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