Nov 10 2011

The telltale unfinished sentence in media’s responses re: Murray testimonial film

Category: JusticeSeven @ 1:35 pm



A commenter in my previous post received a response from Channel 4 in the UK about the airing of the Murray testimonial film. The response follows. It is very similar to other responses I’ve seen from other networks about this testimonial film from Murray:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the upcoming documentary, The Man Who Killed Michael Jackson.

We are sorry to hear that you are disappointed in our decision to broadcast this programme.

The trial of Dr Conrad Murray for the involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson has dominated headlines around the world. Now that the verdict of guilty is in, this observational and independent documentary provides an insight into Dr Murray’s relationship with Jackson and how events unfolded on the day he died.

Further, we would advise that Dr Murray is in no way profiting from our transmission of this film ? our licence agreement with the production company stipulates that he will not receive any proceeds from the fee we pay to licence the film.

Nevertheless; please be assured your complaint has been logged and noted for the information of those responsible for our programming.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.


Sandra Carter
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries

Isn’t that interesting from Channel 4. I don’t care if Murray profits or not. I seriously doubt that it’s true Conrad Murray has made no profit off of this but even if he didn’t, there are other considerations in regard to networks agreeing to air this film.

The fact is, Murray purposely evaded the law while simultaneously refusing to testify in a court under oath and subject to cross-examination. He instead for two years created a testimonial film and sold it to various networks to air for him immediately after he was convicted. Knowing that a convicted felon is not allowed to profit from his conviction, Murray made sure the film was done and the deals inked before the verdict was handed down.

This tells me Conrad Murray is a dishonest, guilty man seeking to pawn the blame for his actions off onto his victim. It also tells me he is quite manipulative when it comes to the law. And, he has obviously learned nothing from his conviction.

Channel 4 and all other networks airing this testimonial film are helping him with this indecent ruse.

Now, why would they do that? The only reason they would do such a thing is so that they can collect profits for themselves by airing it.

No network anywhere ought to be helping Murray “testify” after the fact by airing his film. He had his chance to testify in the courtroom and he refused. Convicted felons ought not be given a media platform to “testify” outside a courtroom after having killed someone and after having been convicted for it, no matter when the footage was created or the deals made.

Did anyone air a testimonial film created by John Lennon’s killer for television networks so that he could testify outside court about how he didn’t kill Lennon, how he was “friends” with Lennon, or how Lennon’s death was somehow Lennon’s own fault? If Mark David Chapman had created such a film, would any network have aired it?

There would have been screaming outrage if they did. It would have been considered indecent.

Did anyone air a testimonial film created by John F. Kennedy’s killer about how he didn’t kill Kennedy or how it was some “accident” or how Kennedy somehow brought it on himself, or how he was actually “friends” with Kennedy? If Lee Harvey Oswald had created such a testimonial film would any network have aired it?

There would have been screaming outrage if they did. It would have been considered indecent.

How about the man who shot Martin Luther King?  If James Earl Ray had created a testimonial film giving his own version of events leading up to his shooting of Dr. King, would any network have aired it?

There would have been screaming outrage if they did. And riots too. It would have been considered indecent.

No one ever aired such testimonial films on television networks created by the killers of other American luminaries and historical figures. There would have been screaming outrage if they did, and maybe even riots in the streets. It would have been considered indecent.

Allowing the man who killed Michael Jackson to do this is just as socially, morally, and ethically unacceptable. And it’s just as indecent.

Perhaps Conrad Murray didn’t make a dime off of his testimonial film. But the networks who air the film certainly will be making millions off of it! That’s why they’re doing it. Remember ratings and advertisers are their lifeblood.

A friend of mine said:

The selling point for them is precisely to tell a story you won’t hear in the courtroom. Of course this film makes a mockery of the verdict. No remorse.

The telltale unfinished sentence in the response from Channel 4 and in the responses I’ve seen from other media outlets is this:

The trial of Dr Conrad Murray for the involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson has dominated headlines around the world, . . .{and we intend to use that interest to make considerable profit for ourselves by airing this film, no matter how hurtful, unethical, untruthful, unprecedented, disrespectful or immoral it is. We simply don’t care. Profit rules and profit is all that matters in this world.“}

There you go.

In other words, these networks are as immoral, unethical, dishonest, manipulative, indecent, and greedy as Conrad Murray when it comes to Michael Jackson. They are birds of a feather and collectively all of them helped send Michael Jackson to an early grave, with Murray delivering the fatal shot.

Now, they are simply feeding off his bones. Why? Because it’s profitable and because they can.

