I think you mean energy boost.
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Murray Trial - Day 14 - October 20 - Discussion
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
I think you mean energy boost.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Murray wanted the energy boost. murray maybe reduced the amounts of benzos after the 19th event cause he was worried about been rattled.so thats why mj was ok
rita.gibson
Proud Member
He also comforted the children at the hospital and asked for a councillor for the family. In the LAPD interview he told detective's that a Dr Lee (whom we know to be nurse Lee) was mixing him (MJ) a concoction of something and I told him to stop taking this because you don't know what's in it. Nurse Lee said she made him up some fruit juices with added vitamins for him, but she did this long before 23rd/24th, so he was probably just stealing her thunder, Murray is also a very cautious man according to himself.
do you remember he case / location? I know a murder charge in LA but the driver's licence was suspended due to previous DUI and he was driving drunk, driving fast, ran a red light and fled the scene. so generally a murder charge would have something other than just alcohol
Soundmind;3516345 said:
I only have one huge problem with your post, that is, the lack of backing.
Please post the German study.
Please post the many things in MJ's body that contradict what Shafer said.
About the male nurse, how many injections did he receive? How far apart were they? The fact that you said "average" implies there were several. If a person received several doses in close proximity, and it not have a chance for levels to go down & each dose stacked on the other, then that might explain it. Also MJ had higher concentrations of propofol in him. They said they went with the most "modest" number of the 2.6 in the femoral blood. Were the levels in the male nurse you spoke found in the femoral blood or in the blood of the body? There is a difference in numbers. The fact that you did not post the specific info of this case makes it hard to judge exactly what circumstances made up this nurse's story.
Please when trying to refute what an actual medical professional testified to, post actual content for us to examine. Also we would be wise to not take some info of a incident that really isn't applicable because it is talking about different things, and use it as a basis for dismissing someone's testimony.
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
http://www.drjunge.de/pdf/propofol_03.eng_web.pdf
Read it carefully it refutes the basics of Schafel's testimony
elusive moonwalker
Guests
well i gues it will come down to what and who the jury believes. but considering shaffer said he studied this case for months i doubt he would miss the above and the facts of those cases. hopefully its not as easy/obvious as some think
Autumn II
Proud Member
No, it does not refute the "basics of Shafer's testimony." The bulk of that testimony involved seventeen instances of egregious failures in standard of care.
The study relies heavily on hair-sample analysis, and thus far we have heard no testimony of any analyses of Michael's hair, or if those tests were ever done. The study reveals long-term abuse of propofol, and also concludes that death was caused by too much propofol, too quickly.
What the study lacks, so that we can evaluate carefully, is the name of the journal where published, and the date. That would be helpful information, to evaluate the quality of the study.
Material like this should be taken in a total context. That context includes the seventeen points of egregious lack of standard of care stated and demonstrated by Shafer. But for the sake of argument, suppose that a bolus WAS given? There is no evidence to prove WHO gave it? Murray? Michael? That also does not take into account that one of the egregious omissions in standard of care was the lack of security for medications, i.e. they would be under lock-and-key in a hospital setting. Another egregious failure in standard of care was leaving Michael ALONE, which is called "abandonment."
There seems to be the assumption that IF it can be proven that Michael self-administered, that somehow that proves Murray innocent? It does NOT. It simply highlights abandonment, and failure to provide even a minimally adequate standard of care.
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
very true. its about proving he significantly contributed to mjs death.
cinzia
Proud Member
Why such a desire to poke holes in Dr. S. testimony? Why not wait for the defense to do it? Why?
You are not the only one wondering that.
Ramona122003
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,447
- Points
- 0
Well, that's honestly the only card they have to play. They can't argue that Murray didn't buy, lie, and brought the drugs to Michael house and gave him a infusion for 2 months. They can't really argue that he didn't leave the room, they can't really argue, they try but they suck at it, why he didn't call 911 and instead call everyone else under the sun, and they can't argue that Murray like to MTs and the ER doctors.
Their only defense can be that Michael self-injected, died instantly and therefor it doesn't matter about everything he did wrong after he found Michael since he couldn't be saved in either case.
I tried to find the original but will have to keep looking. I did google it and found that this is rare because it is hard to prove intended malice. However, if a person had been warned of driving drunk (& this was proven) or if he had a prior conviction for DUI, this is easier to prove. Or if investigators for the prosecution could prove intended malice by some other means (I guess that would be the speeding, running a light, etc stuff you talked about).
http://sanmateo.patch.com/articles/...-murder-for-drunk-driving-crash-in-burlingame
http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmj/9706/rm970602.htm
http://www.californiaduihelp.com/felony/murder.php
I will look and post back.
raz2911
Proud Member
Thanks for the updates guys! Couldn't catch the trial yesterday due to the news of Gaddafi's death being all over sky news and I couldn't get on my laptop at the time.
maral
Proud Member
thank you! i've been wondering why people can't understand. addicted or not, injected himself, drank the darn thing or not MURRAY is STILL guilty. let's say my sister is keen to make a suicide. she begs me for a gun. do i give her a GUN and leave the ROOM? hell NO!
