Michael Jackson News: Jury Selection in the Conrad Murray Trial Is Not Actually News

michael_jackson_on_trial.jpg

So the big music news doing the rounds yesterday was that -- gasp! -- jury selection has commenced in the upcoming Michael Jackson involuntary manslaughter case! Wow! Yes, truthfully we're as curious as the next guy to see how this whole thing plays out -- but, sweet baby Jesus, who really gives a toss about the jury selection?

It's not like we're going to get to know these people on any level whatsoever during the course of this trial; it's not like we can tell what the outcome of the case will be, based on jurors' age, race, or gender; and it's not like any of them are going to become celebrities for doing this (some may try, but, trust us, they'll fail -- they always do) -- so who the hell cares? (Other than Dr. Conrad Murray obviously, whose life and reputation hinge on this trial.)

If this was the lead story on many of  the major music sites, gossip sites, and blogs yesterday, just think of the media circus that is coming our way when something interesting actually happens in this case. It makes us want to throw our TVs out the window just thinking about it.

michael-jackson-atop-car.jpg

Clearly, Michael was not someone who shied away from causing chaos outside of courtrooms -- who could forget him dancing on the roof of a car outside the court where his second child molestation case was taking place? But as absurd as that sight was, there was also something inherently sad and disturbing about it.

Michael Jackson at least had something approaching an excuse for that kind of bizarre, defiant behavior: He was a man cut off from reality who led an extraordinary and vastly isolating life. Maybe he simply wasn't in a place mentally to know that jumping on top of a vehicle and stoking the media madness even further wasn't the smartest thing to do (he was a baby dangler, after all). But what's everyone else's excuse for cheering on that type of lunacy?

Even though Michael's not here, you can bet there will be scenes of insanity around the courtroom this time as well. The scary part is, all of those fans that showed up to the courthouse in his molestation cases and vehemently insisted on his innocence -- before they'd even heard any facts in the case -- will be the people baying for the blood of Dr. Murray (who has pleaded not guilty, by the way), before they've heard any evidence in this one.


 
No one wants to believe that Michael Jackson had an addiction to a variety of hardcore medications any more than they wanted to believe that Michael Jackson had inappropriate relationships with children.

Papers, TV channels and websites covering every second and every inch of this case will only stoke the fiery passions of the MJ-defenders. We're not saying that Michael doesn't deserve to be defended -- we won't know that until the facts of this case are heard. We're merely pointing out that Dr. Murray deserves a fair trial, too, and he's far less likely to get one when his patient was the King of Pop -- especially if the approaching media frenzy gets too out of hand. And when the jury selection process is being treated like big news, that seems pretty much inevitable.

---- 
Follow us on Twitter @SFAllShookDown, follow Rae Alexandra @Raemondjjjj, and like us at Facebook.com/SFAllShookDown.
My Voice Nation Help
19 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
YouFools
YouFools

All of you need to get a life! The fact that you wasted so much time defending a played out, deceased pop star is just crazy. Please find a hobby immediately!

MJJJusticeProject
MJJJusticeProject

First, Rae needs to try to do a little more research and cut out what she must deem cutesy with her  ‘gasp, Wow and sweet baby Jesus” as it isn’t the least bit clever. She used a lot of words to describe what she entitled "not actually news". Let’s break down the beginning of her opinion piece in simple terms. Jury selection for a manslaughter case is NOT “music news”, the Conrad Murray manslaughter case just happens to be of worldwide interestdue to the victim in the case. Secondly, many major news outlets also coveredthe reporting on the jury selection prior to the Casey Anthony and ScottPeterson trials   intensively. This is how reporting on a case of great notoriety is normally done, because it’s NEWS.

Further down she speaks of Michael inciting frenzy by “dancing on the roof of a car’. Again, a little research on Youtube where videos of Michael Jackson at court abound, would keep her from making yet another erroneous statement.  He did get on top of the SUV, but hemerely tapped his foot, blew kisses to the hundreds of fans and directed hiscameraman on what shots to take. No dancing what so ever. This “dancing on theroof of the car” is a lie that has been repeated incessantly by many. 

She again misspeaks regarding her phrase “where his second child molestation case.” There were not two ‘cases’ brought against Michael. Recorded documentation shows thatthere was only ONE molestation case, because even after two grand juriesconvened in 93, no charges were ever brought. Court transcripts prove that TomMesereau deftly demonstrated that the accusers in the 05 trial were habitualscammers, who perjured themselves and lied about what happened within NeverlandRanch and Tom Sneddon was a DA obsessed with conviction without having evidenceor credible witnesses.

There are also many videos depicting the Berlin incident, by any dictionary definition of the word, he clearly did not “dangle” his baby.  He said later, he was caught up in the excitement of showing his baby to the admiring crowd and realized it was a “terrible mistake” to hold him over the balcony. Again, the media continues to copy and paste this term like ‘dangle’ to set a image in the mind of the public.

