My connection with Michael Jackson goes all the way back to my days in Manila. I was first exposed to his work around the time I first started learning how to dance. I was at a party one evening and one of my mischievous friends pushed me in the middle of the dance floor, in front of a girl who was already dancing. It would have been too embarrassing for me to retreat that I took on the challenge with all the ridiculous abilities possessed in my being. I remember flailing my arms in every conceivable direction and folding my legs so my foot was pointing backwards and then stepping forward and skipping. That was my version of a free-flow dance - indigenous style. Nobody had an inkling it was actually the first time I had ever danced in my life. I was so nervous that I could not even remember much about the 3 minutes of debauchery I perpetrated on the dance floor that evening. But I do remember listening to some of MJ’s tunes at the party.
Fast forward to October 2011 and here we are watching the testimony of witnesses, trying to piece together the circumstances surrounding his death. There were no prior plans to actually blog about it, much less to do a thoughtful piece. But things usually land on our laps, gently prodding us to figure out why we’ve met up with the information. I was surfing the net and ended up on CNN’s homepage and eventually the live feed from the Los Angeles courthouse. I started taking notes and as of this writing I’ve accumulated 148 pages of shorthand and difficult to decipher handwritten notes reminiscent of college lectures. What a great opportunity it turned out for me to learn from some of the country’s best attorneys.
In the criminal-justice system, the small "M" - for manslaughter - carries severe consequences enough to take a piece of a person’s life away, incarceration being the most probable. For the juror’s careful consideration is the fate of an individual who “The People” have accused of causing the artist’s death. This makes the advocacy inside the courtroom some of the most riveting. There were great exchanges - rapid fire witness examinations from both the prosecution and the defense - questioning and redirecting to get the witness to say something favorable to their case. With my laptop as my screen and earphones for listening, it took but an instant to understand that I was ringside for one of the great court battles of the year. For a student of the law such as myself, the cafe I frequented became my virtual classroom.
Around the second week of the trial, I heard testimony that made me consider a number of important issues. For instance, the chief coroner, Dr. Christopher Rogers reported that MJ had 0.169 ug/ul of Lorazepam in his blood work. Through careful questioning the defense helped me determine that the amount would equate to 9-10 pills. Oddly, Dr. Murray had stated previously to having administered 4 pills the evening before MJ’s death. That begs this question. Was it even probable that Dr. Murray handed MJ 9-10 pills? And, why didn’t the coroner find a enough digested Lorazepam in his stomach to be consistent with that amount? That along with many other questions became the basis for the decision to create a “Special Report Series” about this trial. Such work can be time consuming, requiring us to research and investigate contradictory information being offered to the court. For instance, did you know that the date tag on one of MJ’s coroner pictures was erroneously dated? That seems ministerial and could easily be corrected. But, if that’s the case what other pieces of information on the coroner’s report was erroneously recorded and should be corrected? Is it enough to ultimately affect the results of this case?
You now get a sense why this needs a more thoughtful approach than mere blogging will afford us. Despite the fact that this is actually our first attempt at legal analysis, we will put our most devoted effort to this project. Unlike Leonardo’s Mona Lisa (took 4 years) and the other projects we have on the hopper, we will endeavor to publish it with the least amount of delay.
Fast forward to October 2011 and here we are watching the testimony of witnesses, trying to piece together the circumstances surrounding his death. There were no prior plans to actually blog about it, much less to do a thoughtful piece. But things usually land on our laps, gently prodding us to figure out why we’ve met up with the information. I was surfing the net and ended up on CNN’s homepage and eventually the live feed from the Los Angeles courthouse. I started taking notes and as of this writing I’ve accumulated 148 pages of shorthand and difficult to decipher handwritten notes reminiscent of college lectures. What a great opportunity it turned out for me to learn from some of the country’s best attorneys.
In the criminal-justice system, the small "M" - for manslaughter - carries severe consequences enough to take a piece of a person’s life away, incarceration being the most probable. For the juror’s careful consideration is the fate of an individual who “The People” have accused of causing the artist’s death. This makes the advocacy inside the courtroom some of the most riveting. There were great exchanges - rapid fire witness examinations from both the prosecution and the defense - questioning and redirecting to get the witness to say something favorable to their case. With my laptop as my screen and earphones for listening, it took but an instant to understand that I was ringside for one of the great court battles of the year. For a student of the law such as myself, the cafe I frequented became my virtual classroom.
Around the second week of the trial, I heard testimony that made me consider a number of important issues. For instance, the chief coroner, Dr. Christopher Rogers reported that MJ had 0.169 ug/ul of Lorazepam in his blood work. Through careful questioning the defense helped me determine that the amount would equate to 9-10 pills. Oddly, Dr. Murray had stated previously to having administered 4 pills the evening before MJ’s death. That begs this question. Was it even probable that Dr. Murray handed MJ 9-10 pills? And, why didn’t the coroner find a enough digested Lorazepam in his stomach to be consistent with that amount? That along with many other questions became the basis for the decision to create a “Special Report Series” about this trial. Such work can be time consuming, requiring us to research and investigate contradictory information being offered to the court. For instance, did you know that the date tag on one of MJ’s coroner pictures was erroneously dated? That seems ministerial and could easily be corrected. But, if that’s the case what other pieces of information on the coroner’s report was erroneously recorded and should be corrected? Is it enough to ultimately affect the results of this case?
You now get a sense why this needs a more thoughtful approach than mere blogging will afford us. Despite the fact that this is actually our first attempt at legal analysis, we will put our most devoted effort to this project. Unlike Leonardo’s Mona Lisa (took 4 years) and the other projects we have on the hopper, we will endeavor to publish it with the least amount of delay.
