With the Conrad Murray trial nearing, its important that the MJ fan-mily understand how important social media will be prior to and during the trial. From an article on law.com regarding the Casey Anthony trial:1. Jose Baez, Casey Anthony's lead defense attorney, hired trial consultant Amy Singer to monitor over 40,000 blog items to see what was annoying people about Anthony --and tailor their defense accordingly.
2. Above, Singer states that the Anthony trial "was the first high-profile murder trial to take place in the social media age and will forever change how lawyers defend clients." 3. Singer was allowed to help the defense team pick a jury. After helping to choose jurors, Singer's job went into overdrive. Singer combed blogs, and to keep up with blogger traffic, asked for help from the website American Society of Trial Consultants. Singer was overwhelmed with responses from trial consultants who volunteered their time to monitor the blogosphere.
4. Singer and the team of trial consultants did not focus on what blogs were stated that was positive about Anthony. Rather, they focused on isolating the important negative comments that they felt needed to be addressed. For example, when blogs attacked George Anthony's credibility/likeability, Singer encouraged the defense team to beef up that point in their strategy.Also of interest is Miranda Sevcik's blog from July 6, 2011. Remember Sevcik? She was the publicist for Ed Chernoff and the Conrad Murray defense team who leaked a fake jury questionnaire to TMZ. Sevcik's blog post speaks to points regarding the media and misinformation spread by the media. Of note, Sevcik states that while working for the Murray defense team, media interviews were often sensationalized and key information was distorted. In particular, Sevcik underscores Nancy Grace's biased influence on the public.
There are two central points to be taken here, one from the Casey Anthony trial and the other from the audacity of Miranda Sevcik's claims in her blog.
1. If we are to believe that the Murray defense will focus on social media prior to and during the trial, they most likely focus on the negative comments made about Murray's professional and ethical treatment (or lack thereof) of Michael Jackson. Those negative comments will in all likelihood be made by the MJ fan-mily. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we focus on the key issues; that Conrad Murray left Michael Jackson unmonitored while administering an anesthetic which should be only used in a professional setting.
2. The audacity of Miranda Sevcik is immeasurable. I find it very difficult to believe that as a publicist, Sevcik was not aware of sensationalism and bias in the media. Sevcik acts as if Conrad Murray was the first person to ever be victimized by the media. Murray, like Michael Jackson was for the better part of four decades, is being hounded by the press. The difference between Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson is that Jackson never killed anyone. Welcome to the media world Michael lived in, Dr. Murray.
21 comments:
I totally agree that any negative o,positive,biased or non biased thoughts &opinions be kept off the internet. I, for one, do not want to help the defense & their research vultures get another guilty felon off. Let's keep these internet snoop & analysts unemployed.
Great post. With the vast use of social networking, Murray defense team -like Casey Anthony defense team- will utilise social media. It is also important to point out that the responsibility doesn't stop with the fans. It STARTS with the Jackson Family who has been less than prudent in their public remarks. With the trial so close, I would like to see them keep their cards close to their chests and stop talking until after the Trial.
Another important point is that just like defense team, the prosecution will also utilize social media. So I advocate more focus on blogging information that may be useful to the prosecution.
@Muzik, you are absolutely right and a point I forgot to put in this post. I am hoping that the bloggers will unite for the Conrad Murray trial, and post information that shows a unified front against Conrad Murray and his defense team. We have to leave emotions out of the equation, even though that may be difficult.
Justice, such a fitting post at this time, especially in view of the confirmation of Paris' twitter account by her aunt, @LaToyaJackson, just today! IMO you should send your excellent blog on Social Media and the Conrad Murray Case directly to @LatoyaJackson. Now that Paris' twitter ID has been confirmed by her well-intentioned aunt, there is great likelihood that Team Murray will stalk her timeline looking for some innocent remark to use for Murray's benefit. Latoya, IMO, should know have used better judgment, particularly at this crucial time, to shield Paris from stalkers and worse, rather than enabling them to find her. But then good judgment has never been LaT's strong suit.
I also think the blogs should focus heavily on getting the word out on Michael's provable and demonstrated humanitarian causes during his lifetime, as a countermeasure to the sludge that is sure to emanate from the Murray camp. Thank you.