When it comes to Michael Jackson, all media and journalistic social, moral, or ethical rules and considerations just get thrown right out the window. The things the media do now and the things the media have done to the person and the memory of Michael Jackson in the past would never be considered if it were anyone else.  They were never considered when it was someone else.

I wonder how the various executives at these television networks who sealed the deals with Conrad Murray would feel if it were their father, son, uncle, or brother, who was killed by the likes of Murray.

I wonder how they’d feel too, if the television networks decided to air an after-conviction testimonial film created by the killer of their loved one so that the killer could “tell his story” after he refused to do so in a courtroom. I doubt they ever thought about that. Because when the prospect of profit is at hand, empathy and human decency lose any bid for consideration. Especially when it’s Michael Jackson.

Let it be seen in all its barbaric ugliness that these precedents have been set by the media from the life and memory of Michael Joseph Jackson and in association with his killer.

We are sorry to hear that you are disappointed in our decision to broadcast this programme.”  — That sentence alone is a monumental understatement considering what is happening here.

Who’s next?

Those who give patronage to these networks had better hope it isn’t someone they love.


20 Responses to “The telltale unfinished sentence in media’s responses re: Murray testimonial film”

  1. seusn says:

    november 29 is the big day he may get more time because of the documentry just wait and see and the jackson family isn’t done yet with msnbc ont one of their programs have mention a single word about the documentry they are going to be sued big time by aeg and the jackson family lawyers i just can not wait until nov 29 when that conRAT murray faces that judge Pactor he is going to suck it to him he he he he he

  2. Dialdancer says:

    I believe the NBC family network would have aired this even if they never made a dime, even if it means paying more than they ever take in. As for those who claim they did not receive money, there are ways to profit from this. Paid pundits on various or a select network, interview where there is conversation about a person’s life and they get to bring up their involvement in this trial, promoting a book and/or sharing thoughts which later are used when a filler piece is needed. Don’t you just love the way those who condemn Murray for his actions do not condemn MSNBC & TMZ for theirs?

    Yes, I will continually bring up Harvey Levin’s part in covering up this story as far back as Dec 2009.

  3. Max says:

    And what’s up with leaving out different parts in different parts of the world? Australia’s version has stuff in it that’s been left out of the UK version and the US version. The whole endeavor strikes me as absurd. This documentary might have been trying to be negative about Michael Jackson, but it portrays everyone in it in an unattractive light. Totally forgettable garbage, not an ounce of honest journalism to be seen.

  4. Seven says:

    Yes. As if it weren’t bad enough M$NBC aired this indecent piece of garbage, they also heavily edited it so as to try to protect Murray. There is also a section that M$NBC removed where Murray talks about why he didn’t call 911. He claimed he had no phone. But just moments before he said he was calling people (MJ’s personal assistant, security, etc) on his cellphone! M$NBC cut out the part where he said he didn’t have a phone. He was obviously lying and contradicting what he’d just said prior.

    Why is M$NBC protecting Michael Jackson’s killer? It’s disrespectful and indecent enough they air his dishonest, cowardly “testimony” film from Murray, but then to further heavily edit it so as to protect him is just the height of pure barbarism.

  5. Max says:

    I saw a version of it on YouTube this morning. In between emoting, Murray gets a quick, calculating look in his eyes, as if wondering how it came across. When he sits and breaks down, saying, “I don’t want to talk any more,” he gets up and goes to the mirror to study his image. His public prayers and prayer circles are for effect. If I were praying, it would be between me and God. There was nothing in this version about Randy Phillip’s nasty tantrum to Murray at the meeting. Everything Murray says was designed for maximum effect. And how he works the “his only friend” angle, all the while slicing and dicing Michael’s reputation. You have to be pretty gullible to believe anything he’s saying on this documentary. But he was a man used to being adored by patients who consider doctors to be godlike. Ultimately, it is the way he sees himself.

  6. Martin Pagels says:

    Seit wann sind die Medien piätet-und respektvoll, wenn es um Michael Jackson geht? Murray ist nur lächerlich.

  7. carina for mjj says:

    To make it short;How will murray explain Dr. Shafers finding that Michael was infused with over 2000 mgs of Propofol on 6/25 2009.

