If you have ever tried to go onto YouTube and find a video about Michael Jackson you probably have come across some hideous ones in the process that leave you stunned, even if you do not actually watch the video. You cannot avoid them--you see the image of some fake autopsy photo or read the title of the video suggesting Michael was a pedophile when he was not. I have seen videos claiming the FBI files "prove" Michael was a pedophile when they actually prove there was no evidence of such. It is horrible to see all the lies harbored on a site that reaches millions across the globe.
Sometime last year I wrote on this very same blog about one disgusting YouTube user whose account was filled with such vile and viscous bullshit, to put it lightly, and she did it all in precious Paris Jackson's name. How much lower can one go? I was appalled and wanted to start a boycott of YouTube but knew that was likely impossible. YouTube can also be used to promote positive messages, too, but to me it is canceled out when you see videos that have no business being aired through any medium. YouTube is very lazy when it comes to monitoring what is placed online--they do not take action until after it is already viewable to the public. That kind of laziness could cost them big someday whether it involves a video of Michael or not--I am shocked we have not heard of child porn or someone's suicide being put online to view through YouTube.
There is some good news out of all the bad news I had to mention above--friends of mine are leading the way in eradicating not only vile and filthy videos but also YouTube accounts that promote such hate towards Michael. Please help take part, even if you only report one video or one abusive account, you can make a difference.
The following tweet is from a dear friend, Deborah Ffrench:
http://tl.gd/900flv
The most recent tweet is actually linked below, with some important updates:
http://tl.gd/90m8te
Please click on the link above to read all of the videos and accounts that need to be reported and how to go about reporting them. Sadly, the list is very, very long and I do not want to copy it here on a blog trying to help Michael and his legacy. I do not think you need a Twitter account to see the tweet, but, if you do, let me know via my comments section and I will copy and post the tweet.
March 5th and 6th is another one of the scheduled times to report the videos and accounts (there have been previous sessions that were very successful)--but you can report anytime. However, when we have people reporting together the results are achieved much faster.
Please, take some time this weekend, even if only 30 minutes, to report some of these videos or accounts. Every little bit helps!
You do not need to be a fan of Michael's to do this, try to include your friends and family, if they love you, they will help (hehe)--everyone should do this when they can out of respect for a fellow human being, especially one who gave so much of himself to others, and for his family especially his children. No child deserves to go onto the internet and see all the vicious lies and cruel remarks and images of their own father who is now gone. The pain of his death is bad enough and his children do not deserve to be hurt anymore than they already have been by his death. And yes, Michael's children do go online and it is a matter of time before they see these putrid videos (if they have not already, but let's pray they have not). Put yourself in Michael's shoes or in one of his children's shoes--the need to do something is needed now. Be a part of it!
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Letter to Kamala Harris and David Walgren
The following is a letter I have sent to both California Attorney General Kamala Harris as well as Asst. District Attorney David Walgren who will be prosecuting Conrad Murray.
I doubt I will get a response but hey, at least I am trying. I cannot do nothing. If anything comes out of this, I want to know why strict liability is not being used to prosecute Murray because in my opinion it should be used and could be used unless there is some legal loop hole I am unaware of in this case. I think strict liability is something that is sometimes overboard (or way overboard in the case of pharmacist Eric Cropp whom I discussed last year) but in this case if we are not to see murder charges then at least strict liability should be utilized given Murray at least claims he was medically "treating" Michael at the time he died. "Medically treating" my ass--what an insult to the practice of medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Harris:
Greetings. My name is Nikki *****. Over the past year I have been researching Michael Jackson's homicide--I do not have access to "inside individuals" so my research is based only on what is known to the public. However, as a medical professional who also has family members in law enforcement I have a great interest in medical/legal dilemmas and have the ability to apply relevant knowledge and research to cases of this nature--including Michael Jackson's case which has taken on special role in my life because I find his death especially tragic and unwarranted.
From my perspective as a medical professional there are compelling flaws in all forms of attempted logic with Jackson's so-called "treatment" by Mr. Conrad Murray--this notion, I would have thought, would have eventually led to the questioning of Murray's intent and possible motives in relation to Jackson's death including the possibility of malice being present. Trying to reason this case as involuntary manslaughter is highly difficult if not impossible for me given the circumstances that are known, especially when looking at Jackson's death from a medical perspective with expertise in medications while also recalling Murray is a physician with firm knowledge that cannot be disregarded or assumed absent from his intellect. I personally feel charges for murder in the first or second degree are warranted with first degree murder being plausible if propofol could be argued to have been used as a poison in this situation (per California Penal Code 190.2.19 which mentions the administration of poison as being a special circumstance for murder in the first degree).
I would also like to know why Murray is not facing some form of prosecution via strict liability as he is a physician and was actively rendering non-therapeutic services directly to his patient when his patient died under his supposed monitoring. Strict liability states that "no intent to engage in misconduct is required for a violation. Sometimes even knowledge of the forbidden act is not required--all that must be proven is that the violation happened and that the defendant is responsible for the instrumentality through which, or the place at which, it occurred. Because the potential consequences of any violation are so serious to the public health, the threat of strict liability is used to deter any violations" (Marcus and Cohen, "Pharmacy Law for California Pharmacists", 156). If Murray is not to be charged with murder at some point then I would think the least that should be done is to see Murray facing strict liability as a health professional. Dr. Rapin Osathanondh was prosecuted under strict liability for a case similar to this Murray's except it appears, from my standpoint at least, that Osathanondh did not have any intentions to kill anyone the day his patient died in his clinic. Enclosed is more information detailing the case against Osthanondh.
