he was very peaceful.

“I know what equipment medical staff could use on him. I was just so scared they were going to resuscitate him again. I couldn’t risk it, I couldn’t just let them.”

When staff tried to get in she said that she had HIV, and threatened them. She barricaded herself in using an oxygen cylinder and a wheelchair, and put strong glue in the lock.

Expecting to be arrested, she had left at home instructions on caring for her youngest son Michael and the family dog. She said her family had no idea what she intended to do.

In his summing up Judge Brian Barker, QC, had said that there was “no concept in law of mercy killing” and that it was still a killing “no matter how kind the intention”.

He added: “You knew you were breaking society’s conventions, you knew you were breaking the law, and you knew the consequences.”





Michael Jackson: Autopsia (51 páginas)

9 02 2010

El lunes 8 de febrero 2010, día en el que el Estato de California presentó el singular cargo de “homicidio involuntario” contra Sr. Conrad Robert Murray, la Oficina del Forense de Los Angeles divulgaba el informe oficial definitivo de la autopsia realizada a Michael Joseph Jackson.

El sitio web smokinggun ha publicado el documento completo:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0208101jackson1.html

Este documento será utilizado por fiscalía y defensa en el juicio contra el Doctor Murray.





Conrad Murray: Inculpación por Homicidio Involuntario

9 02 2010

El día 8 febrero 2010, Dr. Conrad Murray se presentó voluntariamente y sin estar esposado en un juzgado de Los Angeles para oír su inculpación por Homicidio Involuntario en relación a la muerte de Michael Jackson.





Thomas Mesereau: Defending Michael Jackson

7 02 2010

DEFENDING MICHAEL
by Thomas A Mesereau Jr.
Forum Column, Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 1st, 2009

The Michael Jackson trial was unique. More accredited media covered these proceedings than the O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson trials combined. When the verdicts were reached, people in every capital around the world were riveted to their radios, computers and televisions. The “King of Pop” was more popular than anyone, including Elvis Presley.

Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, Macaulay Culkin, George Lopez and lesser-known celebrities testified. Larry King testified outside the presence of the jury. The trial lasted five months with more than 140 witnesses appearing. Twenty-four-hour coverage, including actors re-enacting the proceedings, emphasized the trial’s popularity.

When more than 70 Santa Barbara sheriffs raided Neverland Ranch in November 2003, I was driving to Los Angeles from Northern California. I was ending a nine day vacation and ready to resume preparation for the Robert Blake murder trial, set for February 2004. My phone started ringing off the hook with frantic requests that I travel to Las Vegas and defend Michael. I refused, because I did not think I could handle the two cases at once.

After jury selection began in the Blake case, the client and I had a severe disagreement that Judge Darlene Schemp could not resolve. Mercifully, she granted my motion to withdraw. Within a short period, Michael’s brother Randy called me to, again, see if I would defend his brother. I flew to Florida, where I met Jackson for the first time.

Upon arriving, I was told by Michael and Randy that they had spoken with Johnnie Cochran in the hospital. According to them, Johnnie said I was the one who could win. I knew Johnnie, but he was not a close friend. I was quite surprised that he would speak so glowingly about me.

Three weeks later, I was told that Michael wanted me and my law firm partner, Susan Yu, to defend him. I returned to Florida and firmed up the understanding. The adventure began.

When I first met Michael, he said virtually nothing. He sat at a distance and observed others field questions. I didn’t know if he was intentionally being mysterious or simply observing in his own way. At that point, I had little information from which to judge whether he could possibly have committed the alleged crimes.

My retention generated enormous media coverage. One anti-Jackson reporter immediately appeared on “The Today Show” to announce that I had an African-American girlfriend and attended a black church. The lawyers I replaced did not depart gracefully. One appeared on “Good Morning America” to say he had left voluntarily because less than desirable people surrounded Michael. Certain tabloid shows, like those hosted by Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly, criticized my appearance. I assumed they were “in the pocket” of prior counsel. This was my baptism.

Initially, Michael was very inaccessible. I scoured every used bookstore and Website for books and articles about his life and character. I read all of them, sometimes twice. My meetings with him confirmed my suspicions about these charges. He was a gentle, kind soul. Sensitive, intuitive and creative, it seemed inconceivable that he could be the monster his enemies portrayed him as.

