Theories : What do you think happened based on testimony

[Autumn II]

So is Chernoff and Murray going to try and blame Dr Adams for killing MJ? Dr Adams had nothing to do with Murray's insane decision to give MJ propofol at his house. And Murray is lying when he says he did not sign up for this.. The man was buying tons of propofol in March according to the pharmacist so what does he mean he didn't sign up for it?

No. They are not going to try to blame Adams. They are going to try to blame MICHAEL, by saying that he was shopping around for someone, ANYONE, to give him propofol.

Did he not think the pharmacist would be testifying?

His attorneys must be sorry they ever took this case? Murray doesn't seem to be "thinking," much at all. No idea how he ever got through medical school! The pharmacist blows the story that Murray "did not sign up for this and was trying to get him off that stuff."

Did he not think the authorities would find out that he was having the propofol sent to his girlfriend's house? what does he mean he did not sign up for this and he was trying to get him off that stuff?

He's an idiot? The defense is going to try to paint Murray as the victim, that he was hired and THEN Michael DEMANDED that he give him propofol. But yet he was buying propofol in MARCH? Well, oops?

 

[StacyJ]

No. They are not going to try to blame Adams. They are going to try to blame MICHAEL, by saying that he was shopping around for someone, ANYONE, to give him propofol.



His attorneys must be sorry they ever took this case? Murray doesn't seem to be "thinking," much at all. No idea how he ever got through medical school! The pharmacist blows the story that Murray "did not sign up for this and was trying to get him off that stuff."



He's an idiot? The defense is going to try to paint Murray as the victim, that he was hired and THEN Michael DEMANDED that he give him propofol. But yet he was buying propofol in MARCH? Well, oops?

Exactly! that theory is blown away. In the beginning Murray's team was saying how Dr Murray had no idea what he was getting himself in to. If Dr Murray felt that he was going to be doing something that he did not want to do or he felt was harmful to MJ he should've easily declined and then went to AEG or the medical board and said that MJ was seeking a dangerous way to sleep and he was concerned. That would've nipped everything in the bud and Mike would be alive today. That is all Murray had to do

 

[Soundmind]

So is Chernoff and Murray going to try and blame Dr Adams for killing MJ? Dr Adams had nothing to do with Murray's insane decision to give MJ propofol at his house. And Murray is lying when he says he did not sign up for this.. The man was buying tons of propofol in March according to the pharmacist so what does he mean he didn't sign up for it?

no, the sole purpose of his interview with investigators was to "explain" things he knew sooner than later would be discovered about him, when I say "explain" I mean Murray's attempt to shift the blame from himself to everyone else.

For example, Chernoff said Murray was not aware what MJ expected from him when he accepted the job, he said that on TV and even asked Martinez about it. But Murray did visit Adams as early as March of that year with MJ, that meeting was before he was hired ( officially) and it's fair to say it was about propofol. Murray probably said things during that meeting that would come back to hunt him during the trial , add to that he bought 10 single dose propofol vials on April 6th.

He said "Adams gave MJ propofol in my presence somewhere between March or April".

In Murray's minds :" if Adams claimed he declined our offer to join the team and if he said I was willing to do it, don't believe him, cus I saw him myself sedating mj using propofol in my clinic at some point either in April or March."

So it became he said/ she said situation. Murray tried to do some damage control to counter whatever testimony coming from Adams plus he believed it was a plausible explanation for the 10 single dose vials he bought as early as the first week of April.

"That propofol was not used by me, it was used by Adams in April, during that meeting in my office"

Adams' account of events is totally different .MJ and Murray met him in Adams' office, no propofol was given, and Murray had never witnesses Adams administering propofol to anyone.

So he was not trying to blame Adams for MJ's death, he's trying to raise doubt over what he know would be a very incriminating testimony from Adams, and also blame Adams for the propofol vials he bought on the 6th of April, so he could continue to claim, he refused to accept the job and declined to give propofol until MJ pressured him and "convinced" him to join the team

where all that theory came from? Murray's own statement to the police, Chernoff's big mouth, Chernoff's questioning of Martineze and Adams confirmation of the March-meeting .

Chernoff said" Mr.Martineze, did not Dr.Murray told you he declined the job but he was so concerned about Jackson's health and him taking propofol ,he was so worried until Jackson CONVINCED him" which according to them was in May.

Did he not think the authorities would find out that he was having the propofol sent to his girlfriend's house? what does he mean he did not sign up for this and he was trying to get him off that stuff?

of course he knew they would discover all that, that's why that script he read to invetigators was so essential to his defence. Now as for "he was trying to wean him off that stuff " this needs a long explanation.

that's something he also made up to explain something bad he was doing and instead of admitting his real motives for what he was doing , he claimed " out of concern I was doing that" a liar, a monster and a manipulator from DAY ONE that what I hope the prosecution will prove to the jurors.