  8. carina for mjj says:

    This serves to cement the view of murray as a psychopath.And if he appeals this should be taken into account.He even tries to make himself the victim!Claiming he thought he was hired to take care of a healthy 50 y.o. man who had some problems with sleep and then he finds himself ensnared!The special witness,Dr. Shafer, a hihgly regarded scientist,researcher and anestesiologist testified probono as he felt this case had grown to worldwide proportions, and the medical profession was being sullied by murray´s doings.According to Dr. Shafers testimony Michael was infused with over 2000 mgs of propofol on 6/25 2009. I am surprised that murray and Joe Jackson(!) still think murrays malpractce insurance should pay some.Incredible! Joe J. better stay out of anything,he wants to get Dr.Klein and as many Dr´s as possible to sue and feels murray was “only” the fall guy.He will only create a mess.For some reason I feel he feels sorry for murray.A kindred soul perhaps.-The trial was filmed and televised,still many people worked daytime and could not follow closely.Maybe the trial should be shown at a later time so people will get a better understanding.

  9. Heidi says:

    What a bleak, DARK WORLD this has become since Michael left (excuse me, was ripped away from). Did we even have 30 seconds to rejoice in the victory of the verdict??? I am just heartsick at the neverending moral degredation continually directed at him. We may not be able to stop the networks, but each and every one of them will have their day before their God. We must boycott PERMANENTLY all product sponsors and continue to respectfully appeal to the high moral standards of Judge Pastor. There is an extreme separation between those who understand and love Michael Jackson and the rest of the world, but you know what? GOOD!!!! Who WANTS to belong to this nightmare? “Whatever happens…..don’t let go of my hand.” No problem Beloved.

  10. Dialdancer says:

    From what I’ve read from the Murray interview on the Today show he is doing a good job of insuring the judge will be filled with judicial ire by the time sentencing comes.

    It will take much to get the message across we’ve had enough

    Here is another possible tool:

    What is sad is with the exposure concerning profits and possible loss thereof by the attorney’s and others Michael will gain a new set of bitter enemies. The man who died, the man they mean to exploit, to trample upon any piece of respect due to the dead will be blamed for this abomination they created and the backlash they deserve.

  11. Seven says:

    Please share it!

  12. Mado says:

    Shame! Seven this article must be posted everywhere! Thank you!

  13. Susanne says:

    I received the same answer from channel 4. It’s totally sick what is happening here. It’s like Charles Thomson said about the media: the most shameful episode in TV history.
    It would be better for CM to be in jail for 4 years, his home arrest could not be a safe place!

  14. Max says:

    I’m glad we have the power to act on behalf of Michael and the truth by getting in touch with the commercial sponsors of the broadcasts, and by writing a one-page letter to Judge Pastor. A month-long boycott of the products and services of the sponsors would be quite fitting. Hit them where it hurts so they’ll remember they made a bad choice. If we can’t stifle Murray, at least we can make it costly for his supporters–and, from what I read, Murray is very busy putting a foot in his mouth with his ridiculous “explanations” and excuses. I doubt that Judge Pastor will be pleased with these shenanigans, particularly after he put so much wasted time and effort into inviting Murray to take the stand.

  15. Monica says:

    How much more worse can this get? I cannot understand how this can be legal. Thank you Seven… You are so good. I will be reading MIM tomorrow night too.

  16. aldebaranredstar says:

    Murray is clearly a sociopath–no conscience. He is an experienced liar and manipulator of others, charming and conning them into trusting him. He is truly despicable. The media is soulless and cruel beyond belief. They live in an airbrushed nonreality where great crimes are promoted without remorse or any introspection. And they had the gall to call Michael a freak. The media is the biggest freak show around. They too are sociopathic. No conscience.

    I hope Judge Pastor will take Murray’s actions into consideration when announcing the sentence–let it be jail for 4 years. Murray is clearly trying to pervert the justice system and contaminate any jury pool for his intended appeal. Thank you, Seven–great article full of passion.

  17. Joyce says:

    AMEN!! Thank you for voicing my feelings of outrage so perfectly!
    Unfortunately, MSNBC does not appear to be willing to take the correct and ethical action. I guess that would look too much like admitting to their initial greed and lack of morals. It is absolutely shameful and just gives me more reason to tune them out completely along with the rest of the main stream/tabloid media!

    Looks like Friday will be the perfect night for reading Joe Vogel’s amazing book, “Man in the Music”! I’m still waiting for an interview with him about this informative book to appear on one of these so called “major networks”! Guess that just doesn’t fit into their programming.
    Thanks again Seven!

  18. Anne Mette Jepsen says:

    Agreed! – 100% …
    Thank you Seven!

  19. karla says:

    unbelievable … disgusting. Seven, your articles are really spot on … wish the whole world would get it.

  20. shelly says:

    They should be ashamed of themselves. It’s terrible.