Much has been made about the child molestation charges. Little has been said about the other claims. The prosecution alleged that Jackson masterminded a conspiracy to falsely imprison a family, abduct children and commit criminal extortion. I can assure you that Michael was not capable of even imagining such behavior. But the more I spoke with him about the alleged molestation charges, the more firm I became in my belief that they were part of a universe of money-making opportunities created by charlatans.

During my first court appearance in Santa Maria, the entire Jackson family appeared dressed in white. They were unified, exquisite and powerful in their message of innocence. I delivered my first statement to the media regarding his innocence and my respect for the court and community. My statement included words, to the effect, that this case was not about “lawyers, or anyone else, becoming celebrities.”

These words were designed to change the atmosphere surrounding the defense and, of lesser importance, to hurl a barb at prior counsel. I had not liked the carnival atmosphere surrounding Jackson’s defense lawyers. In my opinion, they repeatedly advertised their absolute delight at being in the middle of the circus. Their public statements were, to me, self-serving and amateurish. Michael and Randy Jackson were very suspicious of them. My anti-lawyer-like comments generated controversy. But, a new firm die had been cast. My Irish grandmothers smiled from the heavens!

The prosecutors had an enormous advantage. Two grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara had investigated Jackson in the early 1990s. Nobody was charged. A third grand jury indicted him in 2004.

During the interim, District Attorney Tom Sneddon had traveled to at least two countries, Australia and Canada, searching for victims. The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department had a Web site seeking information on Michael.

The trial judge wanted to waste little time. The politics surrounding the defense were horrific. Numerous lawyers, most of them mediocre at best, were constantly trying to get to Michael to undermine me. The media smelled enormous ratings and revenue in a conviction. They were like a cloud of locusts, constantly descending on any weakness they spotted or created. There were numerous efforts to discredit me. Former girlfriends called to say they had been approached for unsavory information. I received calls from alleged “journalists” promising me favors for inside information. Tabloid sensationalism was at a premium.

The trial was carnival-like. Mountains were made out of molehills. For example, Jackson hurt his back one morning and went to the hospital. I informed Judge Melville immediately. His message was firm. If Michael did not appear forthwith, bail would evaporate. I instructed him to rush to court in whatever he was wearing. His pajama bottoms became a media feast. But, they had no bearing on the trial or verdict. The jury foreman later informed me that no juror even noticed Michael’s pants, or lack thereof. This case was characterized by shock, crisis and confusion.

On numerous occasions, I was summoned to Neverland to handle searches, disputes and a variety of crises. Michael seemed to always have a new “guru,” adviser or lawyer who virtually guaranteed a dismissal or acquittal. It was a veritable “sea of fools.” But the effort it took to handle these crises was wasted time.

The trial was characterized by contentious legal rulings. For example, the trial judge allowed the following: The prosecution was permitted to start its case by showing a scurrilous, slanted British documentary that claimed Michael was a pedophile. The prosecution claimed this was evidence of “motive.”

The prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence that Jackson had settled other claims of child molestation in civil court. The actual dollar amounts were not admitted (as if anyone hadn’t heard them!). It was also permitted to introduce evidence of alleged prior similar acts of child molestation. Prosecutors were permitted to introduce such evidence extending back 10 years. As icing on the cake, the court permitted them to call third-party witnesses who watched the alleged acts without any requirement that the actual alleged victims testify.

During the prosecution’s rebuttal, the court permitted the prosecutors to play a police interview tape of the alleged victim. Of course, this was rank hearsay. The theory of admissibility was that I had challenged the demeanor of the alleged victim and the tape was relevant to rebut.

As a measure of fairness, Melville permitted the defense to play “outtakes” of the interview footage that were edited out of the British documentary. In these interviews, Jackson denied abusing children.

Five lawyers testified. Three were called by the prosecution and two by the defense. I have always believed that lawyers are the easiest witnesses to discredit. Throw them any measure of flattery and the seeds of arrogance are sown.