Read carefuly every statement he gave , keep in mind he's lying, and see what others said about the events he talked about , you would figure out what was the real motivation for every lie in that interview.

 

[StacyJ]

so out of concern he decided to start mixing dangerous sedatives that are highly addictive? that doesn't make a bit of sense.

 

[xthunderx2]

so out of concern he decided to start mixing dangerous sedatives that are highly addictive? that doesn't make a bit of sense.

I agree with you here. Unfortunately...the defense will use any means necessary to turn Murray into the victim...and Michael into the guilty one.

 

[StacyJ]

I agree with you here. Unfortunately...the defense will use any means necessary to turn Murray into the victim...and Michael into the guilty one.

it won't work.. The fact that Murray bought 255 vials of propofol is the nail in his coffin. He knew exactly what he was doing

 

[Soundmind]

so out of concern he decided to start mixing dangerous sedatives that are highly addictive? that doesn't make a bit of sense

That's his explanation or should I say excuse for the "lethal combination" he created and he knew it caused MJ's death.

When the hair toxicology is published we would be able to comment further on the subject, my believe lorazepam was the drug Murray was using to maintain sedation since day one and MJ was not even aware, not out of concern he chose and used lorazepam ,I see it as evidence of Murray's awareness he was not able to do what he convinced MJ he would do if he offered him the job. I see it as an evidence of fraud, of manipulation, of greed, he was charging him $ 150.000 for a job he had never any intention to do in the first place.

Murray did what was in Murray's best interest since day one, Murray's choices and his 'creative' treatment was what killed MJ.

the expert said the propofol dose was not enough to kill MJ by itself, the " very high" lorazepm dose was not lethal, according to the expert what killed MJ was the lethal combination of lorazepam and propofol, a "lethal combination" Murray chose and Murray administered.

 

[StacyJ]

That's his explanation or should I say excuse for the "lethal combination" he created and he knew it caused MJ's death.

When the hair toxicology is published we would be able to comment further on the subject, my believe lorazepam was the drug Murray was using to maintain sedation since day one and MJ was not even aware, not out of concern he chose and used lorazepam ,I see it as evidence of Murray's awareness he was not able to do what he convinced MJ he would do if he offered him the job. I see it as an evidence of fraud, of manipulation, of greed, he was charging him $ 150.000 for a job he had never any intention to do in the first place.

Murray did what was in Murray's best interest since day one, Murray's choices and his 'creative' treatment was what killed MJ.

the expert said the propofol dose was not enough to kill MJ by itself, the " very high" lorazepm dose was not lethal, according to the expert what killed MJ was the lethal combination of lorazepam and propofol, a "lethal combination" Murray chose and Murray administered.

I hope you're right.. I hope the prosecution has much more to prove what Murray's intentions were.

 

[Petrarose]

I hope you're right.. I hope the prosecution has much more to prove what Murray's intentions were.

I think they do Stacy. I think at the opening of the trial when they say what they hope to prove, they will have the evidence to back it up. They already know what the defense strategy will be based on the media stories and the defense's questions at the hearing. Further, the prosecution knows the dirty tricks the defense will use, because they are all lawyers. However, what I do not expect the prosecution to do is show extra evidence that would suggest that other parties are involved. They will focus on Murray and evidence to get a quick conviction and that is all. Just what I think, though.

 

[Autumn II]

no, the sole purpose of his interview with investigators was to "explain" things he knew sooner than later would be discovered about him, when I say "explain" I mean Murray's attempt to shift the blame from himself to everyone else.

Right. That would be expected from Murray.

For example, Chernoff said Murray was not aware what MJ expected from him when he accepted the job, he said that on TV and even asked Martinez about it. But Murray did visit Adams as early as March of that year with MJ, that meeting was before he was hired ( officially) and it's fair to say it was about propofol. Murray probably said things during that meeting that would come back to hunt him during the trial , add to that he bought 10 single dose propofol vials on April 6th.

Bolded sentence isn't making sense to me. Can you clarify? Did Chernoff say this in court? I.e. transcript? WHO asked Martinez, about WHAT? Chernoff asked Martinez what his client had been saying??? But he was there, right? With the client? Or there were notes?

Adams hasn't testified? But he will, at the trial? Is that how your thinking is going?

He said "Adams gave MJ propofol in my presence somewhere between March or April".

Murray said that? Is that in Martinez' testimony?

In Murray's minds :" if Adams claimed he declined our offer to join the team and if he said I was willing to do it, don't believe him, cus I saw him myself sedating mj using propofol in my clinic at some point either in April or March."

OK, so Murray anticipated damaging testimony from Adams that did not happen?

