DEA Searches Doctor's Office and Home in Michael Jackson Death Probe

The DEA searched the Las Vegas medical office and home of Michael Jackson physician Dr. Conrad Murray today.

"We are looking for documents" related to the death of Michael Jackson, said Michael Flanagan, assistant special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Las Vegas.

Last week they searched his office and storage locker in Houston: [More...]

Murray was Michael Jackson's personal physician and was with Jackson when he died. Murray, who is based in Las Vegas and is licensed in California, Nevada and Texas, had his Houston office and a storage unit searched last week by DEA agents. Court records show the agents were seeking evidence of whether the doctor committed manslaughter.

Police say Murray is cooperating and have not labeled him a suspect.

Murray's lawyer said nothing Murray administered was life-threatening to Michael.

Murray's lawyer, Edward Chernoff, has said the doctor "didn't prescribe or administer anything that should have killed Michael Jackson." When asked about the law enforcement official's statements he said: "We will not be commenting on rumors, innuendo or unnamed sources."

< Funny | Report: Charles Manson Reaches Out to Phil Spector in Prison >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I smell another... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    stupid arrest in the making.

    Don't get me wrong, this doc sounds downright quackish...but I don't think Michael kept him around for his skills as a doctor, he kept him around for his script pad, and in that respect he did what he was hired to do...keep the dope coming.

    Except for that little thing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    called "medical ethics" that may have gotten in the way....

    Stop thinking of this guy.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    as Jackson's physician, and as such bound by medical ethics...he was Jackson's dope connect.  The way our laws are written, if you want dope the man don't want you to have, you go to the street-corner pharamacist if you're poor, or hire a quack like this guy if you're rich.  Unless your Rush Limbaugh, then you get the maid to score for ya.

    That's the game...I don't hate the players, I hate the game.


    Except that in this "game" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    Jackson died. If the doc played a role in that death, it doesn't matter whether the drugs are legal or illegal.

    If you're looking for someone to blame (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:11:07 PM EST
    for the death of Michael Jackson, I say the person to blame already paid the ultimate price and has nothing left to give the mob.

    Unless there is evidence the doc gave Jackson something he didn't ask for against his will or without his knowledge...I don't think that is the case.  I'm thinking the doc provided a service Jackson wanted, namely the services of a drug dealer, and that is none of our business.


    amen (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    he would have gotten what he wanted off the street if he had to

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    but you watch Capt...this one is too high profile for the DEA to pass up...we'll have another stupid arrest to discuss soon enough.

    At what point, though, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    do you think your idea of "freedoms" from all consequences would end up in chaos?

    You blame the people for buying homes on time, using the banks to save their money, using credit cards for any reason, and you blame the system for not allowing them to harm themselves or others.

    I get that chains and cages is a dreadful thought. So was the fear caused by having Dahmer, Bundy, Manson, etc. etc. out on the streets.


    For most of the things... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 05:45:56 PM EST
    we call "offenses", sleeping in the bed ya made is consequence enough.

    You're kind of all over the place in that comment pal...I don't think I blamed anybody for buying a house or anything else, just that those actions have consequences we shouldn't necessarily let the state or the law attempt to "fix".

    I thought we could loosen up quite a bit before we get anywhere near chaos, and create a more individual liberty friendly society.

    We'll keep say half the prisons around for the murderers, rapists, and assorted really sick mofos who give us no choice.  

    But back to the topic at hand, sicking the DEA dogs on Michael Jackson's connect accomplishes what exactly?  Michael Jackson was a grown-arse man who is responsible for what he puts in his body....end of story.  

    Now if you're saying this doc may have murdered MJ, thats a different story...but that should be investigated by LAPD Homicide Div., not the DEA.


    you are probably right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    seems to me a smart defense attorney could make a pretty good case that he was trying to protect him

    maybe (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    I think it would be insane to punish the guy for doing what Jackson clearly wanted and would have gotten someone else, possibly less qualified, to do if he refused.

    anyone who has themselves sedated with a drip to sleep at night has gone so far around the bend that the regular rules no longer apply.