We had more good days in this trial than anyone can reasonably expect. But the public never saw how many prosecution witnesses were scorched on cross-examination. The judge imposed a gag order, which I supported. While this permitted more flexibility in court, it made the trial easily distorted by self-serving pundits.

I would often return to my duplex, turn on the TV and turn apoplectic at what was being reported. Quite often, former prosecutors in New York would wax passionately about how a witness behaved. Their theatrics were totally lacking in substance or accuracy. I thought we were winning all along. But the media reported the very opposite. And, of course, jealous, shallow legal pundits had a field day criticizing my performance. To them, God help any lawyer who engaged in unconventional trial behavior. Such hearsay merited capital punishment.

From the outset, I did everything I could to remove race from the case. I immediately removed the Nation of Islam from Jackson’s public persona and asked that his father refrain from commenting on race in the media. It became clear that Michael was a person who brought all races together. Unfortunately, some of the mediocrities who surrounded him wanted to profit through racial conflict. This was a constant source of tension.

My reaction to this cauldron was stoicism and a hermit-like existence. Our team lived in condominiums far from the media hotels, restaurants and bars. I was in bed at 7:30 most evenings with a 3 a.m. start. Our staff worked all night updating witness books and performing other chores. Because they had a key to my apartment, the door would open virtually every hour with updated binders appearing miraculously on my stairwell. We lived like this for six months.

In the wake of his passing, I am haunted by certain late-night phone calls I received from Michael. Childlike, kindhearted and terrified, Michael begged me not to allow corrupt enemies to co-opt my performance. He seemed skeptical about any lawyer truly acting in an honorable, professional manner. I repeatedly assured him that my background had more to do with civil rights than it did Hollywood. The world’s most famous celebrity was not accustomed to honest, decent representation.

The 14 acquittals were tantamount to complete legal vindication. Nevertheless, I write this with a heavy heart. Michael was one of the kindest, nicest people I ever met. His wistful desire to heal the world with love, music and artistry clashed horribly with the barbaric way he was exploited. The world is a far better place because of him.





EE.UU. California: Datos del comportamiento “penal” de médicos

3 02 2010

No quiero que se me pase estos datos y este artículo: lo iré traduciendo… Viene a colación de la inminente inculpación del Doctor Conrad Murray.

The 2009 Medical Miscreant Year-End Legacy? 2,490 Doctores Condenados

Consider the following uncomfortable reality for a moment:

En el año 2009, 2,490 doctores were convicted of crimes in courts of law, or seriously sanctioned by medical governing bodies behind closed doors.

* During the Summer of ‘09, for example, while five of Michael Jackson’s doctors were being investigated, and while two of Anna Nicole Smith’s doctors were indicted in her death, 21 others were quietly convicted for murder and rape, secretly filming their nude patients, drug running, injecting fake Botox and child molestation and grand theft.

¿A nivel nacional? preguntarán Ustedes.  No.

That was merely a 90-day “Daffy-Doc” crime tally en el estado de California. In what nation is 11,000 doctor convictions* in a single decade (2000-2009) not merely condoned, but utterly unexamined? Why, this one.

The National Practitioner Data Bank holds files on a phenomenal 237,000 physicians, referred to as either “Dangerous” or “Questionable” by the Health Research Group. History shows that an inordinate percentage of serial killers over the last 100 years have been doctors.

But the phenomenon of bizarre behavior of crimes just short of homicide seem to be getting worse: A New York obstetrician completed the delivery of an infant, then suddenly pulled out a scalpel and – to the nurses’ horror – carved his initials into the mother’s abdomen.

An Army doctor walked onto a military base and destroyed 13 lives with a handgun.

 A Los Angeles ER physician in such a rush to help save lives, tried to kill two bicyclists on a city street.

Last week, an Oklahoma doctor pulled out a knife in the kitchen of his home, and with his wife looking on, proceeded to stab his young son to death, screaming that he was “the devil.”

 The sheer volume of what is happening is undeniable.

The strangeness is a fascinating, important subject.

And the silence by the investigating media – an a disinterested citizenry – is deafening.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2626703/the_phenomenal_volume_of_physician.html





Conrad Murray: Reunión con sus abogados para entregarse a la policia

3 02 2010

Dr. Murray Meets with Lawyers Before Surrender

Posted Feb 2nd 2010 5:48PM by TMZ Staff

Dr. Conrad Murray se reunirá con su equipo de defensa hoy, en anticipación de su entrega mañana en conección con la muerte de Michael Jackson.