Rae takes the expected route by first attacking Michael Jackson and then his fans. This is another time worn tactic of the press to first dismiss him as “bizarre” and then his fans as on the fringe of “insanity”.  It is person’s right to be “presumed innocent” and this wouldhold true for Jackson and Murray who BOTH “pleaded not guilty by the way”. Itwould hardly be considered a form of insanity for his fans to cheer for hisinnocence. In these two instances, only difference between them is, Michael’s case was heard and resulted in his innocence being upheld, a fact that Rae doesn’t seem toaccept or comprehend, as she continues to throw aspersions in his direction.

What’s more ironic when reading her admonishment of his fans touting his innocence.  Charles Thomson in the Huffington Post,  substantiated extensively that media already had Michael Jackson convicted before a single witness took the stand.  So we might assume that Rae believes that “baying for the blood”  “before all the evidence is heard” is okay depending on who is doing the baying or whohappens to be on trial.

Ultimately, as it turned out after all of the evidence and testimony was given Michael was cleared on ALL counts, therefore his fans were correct in their ‘vehement’ assertions.     “No one wants to believe that Michael Jackson had an addiction…..etc”  Surely Rae jests or perhaps she doesn't even own a television. Actually the media princesses like Dimond have done nothing but perpetuate the myth that MJ was a drug addict. They find it difficult take into consideration the fact that he was under physicians care for most of his life, for a very serious and painful autoimmune disease: lupus.

She continues with “We’re not saying that Michael doesn’t deserve to be defended – we won’t know that until the facts of this case are heard.”  Again, Rae needs to remember that Michael Jackson is NOT on trial, Murray is the defendant and her incessant negativityin describing Michael and her inferring that he is somehow responsible for hisown death is truly astounding. The fact that Michael has to be defended when heis victim of another person’s incompetence, disregard and carelessness isexactly why he has “fiery defenders.”

Perhaps Rae should do a little reading up on the coroner’s report that resulted in a ‘homicide’ investigation or maybe read and try to understand that the charges were brought against Murray, because of evidence.  Truth be told the fact that Michael Jackson is the victim might indeed by a boon for Murray as she and other “writers” and I use the term loosely, make needlessly negative opinion pieces such as this.  The best way to treat someone as less that worthy of being protected is to degrade, dehumanize and attack them with words like ‘bizarre’ and ‘insane’ just as Rae did in this article.  As soon asyou convince the majority of the inferiority of the person it’s much easier forthem to disregard the value of their life. 

This article surely indicates that this was her intention.

shejeawil
shejeawil

I'm still trying to figure out the writer's theme or intention here.  This article is filed under the category: "Being Famous Sucks". I'm going to conclude that filing it under this title means that it's okay to write trash. Thanks for helping our culture swirl the drain. 

shejeawil
shejeawil

Wonder what this writer's credentials are.  Yet another trying to come off as a journalist.  The gross lack of knowledge runs rampant in this "article".  The sad thing is that Rae Alexandra really has no clue as to how much she doesn't know here.  But her cut and paste skills are pretty good.   

SC3441
SC3441

Murray deserves a fair trial, however there are no circumstances where a doctor should anesthetize his patient in their bedroom.  Murray grossly deviated from the std of care for propofol.  Propofol is not to be used for insomnia period.

juney
juney

Yes, Murray administered propofol in a home setting with no monitoring or resuscitative equipment present, after administering lorezapam, versed, midzolam and others, all being the ONLY drugs found in MJ's system at autopsy; when Murray thought Michael was "out" he left the room to relieve himself and chat on his phone with the girlfriends. When it came to telling the paramedica what drugs he had administered, he conveniently forgot about the propofol, and that's after admitting he had administered it for six weeks.  This is a case about justice, pure and simple, for a man who was slandered and vilified for the last 15 years of his life.  Murray claims he gave up his successful practice of his "caring" patients to work for Michael.  Well, they couldn't have meant a rat's ass to him if he so conveniently abandoned them too!  Murray abandoned his babies by other women as well, he abandoned his financial obligations to the tune of 1/2 million $; this man just runs away from his obligations, thing is when a life is at stake, only a sociopath would be the great "abandoner".  Down you go, Murray.

José Pichardo
José Pichardo

There are people who are born to be kings and Michael is one of them!

tom
tom

First, we DO care about MIchael Jackson and Second, please don't call yourself a journalist because you are NOT. The main reason? You are not even able to do some research. It is not believe or not believe, Michael Jackson was ACQUITTED by ALL charges and beyond any reasonable doubt. So, what do you still wondering yourself ?? Btw, don't worry your friend Murry is going to have a fair trial and is going to go rightly straight to jail because he is GUILTY AS SIN, just as Michael Jackson IS INNOCENT.

Karmen Legazpi
Karmen Legazpi

Well, you know what? It's your fault.

You claim there's no evidence about this case. That's not true. The Preliminary Hearing was held in January 2011, where 22 witnesses talked about what happened on June 25th and the days before that. We have official transcripts of those days.

Not to mention the many official documents avalaible online: autopsy, search warrant, etc.

If you don't care about it why write this? And if you care, why can't you first analyse the info avalaible and then say whether or not there's evidence in this case?

