Monday, November 25, 2013

Restitution, defamation...too much attention. Conrad Murray in 2013.

Well...okay. Here I am. I just finished saying only hours ago that I did not want to talk about Murray. And now I am blogging about him. 

I started off meaning to only explain "restitution" since I saw some people confused and/or confusing people. But then I started writing and it became more....which always seems to happen.

See, I DON'T want to talk about him. I don't want to THINK about him. But, this blog wrote itself. So, while I intend to continue to ignore him in the future - I will have this blog to refer to. Plus, this way, I can share once and not have to keep giving that...person any of my time, thoughts or energy.

Okay, so first of all, the background....we all are aware, right? Basically Murray, released from jail a few weeks ago after serving about 20 minutes (approx 2 years of a 4 year sentence.) has decided its a great idea to start giving interviews. He is discussing Michael with an unbelievable amount of disrespect and dishonesty and is just behaving in a...well, disgusting way.

Let me explain, first, Katherine Jackson's role in this since some people seem either confused, confusing or both

One of the things I keep seeing is how "Katherine Jackson could have stopped this". And the more I see it, the more people react to it, the more I wonder if everyone is aware of all the details and specifics - I was not aware of everything myself and had to double check a couple of things just prior to writing this. Here's the actual deal:

What these people are referring to is something called "restitution". Now, I'm no legal expert so I am just going to make the most simple and general points. I do not wish to have this blog be about defending Katherine's choices NOR attacking them. They are not my choices and I am not in her position. I personally feel I cannot begin to comprehend her choices or decisions, let alone judge them as I cannot possibly know all of what went into these choices...but that isn't the point anyway. I only want to provide an explanation in case anyone does need one.

Essentially, what people are referring to, is that Katherine had the chance to "go after" Murray for "restitution". Had she chosen to do so, it basically could  have prevented Murray from being able to profit off of Michaels death.

A famous example of this is what happened with OJ Simpson. Though he was criminally acquitted of murder chargeas, he was sued civilly as well and in the end, all profits off of his book about the crime, ended up going to the victims families - because restituon made it so that OJ could not profit off of his crimes.

There are several assumptions about why Katherine did not choose to pursue this option but as I said, since I am only trying to explain the situation, not Katherine's decisions, I don't think there's a point in me going into them right now. All that matters, in this moment for this blog, is that she did end up not taking this path and instead waived restituon. 

So, what does that mean?

Contrary to some of what I've seen, it does NOT mean that Katherine could have prevented these interviews - prevented Murray from, er, "sharing". 

Restituon is financial only - it is not a gag order. All it would have done is made it so that CM could not have gotten PAID for discussing MJs death. 

As far as I am aware, we do not even know if Murray was paid for his interview, do we? (I have heard rumors about a 5-figure payment and a 6-figure-does anyone know for a fact if he was paid? Please leave info in a comment or tweet me if you do...thanks.)

Regardless, to assume that Katherine choosing to go after restituon would have made it so that Murray wouldn't speak at all, we would have to assume two things:

A) Murray was paid for what he's been saying.
B) Murray would have decided to not say anything about MJ without being paid.

Only if A and B were both true, could Katherine be held partially responsible for Murray speaking out.

Now, I am not debating one way or another whether restituon could have made it less likely for him to speak. Of course being unable to make money would make anything a less attractive option. Then again, we also know that Murray has "shared" with us before for free including from jail.

Either way, the point was meant to be simple - just to clarify in case anyone needed it:

Restituion is FINANCIAL ONLY. She could NOT have prevented Murray from speaking. She could have been able to prevent Murray from profiting - off of MJs death. 

So, that's Katherine. And we can stay mad at her if we want and talk about how we know why she made the choices she did and call her "greedy" based only off of her own understandings and assumptions....but it won't help anyone. In fact, it will just be more negativity to focus on. And, assuming or believing it, won't make it any more or less true either. If anyone really wants to learn about her decision and what her options were and potential reasons for making this choice...we can always talk about it....but for now, know that it's not as simple as some people want to make it...& Michaels mother, whatever we may think or feel about her....we are not her. We don't know everything. We can't.