Murray has been lying over and over and over. he didn't just give him propofol. and forget about the safety things he failed to provide while giving him access to the drug. MURRAY hide things that could SAVE his life! and he is throwing Michael under the buss!
qbee
Proud Member
Yes even IF Michael self injected Murray is still responsible for his death. Guilty .. he supplied the drugs abandoned MJ left him unantended in a drug induced state knowing he was desperate for sleep - MJ wouldnt be in his right state of mind to make appropriate decisions in this case. The Dr placed him in danger of his life to leave him alone for a second under those conditions.
But I seriously I doubt they will ever be able to prove MJ self injected or orally took these drugs.
But I seriously I doubt they will ever be able to prove MJ self injected or orally took these drugs.
Kingofpop4ever3000
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,533
- Points
- 0
I'm just wondering how they can claim that Michael died instantly when, as far I know, nobody knows what Michael's time of death was? Nothing about this case makes any sense to me.
Last edited:
cinzia
Proud Member
And I've asked this before and I know we'll never know the answer but did murray usually leave Michael alone? Did he go and make phone calls during the previous 80 or so nights? Did he ever leave him alone before or just on this night/morning?
Oh none of this makes any sense and when the trial is over it will still make no sense. The only one who knows is murray and he will never tell what really happened.
Oh none of this makes any sense and when the trial is over it will still make no sense. The only one who knows is murray and he will never tell what really happened.
Ramona122003
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,447
- Points
- 0
Although time of death is important, in some ways it really doesn't matter because of what Murray did to himself. In the interview he gave the polices, he clearly said that Michael was still alive and had a pulse. Now, the defense is backtracking and agreeing with the DA that Michael was long dead by the time Murray walked into the room. The problem being is that they're calling own client a liar. Either he lied in that interview that Michael was still alive and had a pulse reading when he checked to cover his butt or they're lying now about him being long dead and therefore savable if Murray did what he was suppose to do as a doctor.
Now, the defense could play the denial card, but Murray even messed that up. Thinking he felt a pulse, Michael was still warm with the covers on him, and thinking he still had color is one thing. But, he checked the pulse oximeter and gave the police an exact reading. How can you be in denial if your monitor equipment is telling you that your patient is still alive?
We don't know unless the DA checked his phone records from the other days. However, the judge made it clear that he wanted the case to stay as close to June 25 as possible. Also, in the grand scheme of things, it's a moot point. Whether Murray left the room before or not, he was taking a major risk every night because he didn't have the right equipment to be doing what he did. That alone is negligence.
jaydom7
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,244
- Points
- 0
Lord, how did MJ end up with this self-serving and incompetent doctor? Mike should've had the best in the world, the top sleep specialist in the country. How did he end up with Murray? Mike needed folks to vet out people before he hooked up with them.
cinzia
Proud Member
I was mostly being rhetorical with my question...however, I would love to know if murray's behavior that day, this day, was his usual or was it grossly unusual in which case Why?
Of course it doesn't change anything but maybe could give us some sort of a reason for it...I'm struggling to find a rational reason why a cardiologist of 22 years standing with no previous malpractice issues, at least not that I've found on the various states med. boards, would just throw out any pretense of knowing what medical standards are, what medical ethics are, what concern for the well being of his patient should be. Especially as he has the unmitigated gall to call Michael 'my friend'. I understand that money is the obvious reason but even more reason to make sure everything was the best and not cut corners or throw safety out the window.
Autumn II
Proud Member
Yes, and yes. THIS is the underlying premise. The defense so far has implied that Michael self-medicated, with a kind of, "Ah HAH!" attitude. But that is NOT particularly a prosecution problem. The failures of standard of care were SO egregious, that the jury will find it impossible to discount them, I'm pretty sure.
I have been watching the trial live-stream, and trying to avoid the media pundits because they can be so maddening! One "expert" on HLN said, "Experts AGREE that the ONLY way propofol could have gotten into Michael's stomach is because he drank it." But, that is NOT true, and the defense has already dropped that theory. Sadly, that's all most of the public will ever know, thinking that Michael was so outrageous, that he DRANK propofol. I dread the character assassination to come, but what can one do?
In these threads we've been going through the medications and their amounts, the half-lives of each, the location of each, and so on. It reaches the point where that's almost impossible, for most of us. The good thing is, the JURY will no doubt feel the same, and it's not likely that any, or some? are skilled in higher math? What that leaves is the perceived credibility of the expert witnesses. In the case of the prosecution, that's been impeccable. Pretty sure White is being PAID for his testimony to come, and Shafer will come out well in that comparison, in that he is doing this for FREE.