Also, not all the fans are or think alike. They wil be out supporting someone they love (we're free, did you know that?). And they will be there because they know about this case.

Lisa
Lisa

1.)  "If this was the lead story on many of  the major music sites, gossip sites, and blogs yesterday, just think of the media circus that is coming our way when something interesting actually happens in this case. It makes us want to throw our TVs out the window just thinking about it." 

And so... why did YOU write about it?  Why didn't YOU throw your TV out the window?

2.)  "No one wants to believe that Michael Jackson had an addiction to a variety of hardcore medications any more than they wanted to believe that Michael Jackson had inappropriate relationships with children"

Apparently your TV was turned off in 2005 wasn't it?  Apparently you never learned the FACTS.  Mr. Jackson was ACQUITTED of all charges in 2005.  Do some desperately needed homework, please.

As for your insinuation that Mr. Jackson was a drug addict...  Apparently you've never read nor did homework on his autopsy findings as well.  HINT:  There is no indication that Mr. Jackson was a drug addict at the time of his death.

ADVISEMENT:  Before you tout yourself as a journalist, please remember that more and more readers are standing up and demanding accountability for the lack of professionalism and slandering that goes on in your vocation.  In your case?  Perhaps you need to find a new job.

Rae Alexandra
Rae Alexandra

At no point in this article did I state that Michael Jackson was found guilty of the molestation charges. The cases, however, did serve to highlight the fact that Michael did have relationships with children that were inappropriate... unless you think a grown man having sleepovers with minors (and giving them wine) is normal. It's certainly not what I would want for my children.  

I also want to make it clear that I am not accusing Michael Jackson of being a drug addict. The defense will probably make that argument though. As I said, we won't know the truth until the facts are heard in the case.

You asked me why I wrote about this. I wrote this as my own way of standing up to the rampant slandering that is about to occur... Passions will run high. And most of those will come from people who view Michael as a saint, without question. I'm merely suggesting we all stay calm and allow a man to defend himself before jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty, simply because it's much nicer for the world to believe Michael was a pure soul.

Jules4528
Jules4528

No, your piece was just the kind of suggestive and slandering garbage that has been going on for years.  You are not presenting facts, but rather your opinions.  If you will do ANY type of research you will see that not only was Michael acquitted of child molestation charges, but several counts of giving minors alcohol.  So where do you get off saying that he did when you have nothing but the accusations of grifter family that said he did and they were proven to be liars.  I really like how you bring up baby dangling because you are "standing up to the rampant slandering that is about to occur."  Yeah, right!

Further, if you heard Mark Geragos explain Michael standing on the car was because the fans were slamming into his family and so he did it to calm the fans down.  Good grief!

Lisa
Lisa

"The cases, however, did serve to highlight the fact that Michael did have relationships with children that were inappropriate.."

THIS is where you need to do some serious homework aka RESEARCH prior to publishing.  And, I invite you to do so.  For starts:  "Michael Jackson Conspiracy", by Aphrodite Jones (also a journalist btw).  She also has a wonderful bibliography to double check her findings.

Of further note...  Would you care to argue with the FBI investigation of Michael Jackson?  They too found NOTHING... no evidence of his EVER being inappropriate with children.  NONE.  And, they watched him for 12 yrs!!!

As for "I wrote this as my own way of standing up to the rampant slandering that is about to occur.."  I can applaud that BUT... in all fairness, YOU are also guilty of the very same crime you're supposedly standing up to.

Mark Bentley
Mark Bentley

Better yet, let's just throw this author out the window and keep the TV!

Her facts are wrong, asinine assumptions are made all over the place, no intelligent insight is shared, disrespect abounds--in short, this is a total waste of words from a particularly useless brand of blogger.  THIS is what should be thrown out the window, for cryin' out loud!

Coleen
Coleen

I totally agree with you Lisa.  These types of "journalists" have never heard about "research", they just repeat misinformation and call it "news".  Very little professionalism and ethics any more in journalism.

Lisa
Lisa

It's even worse than that, Coleen.  Thanks to the laziness and ease of the internet and digital age, most "journalists" simply copy and paste key points then publish or broadcast them.

Promisetony
Promisetony

Most of the world still believes he was guilty.Pn;y jaclson fans believe he is innocent.  We are still interested in Jackson and we google him. But not for his music. Who really cares about a pop star from the 1980's? We want to know about his wierd behaviour.

Lisa
Lisa

The only thing that was wierd about Mr. Jackson were drawing the BS believing people like yourself who'd only believe an ignorant media base bent on destroying someone because he made everyone else look bad by being charitable and actually giving a damn about this planet and humanity.  But... the REAL joke is this...  If someone or several someones envied you enough, just think of what they could do to YOU and destroy all that you worked hard for, all that you stood for, and so forth.  The bottom line here is this:  The next victim that this twisted media destroys could be YOU, and in fact... Realize it or not... they've already succeeded because by your own admission:  "Who really cares about a pop star from the 1980's? We want to know about his wierd behaviour."  Enough said...

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Drink

San Francisco Event Tickets
©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...