Excellent and important post! Excellent comments!
I agree that LaToya's confirmation of Paris twitter account, although well intentioned, is unwise, especially now. The thought of the defense team searching through her timeline for information makes make me ill unfortunately I'm sure such activity as been happening for a while now. I hope and pray that the kids have been given some kind of instruction to not discuss their dad on social media from now through the trial.
If I may, I'd like to include the web page of The Silenced Truth here where they list Michael's charitable activities in his lifetime:
http://www.thesilencedtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=59
Hi, Amy Singer here. Not sure if the prosecution will use social media (unfortunately). I will be a commentator on this case. I was hopeing to use social media as a commentator.
Do you think that a potential 40k bloggers will stop blogging on this case.
BTW, most of the folks believe Murray is guilty of criminal negligence as opposed to involuntary manslaughter. (Unfortunately, criminal negligence fits the California law to a tee).
I do agree that the fact that Murray left his patient and gave him a drug that should be used in the hospital is compelling. Unfortunately, many anesthesiologists/surgeons have "left" their patients and had the license revoked or suspended. they were not charged.
I do believe that folks should take medical malpractice cases more seriously and stop crying that doctors are being unfairly sued.
Also, I hope that the prosecution does not "overtry" this case.
On this one.. I am on your side.
Amy
THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER IN CALIFORNIA
California Penal Code 192(b) PC defines "involuntary manslaughter" as an unlawful killing that takes place
1....during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), or
2....during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed "without due caution or circumspection."
WITHOUT DUE CAUTION AND CIRCUMSPECTION
The phrase "without due caution and circumspection" is basically synonymous with California's legal definition of "criminal negligence." It is an act which is "aggravated, reckless and flagrant and which is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinary prudent, careful person under the same circumstances as to be in disregard for human life, or an indifference to the consequences of such an act."7
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE means that the death was not the result of inattention, mistaken judgment or misadventure. But rather it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the aggravated, reckless or negligent conduct.
Example: In People v. Conrad Murray…the pending case against Michael Jackson's doctor…the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office charged Dr. Murray with violating Penal Code 192(b) PC California's involuntary manslaughter law for allegedly administering lethal doses of an anesthetic (propofol) to Jackson while treating him for insomnia.
In their complaint, the D.A. stated that "Dr. Murray did unlawfully kill Michael Joseph Jackson by acting without due caution and circumspection". Prosecutors will attempt to prove that Dr. Murray acted with criminal negligence when he administered such a large dose of the anesthetic…an anesthetic that they contend is used in preparation for surgery, not as a sleep aid (which is why it was being used). The D.A. will argue that a reasonable doctor in the same situation would not have authorized the same quantity of the drug.
Source:
http://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html#1
Source:
Felony Complaint For Arrest Warrent,
The People of the State of California v. Conrad Robert Murray:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/Entertainment/z%20-%20Entertainment%20-%20HIDDEN/Michael%20Jackson%20trial/murray_complaint.pdf
Hi Amy...:-) I totally agree that medical malpractice should be taken more seriously. How true!! Thank you so much for saying that. I have a question though, I'm confused concerning the distinction you appear to be making between "criminal negligence" and "involuntary manslaughter?" One seems to be a subset of the other in terms of Cali. law. I'm not clear what point you were making? Thanks in advance!!...:-)
Also, it appears to me that there is more to this than just Murray stepping away from his patient. Forgive me but how can this possibly compare to other anesthesiologists/surgeons that have "left" their patients? I agree that the case shouldn't be over tried but the circumstances for this case are so unique and aggregious in my view that it begs for something more than just the revocation of a medical lisence? Wouldn't you agree?
The facts as I know them today:
1. This "doctor's" judgement was severally compromised, I believe, due to his own financial situation and the prospect of making a lot of money in a relatively short period of time not to mention having direct access to a high profile celebrity. (Yes, I agree that this is not a crime by itself but it can plant the seeds for certain types of persons to make poor decisions.)
2. This "doctor" is not a trained anesthesiologists/surgeon. It's not clear that using Propofol is part of his normal practice as a Cardiologist. (Again, not a crime by itself.)