    The difference is... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:28:31 PM EST
    a trained doctor knows -- or should know -- when a dose of a certain drug could be fatal. Especially if the person he's treating is known to be in a compromised physical state, whether because of exhaustion or because of long-term continued use of other drugs. In which case, the doc might be culpable if death is the result of him providing the dose.

    "But Michael wanted it" doesn't sound like a very compelling defense to me.


    it sounds like something (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    that might be made to stick.  just doesnt seem fair to me.

    Its the only defense... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    a drug dealer needs...this guy might have an MD after his name, but he was working for Michael in a drug dealer capacity.  And like any other dope dealer, I don't want or need him punished for the heinous crime of providing a service to willing customers.

    "First Do No Harm" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:57:48 PM EST
    Doesn't it seem the guy would have lost his license to practice medicine if he had been caught before Michael died? Without a license, it would be manslaughter, wouldn't it? He was more than dealer, he chose the dosage, and he administered the drug.

    Im sure all that is true (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    still, just doesnt seem fair to me to punish the guy for following orders that would have been given to someone else if he had refused.
    but I am pretty sure he will be punished.

    Isn't the idea of having medical degrees (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    take so many years of study and equal numbers of years in practice in place because the MD is the one who makes the call on correct and safe medical decisions? They are not dispensaries. We go to them for their expert analysis and advice on medical issues.

    Michael just wanted to be forced to sleep through chemicals. Yet, I've heard over and over that the drug he was given doesn't induce sleep...it just knocks one out of consciousness.

    I think the guy needs to lose his license to practice medicine. Beyond that, I don't know enough about his actions.


    Doctors shouldn't be... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 05:33:49 PM EST
    dispensaries, I agree wholeheartedly...but thats exactly what the law has turned them into Inspector.

    I think we should go see one person to find out what is wrong with our health and another person to buy drugs legally.  No permission slip required for either activity.

    We could alleviate conflict of interest concerns to boot if we let doctors out of the permission slip business and let 'em just recommend.  In this system you've got pharma sales reps makin' the hard sell to docs to perscribe their sh*t...they should be selling the consumers if anybody, that's who is taking the stuff.


    Consumers should be self-medicating? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 05:44:21 PM EST
    And medical professionals should be completely ignored? Really? Hey, why don'twe get rid of medical schools and medical professionals altogether? It would just be so much easier! Less costly!

    For which diseases should consumers be buying drugs directly off the street? Cancer? Diabetes? Anemia? Thyroid conditions? Heart disease?

    Like I really trust a street dealer and a "consumer" who wants to bypass the doctor to know a frigging thing about how to self-medicate for serious disease.

    Sometimes you really do hang yourself with your own words.


    Where did I say that? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    "medical professionals should be completely ignored"...ummm, no...I highly recommend seeing a doctor if you don't know what is wrong with you.

    I also recommend seeing a distributor of drugs if you know what drug you want or need.

    Pretty simple really...or do you still need to self-medicate with Ginko B.?...:)


    Add... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:02:26 PM EST
    this consumer self-medicates everyday...so far so good.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:05:02 PM EST
    Use and abuse are miles apart, no matter what is used. The fact that some abuse should not set the standard for the rest of us.

    Amen bro... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    too bad there is no distinction between "use" and "abuse" in the new drug czar's, or his boss', vocabulary.  No sign of "sanity" either:)

    kdog trusts the consumer (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:37:35 PM EST
    I wouldn't.  People are ignorant and gullible.  They get their information from the most unreliable sources - friends, relatives and neighbors, advertising and television.

    Some people do research and double check what they hear.  Some don't.  A lot don't.  


    People are ignorant and gullible... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    sorry you feel that way about our species Fabian...I mean some are, for sure, but I don't think that justifies depriving them their liberty...I believe in the inalienable right to be ignorant and gullible as long as the only person your ignorance and gullibility hurts is yourself.

    If people weren't greedy (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:03:05 AM EST
    I might feel better about it.

    People will do and say anything to make a buck and that means they will lie right to your face and sell you something that can hurt or even kill you.  People have a lot of reasons to believe lies, especially ones that make them feel better about themselves and their choices, especially when the truth hurts.


    Catering to gullibility... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    isn't gonna teach people not to be so gullible.