Michael Flanagan: Click to watch
Nos dicen que Murray se reunirá con su abogado de California, J. Michael Flanagan, quien ha dicho a  TMZ  hace tan solo unos minutos, “No sé lo que está pasando.”

Dr. Murray también se reune con Ed Chernoff, su abogado de Houston, y otros abogados de su bufete.

Fuentes dicen a TMZ que los cargos por homicidio involuntario no serán presentados hoy pero si Murray se entrega a tiempo parece que el Fiscal del Districto de Los Angeles presentará  los cargos a primera hora de la mañana y Dr. Murray será detenido en el Tribunal de lo Penal de la ciudad de Los Angeles.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/02/dr-conrad-murray-michael-jackson-surrender-charges-involuntary-manslaughter-video-d-a/#ixzz0eQoBbtxZ





Michael Jackson: documental subtitulado

27 01 2010

Este documental se titula: “Michael Jackson, L’Histoire et La Légende” y fue emitido en diciembre 2009 en la cadena de televisión francesa TF1.

Seguiré incorporando en este “post” la subtitulación de este documental.

 





Michael Jackson: “WONDERLAND” – lo que iba ser su nuevo hogar

23 01 2010

Michael (Joseph) Jackson – MJ, MJJ – visitó esta propiedad en el año 2007. En su visita, le acompañaban sus tres hijos y el agente inmobiliario. La ubicación de la vivienda está en Las Vegas.

El video de este proyectado nuevo hogar se publicó en la web trás su deceso. ( *V.O* -Versión Original, en idioma :inglés).

 





Censura: “Avatar” de James Cameron censurada en China

19 01 2010

 El periódico “Apple Daily” con base en Hong Kong ha publicado que el grupo estatal de cinematografía ”China Film Group” ha dado instrucciones a todos los cines para que no exhiban en sus salas la cinta “Avatar” en 2-D después del 23 de enero 2010. Estas “instrucciones” no afectan a las salas que exhiben en China la película “Avatar” en formato 3-D.

‘Avatar’ se estrenó el pasado 4 de enero en el país y ha generado una gran expectación con grandes colas en los cines, en uno de los inviernos más fríos en años. Las taquillas alcanzaron una recaudación record de más de seis millones de euros en un solo día y los cines IMAX tienen las reservas completas para las próximas semanas.
China tiene 1.700 cines y 4.500 pantallas, de las cuales sólo 550 pueden exhibir películas en 3D.

 Esta medida se adopta ya que, según ha informado el Gobierno chino, las autoridades temen el vínculo que se pueda crear entre los Na’vis que son expulsados de su propia tierra, Pandora, y las expropiaciones forzosas y desahucios que sufren los ciudadanos chinos en favor de grandes desarrollos inmobiliarios .

 

 

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6992685.ece

“Hong Kong’s Apple Daily reported that the state-run China Film Group had instructed cinemas nationwide to stop showing the 2-D version of Avatar from January 23 on orders from Beijing’s propaganda chiefs.

It is not just the desire to entertain the masses with a Chinese movie that has prompted the censors to step in and pull James Cameron’s hit from 2-D screens. The Government fears that too many citizens might be making a link between the plight of Avatar’s Na’vi people as they are thrown off their land and the numerous, often brutal, evictions endured closer to home by residents who get in the way of property developers.

The newspaper said: “Reportedly, the authorities have two reasons for this check on Avatar: first, it has taken in too much money and has seized market share from domestic films, and second, it may lead audiences to think about forced removal, and may possibly incite violence.”

China’s favourite blogger, Han Han, a twentysomething writer and racing-car driver, was among those who quickly spotted the similarity between the film’s plot and real life. He wrote: “For audiences in other countries, such brutal eviction is something beyond their imagination. It could only take place on another planet — or in China.”

Han-Han (blogger chino)“Para la audiencia de otros paises, tal brutal desahucio es algo más alla de la imaginación. Esto sólo podría ocurrir en otro planeta – o en China” (Han Han)