MJ's "Homicide"

The only thing why this contract isn't 98.8 yet is because their is a small chance that MJ is still alive!!!

But serious, no f@king clue. Maybe some people think it will take the police till 2010 to gather enough evidence to charge someone. Maybe some people think the actual charge won't be about killing/murdering after all.

Blueline, I have to confess that I have (probably) been the key player driving this market as I have seen orders for a few thousand asks filled in the last week at what I consider great value for money...

You're right. My guess is that this investigation will continue into 2010. The Attorney General of California has now launched his own investigation into all of MJ's doctors and I don't think anybody will be charged before that investigation has been completed (in a couple of months or so).

http://www.thewrap.com/article/atty-gen-jerry-brown-launch-investigation_5670

Why should the police arrest Murray at any moment? There is no exigent circumstance. He poses no immediate danger to anyone. It's not like he is breaking into people's homes and injecting them with propofol... "The police probably won’t arrest anyone until the investigation is completed... Once an arrest is made, the clock starts to tick on trial matters. Prosecutors would be at a disadvantage if they brought indictments prematurely."

http://www.northstarwriters.com/gl092.htm

This is a very complex case... "In the past seven years just a handful of doctors have been convicted of manslaughter, mostly involving their patients' use of painkillers..." As far as I could research, none of them involved a drug addict.

http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11010084&nav=menu222_8

Indictments take time. It took the police more than seven months to indict Phil Spector in what seemingly was a simpler case (in relation to this one).

Moreover, I think it is quite possible that Murray will be charged with drug-related crimes to begin with. This may be a more promising avenue for the prosecution to pursue since the documentation and evidence obtained by the police would most probably suffice to secure a conviction.

The AG of California happens to be Jerry Brown, an ex-governor who wants to return to the office of governor (next year). He is the person behind the trial of Howard Stern and two doctors in the Anna Nicole Smith case (in which the indictments came 1,5 years after her death). They are accused of three felony counts of conspiracy and several other charges of fraudulent prescriptions... Does that sound familiar?

Wouldn't this be great publicity for Jerry as his campaign to become governor gets underway?

I thought, I'd share this with you. Here's a question I asked a US-based criminal attorney.

Question:

Would it make sense for the prosecution to charge Conrad Murray (and other doctors) with various drug-related charges (conspiring to prescribe to an addict, etc.) before proceeding with an involuntary manslaughter indictment against Murray?

Is it possible for the government to proceed with such charges and subsequently charge Murray with involuntary manslaughter? Or does this fall under "double jeopardy"?

Answer:

Here they will likely present all of the evidence and all of the charges to the grand jury at one time. It would not be double jeopardy since the charges are all different even though they may be related. He could be charged with federal drug law violations and also state law violations since that does not trigger double jeopardy even for the exact same charges.

The final decision is up to the prosecutor and there is no way to predict what will happen in a complex case like this since politics plays such a role.

Chris,
For the past six weeks you've based your position on the idea that Michael Jackson was on a lot of different drugs prescribed by different doctors. Now that the autopsy report came out, we know that everything in MJ's system had been administered to him by Murray that night. I've spoken to several MDs, and they have been universally incredulous that Murray treated Jackson with propofol for insomnia. It's absolutely unheard of, and his defense team won't find a single doctor to testify that it was good practice. He was experimenting with a new drug combination with 4 different barbiturates, then administered a drug which is never used outside of a hospital, then left the room to pee. If you look through other cases of doctors being charged with manslaughter, Murray's actions fit in the more reckless part of that range.

So now that your first rationale has been blown apart, you've come up with a new one? Sounds dangerously like motivated reasoning.

By the way, the Anna Nicole case took so long mainly because she died in the Bahamas, and there were jurisdictional issues getting warrants and such.

JohnRemington wrote:

Chris,
For the past six weeks you've based your position on the idea that Michael Jackson was on a lot of different drugs prescribed by different doctors. Now that the autopsy report came out, we know that everything in MJ's system had been administered to him by Murray that night. I've spoken to several MDs, and they have been universally incredulous that Murray treated Jackson with propofol for insomnia. It's absolutely unheard of, and his defense team won't find a single doctor to testify that it was good practice. He was experimenting with a new drug combination with 4 different barbiturates, then administered a drug which is never used outside of a hospital, then left the room to pee. If you look through other cases of doctors being charged with manslaughter, Murray's actions fit in the more reckless part of that range.

So now that your first rationale has been blown apart, you've come up with a new one? Sounds dangerously like motivated reasoning.