    I mean if people can't figure out that salesmen have an agenda, should we be following them around wiping their tush for them too?


    With drugs (none / 0) (#61)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    One mistake could kill you.

    The only reason the salesman would care is the loss of future profits.  


    One mistake... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    crossing the street can kill you too, we don't all have government assigned crossing guards.

    I gotta tell ya, I'm not thrilled about sacrificing essential liberty for people who can't be bothered to make a minimal effort to preserve their own existence.


    "Following orders"? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    Wow. Who knew The Nuremburg Defense could be used in a case like this?

    fine (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    can we at least admit that Jacksons death was Jacksons fault.
    whoever administered the drugs?

    I dunno. I guess we'll find out (none / 0) (#38)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:26:23 PM EST
    if the law really works that way.

    this poor schlep of a doctor (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    will likely be the sacrifice made of the alter of all that we as society have lost in the death of MJ.
    we need a scapegoat and he will be it.

    I think thats sad.


    There will always be risk (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:27:45 PM EST
    in almost any medical treatment.  The drug is not scheduled.  I'd really rather that this was between a doctor and a patient.  Not every person responds the same way to any drug.  Our son has a very rare gene mutation that makes many of his treatments much different than any of ours.  People with ADHD fall asleep on amphetamines. If this drug was deemed more harmful than beneficial we wouldn't be so readily using it.

    Not really "harmful" (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    just fatal.

    If that makes you feel any better.

    Propofol dosages must be accurate.  It's not a drug you can be sloppy or careless with, not for long.

    The drug schedules are irrational.  Honestly!  The likely reason propofol is not restricted is that it is not considered readily addictive.  (The average person won't even remember the experience.  Less than a minute and you are completely out.)  It doesn't make it any less risky.


    We have no evidence that (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    Propofol overdose killed Jackson do we?

    Nope. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:57:09 AM EST
    It's killed others, though.

    True, most of those were self administering (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:44:57 AM EST
    Was Jackson self administering?

    We don't know. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    It's the difference between suicide and manslaughter, I suppose.  I should probably put "accidental death" in there since suicide implies intent.  Negligent accidental death?

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    This drug can interact with other drugs though and Jackson is responsible for what ever other drugs he was self administering.  From what I've heard this looks like it POSSIBLY could be about such an interaction.  I'm still not going after this physician for this.

    If you look it up on wiki (none / 0) (#67)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    (and can understand the technical details)  it's clear that there is a potential for drug interaction.

    The one thing people often don't understand is that the experts on drug interactions are pharmacists, and not physicians.  Exactly how drugs work, how they are absorbed, excreted and potential interactions with other drugs is detailed and complex.  


    What a world you live in. (none / 0) (#37)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what Jackson kept (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:47:15 PM EST
     Murray around for, or how much he paid him; Murray still had legal and ethical obligations he could not be paid off to ignore.  And there are consequences if he is found to be in violation of them.

    I think you have a soft spot in your heart for anyone who uses and/or sells mind/mood-altering drugs, believing that those who use and those who dispense should be left alone to carry out their respective parts of their relationship, free from oversight and/or accountability.  While those kinds of drugs may have been part of the Jackson scenario, it isn't just about the drugs, per se, but about ethical violations in matters related to patient care and treatment.  

    Doctors are licensed to practice, which comes with a set of rules and regulations and reporting requirements; these were not set up to interfere in the free market of drug use and sales, but to protect the health and lives of patients in their care.  You simply cannot say that doctors must observe standards of care for everything but matters governing the fun drugs, as much as you might like that to be the case.

    I want an ethical doctor, just as I want an ethical lawyer; I want someone who holds him- or herself to a standard that rises above money and celebrity - I know it doesn't sound like as much fun, but I tend to think professionals with standards provide better services than those who don't.


    What doctor would do this for anyone who didn't have enormous fame and money?

    Is John Yoo an MD? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:32:09 PM EST
    just sayin....

    Just sayin....what? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    you totally lost me on your thought. I think I might have an idea, but hesitate to assume.