3. We all ready agree that using Propofol out side of a hospital setting for a condition it is not recommended for is a problem, to say the very least.
4. We ALL agree that stepping away from a sedated and helpless patient, who was in need of constent monitoring, is utterly unconscionable. Not to mention that proper monitoring equipment appeared to be lacking. (This SHOULD be a crime.)
5. It has been alleged that Murray gave his patient Propofol most nights for nearly 6 weeks. During this time there was no assistant and no lifesaving equipment present in case of emergency. (This SHOULD be a crime.)
6. Murray delayed calling 911 which wasted precious time that could have been used to give Michael life saving emergancy care. What healthcare professional does this when all know that every second counts??
7. It is alleged that Murray was seen stuffing "evidence" into a bag instead of attending to his patient. However, he has not been charged with obstruction of justice.
8. It has been observed that this "Cardiologist" seemed to not know how to administer CPR properly as he was seen to be giving his patient one armed CPR on a bed. Even the 911 operator was alarmed by this.
9. During the prelims in January, it was shown that Dr. Murray did not give accurate information to paramedics, such as time of death and what medications had been given to the patient.
It's clear that this health care professional should have KNOWN the dangers involved with the treatment he was giving to his patient. It appears he willfully ignored the standard of care that would have been required inorder to conduct this proceedure safely and when his patient was in distress, he had no way to save him. For me, this is much more than simply a case of a doctor stepping away from his patient. Much more indeed.
I'm curious to know your thoughts.
There is a thin line between involuntary manslaughter and criminal negligence.
I believe:
1.Murray has committed malpractice
2.is guilty of criminal negligence
3. not sure about involuntary manslaughter..Let's take each of your points:
1. This "doctor's" judgement was severally compromised, I believe, due to his own financial situation and the prospect of making a lot of money in a relatively short period of time not to mention having direct access to a high profile celebrity. (Yes, I agree that this is not a crime by itself but it can plant the seeds for certain types of persons to make poor decisions.)
.......good point but does not mean anything with regard to criminal charges..may have something to do with med mal..but it is a stretch.2. This "doctor" is not a trained anesthesiologists/surgeon. It's not clear that using Propofol is part of his normal practice as a Cardiologist. (Again, not a crime by itself.)
that is my point, unfortunately doctors are given a wide latitude with regard to administering drugs. If anything this too is malpractice.. and not clear at that
3. We all ready agree that using Propofol out side of a hospital setting for a condition it is not recommended for is a problem, to say the very least.
exactly: malpractice
4. We ALL agree that stepping away from a sedated and helpless patient, who was in need of constent monitoring, is utterly unconscionable. Not to mention that proper monitoring equipment appeared to be lacking. (This SHOULD be a crime.)
Now you are getting hitting on the threshold. The key word regarding the difference between a criminal act and a civil action is: intent.
Improper monitoring is malpractice
It is not a crime (perhaps it should be). My point is even with #3 I have seen doctors prevail in med mal cases.
5. It has been alleged that Murray gave his patient Propofol most nights for nearly 6 weeks. During this time there was no assistant and no lifesaving equipment present in case of emergency. (This SHOULD be a crime.)
Again you have made an excellent argument for forseeable danger, reckless disregard.. We have a case of negligence and perhaps moving towards the definition you provided of criminal negligence
6. Murray delayed calling 911 which wasted precious time that could have been used to give Michael life saving emergancy care. What healthcare professional does this when all know that every second counts??
Now you have clearly past the threshold for crimal negligence.
7. It is alleged that Murray was seen stuffing "evidence" into a bag instead of attending to his patient. However, he has not been charged with obstruction of justice.
Obstruction
8. It has been observed that this "Cardiologist" seemed to not know how to administer CPR properly as he was seen to be giving his patient one armed CPR on a bed. Even the 911 operator was alarmed by this.
malpractice
9. During the prelims in January, it was shown that Dr. Murray did not give accurate information to paramedics, such as time of death and what medications had been given to the patient.
may amount to perjury..
__________
My personal opinion I hope they get him for manslaughter.. but when they do not put in lesser charges (criminal negligence) they give the defense wiggle room.
You saw this in the CA case: with no motive, not knowing how she died, when she died or lacking physical evidence that tied CA to poor Caylee's remains one can simply not prevail on 1st degree murder with the death penalty.