By the way, the Anna Nicole case took so long mainly because she died in the Bahamas, and there were jurisdictional issues getting warrants and such.

The way Chris looked at the case is absolutely fascinating and very informed one too. I thoroughly enjoyed his commentary and I think he has many good points that could easily lead me to short this contract (in fact, I already have insignificant short position in this contract

).

We all know the facts. Dr.Murray is undoubtedly guilty and will be charged. It's just a matter of time. Chris raised interesting points about the AG election timing and the fact that many similar cases in the past had took longer time than we had anticipated.

Chris previous posting about the possibility that Propofol might have not been discovered in 'lethal amount' is not absurd. At that time, I have also taken the due diligence to research the possible timing of MJ's death and when Dr. Murray last gave MJs propofol (since Propofol dissolves within hours). At that time, I concurred with Chris that ...the Propofol might not be there and the existence of other drugs could complicate this finding.

Basically, all of us could easily predict either A or B. But what I'm trying to get out of any forum / discussion is the reason that stands behind his reasoning.

Thanks for the feedback, Ethan and JR! I also enjoyed the article. Actually, I have fundamentally changed my position on this issue. I now believe that Murray will almost certainly be charged with manslaughter. Furthermore, I concede that TMZ turned out to be right in its portrayal of the Michael Jackson investigation. This came as a big surprise to me. At the time, I had serious doubts about a homicide charge ever eventuating based on a number of different concerns that have since been dispelled as more information (such as the timeline) has been made available.

Today, I wouldn't put up a dime to bet that Murray won't be charged with manslaughter. But that is not what this market is about (fortunately for me). This market is about someone being charged with homicide by the end of 2009 or the end of 2010. In fact, I have already written off the money that I have invested in the 2010 market but I have some doubts that the indictments in this case will be emerging by the end of 2009.

While propofol and the cocktail administered by Murray have been established as the primary and secondary cause of death, there most probably were (many?) other substances in MJ's system or why have the full toxicology and autopsy results not been released? We have consistently been told that there were many medications prescribed to MJ by other doctors besides Murray.

The focus of this investigation has now clearly shifted from Murray to all of the other doctors, enablers and flunkies in his life. Harvey Levin (TMZ) has repeatedly stated that a number of doctors will be charged. From a legal standpoint, it makes sense for all of the evidence and all of the charges related to the Michael Jackson case to be presented to the grand jury at one time.

Proceeding in this manner with the indictments will also ensure that the prosecution won't be accused of "scapegoating" Murray and ignoring the other enablers that fed his various drug addictions.

So the time factor really comes into play here: When will the three concurrent investigations (LAPD, DEA and the Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement) be completed and the charges be presented to a grand jury?

Everything I've read points to "a couple of months." That could be anywhere from 3 months (late November/ early December, 2009) to 5/6 months (February/ March, 2010). In life, things often tend to take longer than initially planned as new difficulties and challenges emerge...

Is there any reason why the prosection should rush to obtain indictments in this case or pursue a separate indictment against Murray?

The only reason I could think of is the statute of limitations: A federal non-capital offense (i.e., a charge other than murder) must be filed within five years of the date that the crime was allegedly committed. (18 U.S.C. 3282). But is that pertinent in this case?

The California gubernatorial primary election will take place on June 8, 2010. I would think that this is the unstated 'deadline' the AG is working towards. So for now it seems that a prudent strategy could be to go short on this market for 2009 and long for 2010. Do you agree or disagree? Why/ why not?

Finally, I think that two predictions can be made about this market: (1) This market will gradually drop by the day. (2) This market will become more volatile as time passes and one news source reports that the investigation has just about been completed while another news source reports something else...

So the time factor really comes into play here: When will the three concurrent investigations (LAPD, DEA and the Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement) be completed and the charges be presented to a grand jury?

Everything I've read points to "a couple of months." That could be anywhere from 3 months (late November/ early December, 2009) to 5/6 months (February/ March, 2010). In life, things often tend to take longer than initially planned as new difficulties and challenges emerge...

I've read "a couple months" as well, but none of it's coming from anyone with direct knowledge of the case. It's all outside "experts" making guesses. Also, "a couple" generally means "two," which gives plenty of leeway to get it done by the end of the year.

Is there any reason why the prosection should rush to obtain indictments in this case or pursue a separate indictment against Murray?

Yes, to avoid looking like they're incompetent or sitting on their hands. Right now, everybody's fine with them doing a "thorough investigation." That will wear thin by the end of September.