    Can you expand on it? :)


    expand (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    there is always a portion of any profession that will view the rules in a very different manner.  When John Yoo is indicted perhaps then it might be apropos for the doc to be called out.  As it stands i think we would both agree that John Yoo's actions were far more reprhensible than this Doc's actions.  Or maybe we don't agree. Either way I don't think the doc should be persecuted and prosecuted, and I am at a loss with the Yoo situation....

    Got it....thanks, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    that was very much the direction I thought you were looking. I agree.

    Ya don't need enormous fame and money... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    well maybe ya do if you imbibe at the rate it is rumored Jackson imbibed at...my goodness.

    If you just want a script here and there, there are friendly docs who will do it for their regular rate, provided you have a quasi-believable story.


    right (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    or if you are lucky enough to have one in the family.

    i recommend this excellent book co authored by a friend of mine.

    it was the source material for the Cronenberg movie
    Dead Ringers

    its about two doctors who like drugs.  and each other.


    Great movie (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:39:01 PM EST
    Jeremy Irons was insanely good.

    I'll look up the book.

    Way OT, but Jeremy Irons does the recorded audio tour for Westminster Abbey. Best audio ever. I'd go over there again just to hear him say 'Longshanks'.


    it was a good movie (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    but I am prejudiced because I love the book.  I also love Cronenberg so I was irked when he removed the whole gay/narcissism angle from the story.

    I was thinking to myself (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:44:08 PM EST
    that maybe I didn't remember the gay angle in the movie. I think the narcissism came through though, from what I remember. Haven't seen it since it was new.

    But he kept the part (none / 0) (#40)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:31:39 PM EST
    about what kind of mother gives both of her sons "girls" names.

    what were their names (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    I dont remember.  I read the book and saw the movie years ago.

    Well, one was "Beverly"... (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    And the other, I got wrong (none / 0) (#44)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:59:06 PM EST
    I thought it was "Evelyn", but I just googled and turns out it was "Elliot".

    Where's my Ginko B. when I need it?


    Deepak Chopra said as much (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    on Larry King one night that week MJ died. He said there was more than one doctor friend that hung around and provided drugs, using his scrip pad to get access to the rich and famous. The other guest MJ friend, the Brando son, got mad at him for speaking up.

    If that is against the law, it seems like it would be fairly easy to find others doing the same thing for other stars. Interesting to see if this starts a search for others.


    Doctors are people too. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    I'm sure they get starstruck like the rest of us.  It would be a truly stupid way to end a medical career, but we've seen worse mistakes.  

    Did they FIND anything? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    There's no data.

    MDs have a lot of power.  They have access to some very powerful drugs.  The irony of propofol is that although it is a very dangerous drug, it is an unrestricted drug.  Unlike more restricted drugs, it would be easy to write as many prescriptions as you like without risking an audit by a regulatory agency.

    It's not available by prescription (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    from what I understand.  It's supplied only to physicians, hospitals and clinics, largely for outpatient procedures like colonoscopies and the like, is how I've heard it described by physicians.  Pharmacies don't carry it.

    It would have to be requested by and supplied directly to the physician, not the patient.  I believe this is likely the documentation the police are looking for with Murray.  Sounds like the didn't find that documentation in Murray's office and are hoping to find it in his home.

    If Murray had kept that kind of documentation after all that's happened, he's beyond foolish.  I don't think he's that foolish.


    Isn't used (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    for anesthesia?

    Yes, it is used for (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    anesthesia.  That's its only use.  Not sure what you're asking.

    Its virtue is that it puts a person out nearly instantly and they wake up nearly instantly the moment it's stopped.  So it's ideal for use in those relatively short outpatient procedures.


    Murray (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    also was not registered with the DEA in California (although he was in Texas and Nevada), so if he was supplying any controlled drugs to Jackson, he was doing so illegally.

    If a drug isn't even scheduled is it (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:50:50 PM EST

    I think the DEA (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:49:56 PM EST
    only deals with scheduled drugs.

    Propofol is not listed on the DEA website.


    Insurance Co (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:30:05 AM EST
    I am sure that AEG and their insurer is very involved with determining the cause of Jackson's death. The difference between Jackson ODing or being murdered or dying a natural death, amounts to 21 million or so dollars for AEG to cover costs of cancelled shows.