Today an article was written on DCF: they found child neglect. CA was not charged with child neglect. If they had, she may have been convicted.
Again, I am illustrating the difference between negligence and intent.
Back to Murray: did he intend to kill MJ (his cash cow) I think not. But his dispicable behavior does rise to something beyond a civil action..
Amy
Thank you very much for your detailed response to my post.
As you said, Murray's behavior was despicable and his actions do rise above a civil action. It is so important to emphasis this since there are many that want to blame Michael for his own death as if Murray didn't exist, or if his presence is acknowledged, his clear responsibility for his patients death is not.
Certainly an issue that there will be much debate over is the distinction that you've pointed out between Involuntary Manslaughter and Criminal Negligence. There does appear to be a fine line between the two. However, I'm still struggling to see where that line is.
You mention the term "intent" and that Murray didn't intend to harm MJ. It seems to me that intention to cause harm is not even part of Invol.Mans. The burden of proof is to show that..."during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm" that "without due caution or circumspection" a crime was committed resulting in the death or bodily injury of another person. Certianly if Murray "intended" to cause harm that would clearly be a more serious charge.
The points you make concerning the Casey Anthony case are important in so far as when a defendant is charged the prosecution has to be sure that they can prove guilt based on that charge in order to convict. The prosecution clearly failed and should have gone with a lesser charge based on ability to prove their case despite apparent guilt of defendant on a higher charge. Although I fear it, I very much hope this same result doesn't happen in the Murray case.
As in the CA case, it will be up to the prosecution to prove to the jury that Murray's behavior is not only a case of Medical Malpractice and Criminal Negligence, but crosses that fine line and rises above both to the level of Involuntary Manslaughter as charged.
Also, I'm sure there will be much commentary on MJ's alleged drug use. I very much hope that you don't ignore/disregard the facts that are stated in Mr. Jackson's autopsy report concerning this issue as some in the general public, many commentators, and the defense team insist on doing as way of making his death his fault. Clearly it was not and he was not a drug addict.
We're all looking forward to hearing/reading your commentary on this case.
Thanks again.
thought you might be interested in what has come up with social media mining: (does not in any way reflect my opinion)
__________________
his early defense was he was trying to wean MJ off of drugs, ofcourse we have an illegal drug b/c it was administered in an illegal place.. I don't know how the defense can get around that______________
_____________
The way we have seen it hear in the media in Las Vegas is that he was just in it for the money...the idea that while he may have been trying to wean him off is just not credible over the perception that he was there and giving him whatever ...he asked for and then throw in the perception that he was on the phone not paying attention or trying to save his ass didnt sit too well either with most folks. The guy comes across in the media as an arrogant doctor who was for sell if the price is right. The news media says that several other doctors refused and walked away and that ads to the problem as to why this one didnt walk away too.
______________________
Makes sense.. What about the 911 call?
12 hours ago somewhat what I was referring to as well...it was reported he was making prior phone calls before 911...hence perception trying to save his ass by tidying up any mess. ______________________________________yes. If you sell your professional soul for money be prepared to pay back all you earned and more when you get caught.
(speaking about dr.)
__________________
Actually this doctor did us all a big favor. There are a few other celebrities I'd like to see him take out, including but not limited to Nancy Disgrace..------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
..MJ had autoimmune disease for years possibly lupus maybe constant pain and horrible disease if it's true people have to take certain drugs at home anything to help with the muscle and joint pain...just a thought ... and a doc who understands the disease may have given slack on the treatment although i think he was in it for the $$$ and prestige he's just not that smart of a doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A, didn't Murray initially claim he gave MJ the drug because of insomnia? Seems like the story keeps changing
good point.. I still can't wrap my mind around giving this drug at home instead of a hospital.. I think it was a form of anesthesia.. which I never heard for insomnia.. I wonder if the defense is going to say this is a civil case (negligence) not criminal case (voluntary manslaughter)..
. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Yes, the man is guilty, of incompetence first and doing no harm second. It is my understanding that he didn't undestand a) that you don't give CPR on a bed, and b) that he didn't know how to do CPR in the first pl ace! I know how to do CPR, and I know you do it on a flat surface, and which side are you working for?