The California gubernatorial primary election will take place on June 8, 2010. I would think that this is the unstated 'deadline' the AG is working towards.

If we assume that Jerry Brown is completely cynical about this, there's a better way for him to play it. Get the charges and arrests done relatively soon. Then, during the primary, Brown will have a "media card" to play. Whenever the news cycle goes against him, he can start the trial or announce a plea bargain that will suck up all the media oxygen. In fact, if they break off the Murray investigation from the other doctors, he can play that card twice.

I've read "a couple months" as well, but none of it's coming from anyone with direct knowledge of the case. It's all outside "experts" making guesses. Also, "a couple" generally means "two," which gives plenty of leeway to get it done by the end of the year.

"14. a couple of, more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few: It will take a couple of days for the package to get there. Also, a couple."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a+couple

Fair enough, these "outside" experts are just making guesses.

Right now, everybody's fine with them doing a "thorough investigation." That will wear thin by the end of September.

Yes, the media won't let this story die down but an investigation takes time. From a legal perspective, it makes more sense to charge everyone at once and from a PR perspective it might as well. Ultimately, the media also gains more from a story that gradually unfolds...

Get the charges and arrests done relatively soon. Then, during the primary, Brown will have a "media card" to play. Whenever the news cycle goes against him, he can start the trial or announce a plea bargain that will suck up all the media oxygen.

As soon as the indictments are made, the wheels of the court system begin to spin and things are no longer in the hands of Jerry Brown. The best time to announce the indictments is as his campaign gets underway. Then he gains momentum and can claim this as one of the successes of his tenure.

In fact, if they break off the Murray investigation from the other doctors, he can play that card twice.

The homicide investigation is conducted by the LAPD. The DA of LA would ultimately decide this (in consultation with the AG) and announce this... No publicity to be gained for Jerry Brown in this case.

If they only indict Murray, this will be perceived (by many including Joe Jackson) as if he is being made the fall guy. It will look better if they indict everyone at the same time.

Jerry Brown will be involved in the announcement of the drug-related indictments (if the manslaughter charge against Murray is included in that "package," the better for him). He can then present himself as an advocate of justice and fairness and as the man that helped to bring all of the culprits in the MJ case to trial.

Jack Kevorkian Defends Conrad Murray
http://www.freep.com/article/20090904/ENT07/909040345/1035/ENT/Kevorkian-defends-MJ-s-doctor

Shorter Kevorkian: "MJ got what he asked for."

Don't know if you guys saw this -- I had to laugh. Thank you so much, Neil Cavuto. I was really wondering what Jack Kevorkian thought about all this. Perhaps you could institute a regular "Ask Dr. Jack" feature on your show.

"Dear Dr. Jack,
My infirm elderly mother-in-law recently moved into my house..."

For the record, I closed out my position of about 1000 contracts on this today at 80. I was really expecting to hear more leaks about the progress of the case, but there really hasn't been anything. It's hard to tell what the scope of the investigation is going to be. I figure I'll take profits here and re-evaluate in a week.

Chris, were you the buyer? Did we both change our minds?

I short-sell some contracts at 80 today but its nowhere close to 1000 contracts

I must say that its too tempting to resist.

Odd, I also sold 109 contracts @80 today. I wonder who the buyer is?

Yes, it was me. I have been trading out of this position. As I've written before, I do think Murray will almost certainly be charged at some point (together with others) and it now boils down to the time factor. I have found no new information based on informed sources as to when that will be and wanted liquidity for some other promising markets rather than sweating this out...

Fortunately, I was also able to contain my losses on the 2010 contract which seems like a sure thing to me... Somebody sold more me more than 500 contracts at 83 on the 2010 market. I would be very curious to know what their rationale is (if it is something other than Murray commiting suicide).

I also saw the interview with Kevorkian and generally agree with him. MJ indeed got what he wanted. However, he might not have gotten it the way he wanted it (with some degree of supervision) which is where the negligence comes into play...

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Who knows? Murray could become a celebrity, start his own "insomnia-treatment" program based on his propofol-benzodiazepine formula and franchise it worldwide (McMurrays) in countries with more liberal euthanasia laws...

McMurrays!

I hate to see that some of the familiar key players in this market to go out. Anyway, yesterday was the day that this contract is trading at the highest volume in this contract's history. Even higher than the day that the coroner report shows homicide. What's so strange about it is that, there seems to be no leak as far as I understand.

I decided to stay short in this contract just for a little bit of diversification