Late last year I mailed a couple documents to the LAPD that were written by me concerning Jackson's death. One document includes an analysis (albeit a slightly outdated one) of Jackson's death and Murray's possible actions accompanied with many medical questions and references. The other document mailed was a detailed argument against self-injection of propofol by Jackson which appears to be Murray's current defense even though self-injection is also against expert opinion as stated in the autopsy report. If you would like to read these documents they may be on file with LAPD or you contact me for copies as well and I would provide them promptly.
In conclusion, I hope you will at least consider reviewing what I have stated in this document, if nothing else, for the Jackson children. I will continue to hope to see additional charges/reprimands placed against Murray for his many wrongdoings taken directly towards Jackson and wish to see the charge of involuntary manslaughter changed to murder in the first or second degree. There are simply too many errors in this case to see only the one insufficient charge of involuntary manslaughter against Murray. Murray, as well as others, should be facing criminal charges and/or reprimands through agencies such as the Medical and Pharmacy State Boards. I also want to know why strict liability is apparently not being utilized against Murray, either, especially given the nature of his alleged crime.
Kind regards,
Nikki *****
Links to some of the information discussed above:
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/09/two-tales-of-sensless-death-but-justice.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/08/michael-jackson-did-not-administer.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/02/has-justice-been-flushed.html
I doubt I will get a response but hey, at least I am trying. I cannot do nothing. If anything comes out of this, I want to know why strict liability is not being used to prosecute Murray because in my opinion it should be used and could be used unless there is some legal loop hole I am unaware of in this case. I think strict liability is something that is sometimes overboard (or way overboard in the case of pharmacist Eric Cropp whom I discussed last year) but in this case if we are not to see murder charges then at least strict liability should be utilized given Murray at least claims he was medically "treating" Michael at the time he died. "Medically treating" my ass--what an insult to the practice of medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Harris:
Greetings. My name is Nikki *****. Over the past year I have been researching Michael Jackson's homicide--I do not have access to "inside individuals" so my research is based only on what is known to the public. However, as a medical professional who also has family members in law enforcement I have a great interest in medical/legal dilemmas and have the ability to apply relevant knowledge and research to cases of this nature--including Michael Jackson's case which has taken on special role in my life because I find his death especially tragic and unwarranted.
From my perspective as a medical professional there are compelling flaws in all forms of attempted logic with Jackson's so-called "treatment" by Mr. Conrad Murray--this notion, I would have thought, would have eventually led to the questioning of Murray's intent and possible motives in relation to Jackson's death including the possibility of malice being present. Trying to reason this case as involuntary manslaughter is highly difficult if not impossible for me given the circumstances that are known, especially when looking at Jackson's death from a medical perspective with expertise in medications while also recalling Murray is a physician with firm knowledge that cannot be disregarded or assumed absent from his intellect. I personally feel charges for murder in the first or second degree are warranted with first degree murder being plausible if propofol could be argued to have been used as a poison in this situation (per California Penal Code 190.2.19 which mentions the administration of poison as being a special circumstance for murder in the first degree).
I would also like to know why Murray is not facing some form of prosecution via strict liability as he is a physician and was actively rendering non-therapeutic services directly to his patient when his patient died under his supposed monitoring. Strict liability states that "no intent to engage in misconduct is required for a violation. Sometimes even knowledge of the forbidden act is not required--all that must be proven is that the violation happened and that the defendant is responsible for the instrumentality through which, or the place at which, it occurred. Because the potential consequences of any violation are so serious to the public health, the threat of strict liability is used to deter any violations" (Marcus and Cohen, "Pharmacy Law for California Pharmacists", 156). If Murray is not to be charged with murder at some point then I would think the least that should be done is to see Murray facing strict liability as a health professional. Dr. Rapin Osathanondh was prosecuted under strict liability for a case similar to this Murray's except it appears, from my standpoint at least, that Osathanondh did not have any intentions to kill anyone the day his patient died in his clinic. Enclosed is more information detailing the case against Osthanondh.
Late last year I mailed a couple documents to the LAPD that were written by me concerning Jackson's death. One document includes an analysis (albeit a slightly outdated one) of Jackson's death and Murray's possible actions accompanied with many medical questions and references. The other document mailed was a detailed argument against self-injection of propofol by Jackson which appears to be Murray's current defense even though self-injection is also against expert opinion as stated in the autopsy report. If you would like to read these documents they may be on file with LAPD or you contact me for copies as well and I would provide them promptly.
In conclusion, I hope you will at least consider reviewing what I have stated in this document, if nothing else, for the Jackson children. I will continue to hope to see additional charges/reprimands placed against Murray for his many wrongdoings taken directly towards Jackson and wish to see the charge of involuntary manslaughter changed to murder in the first or second degree. There are simply too many errors in this case to see only the one insufficient charge of involuntary manslaughter against Murray. Murray, as well as others, should be facing criminal charges and/or reprimands through agencies such as the Medical and Pharmacy State Boards. I also want to know why strict liability is apparently not being utilized against Murray, either, especially given the nature of his alleged crime.
Kind regards,
Nikki *****
Links to some of the information discussed above:
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/09/two-tales-of-sensless-death-but-justice.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/08/michael-jackson-did-not-administer.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/02/has-justice-been-flushed.html
Sunday, February 13, 2011
FYI
Hi everyone! Just wanted to let everyone know that I will continue posting blogs here shortly. I have been having to take care of some things that required enormous amounts of my personal time but most of those things should be out of the way now. Also, I do moderate all comments--if you post something I almost always will post it, (for the record I have never rejected a comment unless it was spam)--even if it totally goes against my views. I believe in freedom of speech completely. I try to approve comments only when I have the time to read them and respond which sometimes is a long time (like now). I just approved a batch of comments (this is 02/13/2011) but do not have time yet to respond but hopefully will within the next few hours or days. There is never enough time in the day! Thanks for understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