_________________________
I meant that he was guilty of not doing no harm. Double negative, I know.
I just read the other comments. Yes, the phone calls are damning as well. Reek of cover up!
First Michael Jackson, then Amy Winhouse? Why not Nancy Disgrace?
__________________-
from anonymous: still don't know why there is a criminal trial. Dr. Murray was negligent and is civilly resposible for the death of MJ. He should lose his medical- license, at least temporarily.
_part 2_________________
Dr. Murray is not a criminal.
imo
· I say negligence.
I say criminally negligent.
5 hours ago · i say negligence;
·
________________________
wow the negligence thing has legs.. who knew?
·
Amy Singer anyhoo, I can not wrap my mind around the fact that this drug was to be delivered in a hospital.. Like XXXl said, the Dr was out for the money and not the hippocratic oath.. IMHO
5 ·
that is a given; the doc was doin his job....professional selfish; however.
reasonable doubt, reasonable fee...extraordinary doubt; extraordinary fee.
___________________
I thought Propofol was to be administered in a hospital only. Also, he failed to monitor. Where'd he go for over an hour, the bathroom? Wasn't he smoozing on his cell phone? And, why did it take so long to call 911? Why didn't he get in the ambulance with his patient? Did he remain behind to "clean up"?
___________________
The drug was not illegal, but is for anesthesia or a completely monitored environment like intensive care, surgery, etc. HOWEVER, doctors have a LOT of leeway in what they can do and where they can do it and, if he had all the proper monit...oring equipment and stayed with MJ every moment, he might have been able to get away with this. I have read that MJ may have increased the dose himself. The devil is in the details as to whether that was possible. MJ would have to have had means, i.e., existing IV access, a machine or running IV that would continue the drug after he instantaneously went to sleep once it started going into his vein, etc. If administered by Murray and he left the room, guilty. It's going to be tough to prove otherwise. The problem with this is whether it reached a criminal level or was malpractice. I think it was malpractice, but not criminal. The problem with MD licensing is that nothing specifically prevents him from administering the drug, even though he may or may not have any training regarding management of a patient receiving IV narcotics or anesthesia type drugs. It's a problem with the universal aspects of MD licensing, no matter their training or specialties in specific areas
_____________
I don't know. The more I think about it, maybe something like negligent homicide could stick [if that is an actual possible charge-not a lawyer]. I'm sure there will be good experts on both sides. It will be interesting to hear his defense and, then guess on a verdict.
these are not my beliefs, rather some random comments I thought you'd be interested in
more social media comments- FYI not my opinion part 1
his early defense was he was trying to wean MJ off of drugs, ofcourse we have an illegal drug b/c it was administered in an illegal place.. I don't know how the defense can get around that______________
_____________
The way we have seen it hear in the media in Las Vegas is that he was just in it for the money...the idea that while he may have been trying to wean him off is just not credible over the perception that he was there and giving him whatever ...he asked for and then throw in the perception that he was on the phone not paying attention or trying to save his ass didnt sit too well either with most folks. The guy comes across in the media as an arrogant doctor who was for sell if the price is right. The news media says that several other doctors refused and walked away and that ads to the problem as to why this one didnt walk away too.
Makes sense.. What about the 911 call?
12 hours ago somewhat what I was referring to as well...it was reported he was making prior phone calls before 911...hence perception trying to save his ass by tidying up any mess. ______________________________________yes. If you sell your professional soul for money be prepared to pay back all you earned and more when you get caught.
(speaking about dr.)
__________________
Actually this doctor did us all a big favor. There are a few other celebrities I'd like to see him take out, including but not limited to Nancy Disgrace
..MJ had autoimmune disease for years possibly lupus maybe constant pain and horrible disease if it's true people have to take certain drugs at home anything to help with the muscle and joint pain...just a thought ... and a doc who understands the disease may have given slack on the treatment although i think he was in it for the $$$ and prestige he's just not that smart of a doc
didn't Murray initially claim he gave MJ the drug because of insomnia? Seems like the story keeps changing
good point.. I still can't wrap my mind around giving this drug at home instead of a hospital.. I think it was a form of anesthesia.. which I never heard for insomnia.. I wonder if the defense is going to say this is a civil case (negligence) not criminal case (voluntary manslaughter)..