Now. On a similar note, we have John Branca.

I have seen fans angry at John Branca and the MJ Estate - wondering why they aren't stopping it. There is nothing they can legally do either. I know some of you have said that Murray is defaming Michael - the law says, though, that defamation laws do not apply to deceased people. I personally haven't the faintest idea who decided that was a good law and why - but it is what it is. So, Branca and co cannot legally do anything about Murray and his mouth.

Restituon - could not have stopped Murray from talking.
Defamation laws - cannot stop Murray from talking.

We can't blame the Jackson's for this.
We can't blame the Estate.

There is only Murray ... And the idiots who gave him a platform to speak.

While I continue to pay as little attention to Murray as I can, because I did end up deciding to write this blog, I did read some of his interview.

There are some FACTUALLY inaccurate things in there - as well as some things that are just ridiculous and obviously could not have happened the way he says. 

I could sit here right now and go through the interview like a checklist, crossing off the things he said and why they're ridiculous. I bet most of us could do that. But..why should we?

Murray is sitting there saying these disgusting things and Michaels fans are understandably disgusted BY these things. But as hard as it is...I feel like the best way I can show Murray the disrespect he deserves is to just ignore him as much as I can. To NOT tweet the interviewer about how awful they are for giving him a platform, as much as I do think it was awful to give him a platform. After all..which is worse? A bunch of passionate emotionally charged comments that let the interviewer know people are paying attention (even though said people are disgusted...) or....silence? Them wondering if anyone watched?

What's going to make it less likely that he gets another interview or a book deal? Negative reactions...or no reaction?

I know it's hard. Technically, I am reacting to him right NOW lol. And of course I found what he said WAS. I just feel like the best thing to do is show him silence.

Most of you guys have heard about our mayor here in Toronto, right? Well, the city council spent a couple days in hysteria at first. They were screaming back and forth with the mayor, people were fighting, getting upset, getting angry...

Then, one day, they came up with a new plan. Every time Ford spoke, everyone would be silent and turn so that they weren't looking at him. He would be talking to non-responsive people who would not even look at him. Now, granted, that was a bit immature for the council to do.....but I bet Ford felt less valued, felt worse, felt less like talking to the silence....rather than the charged up emotional people.

I know it's not the same thing. But it's the best example I can come up with right now. I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. Like I said, I'm acknowledging him right now. But maybe, at the end of the day, things would go worse for Murray if he felt like Rob Ford must have....talking to nobody.

Conrad Murray has taken enough from all of us. He took from Michaels children, his family and friends, the whole world. All of us. He doesn't deserve to speak about Michael, in my opinion, not at all.

And he also does not deserve to take one more thing from anyone. 

For his actions, his refusal to accept responsibility, his arrogance, his blaming everyone but himself - especially Michael.

I hope that, soon, we can make it so he knows that nobody wants to hear what he has to say. 

Thanks for reading, guys.
And again...I don't mean to "tell" anyone how to feel or how to react. We are all different. I just don't think Murray should have the opportunity to say the things he's saying in the forum he's saying them in....and I sure don't think he deserves an audience.


  1. Nice article. I agree with you completely. Although I am against the estate, and supportive of Katherine Jackson and the family and MJ 3, I do believe that there is nothing they can really do against that narcissistic sociopath, unfortunately. Do you mind if I share this article?

  2. hey nice post mehn. I love your style of blogging here. The way you writes reminds me of an equally interesting post that I read some time ago on Daniel Uyi's blog: 12 Timeless Common Sense Kokahinopsis .
    keep up the good work.


  3. Thank you! This is probably the most common sense I have read on the subject of that man since June 2009. He is hoping his biggest audience is going to be MJ fans - and he is banking on our curiosity. Well I for one am not curious about what he wants to say, be it good or bad. "To see and listen to the wicked is already the beginning of wickedness." ~ Confucious.