.
-- Yes, the man is guilty, of incompetence first and doing no harm second. It is my understanding that he didn't undestand a) that you don't give CPR on a bed, and b) that he didn't know how to do CPR in the first pl ace! I know how to do CPR, and I know you do it on a flat surface, and which side are you working for?
_________________________
I meant that he was guilty of not doing no harm. Double negative, I know.
I just read the other comments. Yes, the phone calls are damning as well. Reek of cover up!
First Michael Jackson, then Amy Winhouse? Why not Nancy Disgrace?
__________________-
from anonymous: still don't know why there is a criminal trial. Dr. Murray was negligent and is civilly resposible for the death of MJ. He should lose his medical- license, at least temporarily.
dare michaeljackson i am afan of michaeljackson i have someto say about allof this i have been watching you guys on tv its funny as hell you why they know that you are a star frist of all and that you are live and you are watching them play like little girls on tv acting like they were going on a date and trying to find out how much time they had to play doll baby house to find mjs grads to like playing game i like your bot toy he looks hot but hess life so he pulled a prank on you guys so booo boo you see me now by ghost videosa bt by mj
you guys are so funny michaeljackson is a kive he pranked you guys you are just in on lieing eyes looking right at you booo ghost of mj happy party you are not playing doll house you are likeing it mj is going to getyou so go run to momy and dady you saw mjs wall ghost he s back you better run
michaeljackson has a nice file he is teling you the ture faxs he is very much telling you to stop lieing on hi,m this man needs to be set free i kew michaeljackson all my life michaeljackson is vey tied of being away from his fans and family do you knoww want that can do to someones love one you can make them sick and out of death when you put some one that is trying to tell you tureth you have to let michaeljackson go home free if you keep lieingh on him god is going to deal with all of hwo is taking part on lieing on him so seand this to the press and to god speople and let them hare it all love mjs family and frined
hello again i am a fan of mmichael jackson i got his back heis telling the tureth and nothing but the turth michaeljackson is a man of god if you dont have faith you willdie or be taken by god himself the book says it to the sky will open up ypu will hare him calling you by name s or by your name you will be juged on want you say to that person keep lieing on mj and god will get you on every thing you say or mas round on him with time line mines he is watching youuall so keep doing want you doing and you will get pay back mj let them know tell them god is on his way
Michael Jackson was an excellent entertainer, but he had addiction problems which were not widely known. He wanted a doctor who would supply him with a certain drug, and, for the right amount of money was able to purchase Conrad Murray. Buyer beware.
@j.f.hubbard said...
"Buyer beware," yes, however, this does NOT under any circumstances absolve Murray of his own responsibility as a health care professional in Michael's death. Furthermore, such an admonition blames Michael for Michael's death. I totally and completely reject such a claim no matter what Michael did or did not want. For lack of a better example, if I'm driving a car, and fall asleep at the wheel resulting in a collision with a tree that causes my death, the tree cannot be held responsible. It is an inanimate object with no ability to make decisions. Such a death would be a tragic accident. Murray is not a "tree" and is assumed to be able to make decisions on his own. Or at least the medical school that issued him his M.D. thought so. As such, he IS responsible for his decisions and actions. We all are. As an M.D. it is his duty to research any treatment he recommends to his patient and weigh the benefit against the risk, especially if that doctor is personally administering that treatment. This so-called doctor did none of those things. The risk far outweighed any potential benefit in this case. Michael's life was far more important than whether he attended rehearsals or not, far more important than concert dates. In fact, for 6 weeks he administered a dangerous treatment to his patient without proper monitoring and no life saving backup equipment...not to mention his delayed call to 911. To suggest that for 6 weeks it's O.K. for a doctor to put their patient into a medically induced coma for no legitimate reason (not even insomnia) without the proper protocols and with NO backup plan is insanity!! He's supposed to be a healthcare professional. He's supposed to say "NO." He's supposed to act immediately when his patient was in trouble. There is a cascade of things this man did not do that led to Michael's death, not just one thing. If this is not the very definition of recklessness and criminal negligence, I don't know what is.
Post a Comment