So it became he said/ she said situation. Murray tried to do some damage control to counter whatever testimony coming from Adams plus he believed it was a plausible explanation for the 10 single dose vials he bought as early as the first week of April.

But, as it turns out Adams was a non-issue at the prelim.

"That propofol was not used by me, it was used by Adams in April, during that meeting in my office"

See, the thing is, this doesn't seem to be any sort of defense that's being used so far. Expected at the trial, though, in that "Michael bullied Murray into giving propofol," and Adams could be some sort of "proof" of that?

Adams' account of events is totally different .MJ and Murray met him in Adams' office, no propofol was given, and Murray had never witnesses Adams administering propofol to anyone.

But, where IS "Adams' account of events?" Is there a link?

So he was not trying to blame Adams for MJ's death, he's trying to raise doubt over what he know would be a very incriminating testimony from Adams, and also blame Adams for the propofol vials he bought on the 6th of April, so he could continue to claim, he refused to accept the job and declined to give propofol until MJ pressured him and "convinced" him to join the team

So this is expected at the trial? Because testimony about Adams was abruptly cut off in the prelim and that line of questioning was not allowed.

where all that theory came from? Murray's own statement to the police, Chernoff's big mouth, Chernoff's questioning of Martineze and Adams confirmation of the March-meeting .

But WHERE did "Adams confirmation" COME from? Is there a text of Martinez' questioning of Adams, online somewhere? Give link, for context?

Chernoff said" Mr.Martineze, did not Dr.Murray told you he declined the job but he was so concerned about Jackson's health and him taking propofol ,he was so worried until Jackson CONVINCED him" which according to them was in May.

And THAT is the defense we can expect at the trial? "The innocent Murray bullied by Michael defense?" Good luck to Murray, then (not)

 

[StacyJ]

Everyone knows MJ was as thin as a rail. There is no way in hell he bullied 6'5 225 lb Conrad Murray into doing anything.

 

[Petrarose]

Right. That would be expected from Murray.



Bolded sentence isn't making sense to me. Can you clarify? Did Chernoff say this in court? I.e. transcript? WHO asked Martinez, about WHAT? Chernoff asked Martinez what his client had been saying??? But he was there, right? With the client? Or there were notes?

Adams hasn't testified? But he will, at the trial? Is that how your thinking is going?



Murray said that? Is that in Martinez' testimony?



OK, so Murray anticipated damaging testimony from Adams that did not happen?



But, as it turns out Adams was a non-issue at the prelim.



See, the thing is, this doesn't seem to be any sort of defense that's being used so far. Expected at the trial, though, in that "Michael bullied Murray into giving propofol," and Adams could be some sort of "proof" of that?



But, where IS "Adams' account of events?" Is there a link?



So this is expected at the trial? Because testimony about Adams was abruptly cut off in the prelim.



But WHERE did "Adams confirmation" COME from? Is there a text of Martinez' questioning of Adams, online somewhere? Give link, for context?



And THAT is the defense we can expect at the trial? The innocent Murray bullied by Michael defense? Good luck to Murray, then (not)

Yes. I see them asking the Pros witnesses questions such as did you touch anything in the room, would the evidence in his stomach be the same if he drank-----, could he have injected himself, etc. However, I strongly feel the Pros knows the defense's strategy and knows how to counteract it.

 

[Autumn II]

[/B]
Yes. I see them asking the Pros witnesses questions such as did you touch anything in the room, would the evidence in his stomach be the same if he drank-----, could he have injected himself, etc. However, I strongly feel the Pros knows the defense's strategy and knows how to counteract it.

I think you're probably right. (I'm just trying to find out where all that material is coming from, so I can evaluate and put it into context.) I think it's pretty clear that the defense is going to try a tactic where Murray was somehow duped -- but I doubt that will go over well in court.

Sure, the defense is going to try everything and anything. I just can't see that there is much of a defense? Even if Chernoff tries to convince a jury that Michael was "doctor shopping," or bullying," and that poor Murray was financially vulnerable, and so on -- at the end of the day, Murray had a RESPONSIBILITY to Michael. Instead of caring for him, he caused his death.

 

[Soundmind]

Bolded sentence isn't making sense to me. Can you clarify? Did Chernoff say this in court? I.e. transcript? WHO asked Martinez, about WHAT? Chernoff asked Martinez what his client had been saying??? But he was there, right? With the client? Or there were notes?

<FONT color=black><FONT face=Calibri><FONT size=3>&#8220;Chernoff: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

<o></o>

&#8220;Dr. M said, he did not sign up for this. Isn&#8217;t that what Dr. M told you.<o></o>
<o></o>
I&#8217;m just answering the question.s Well, now you&#8217;re answering mine. (EC)<o></o>
<o></o>
You do recall Dr. M was worried aobut MJ use of this propofol. yes.<o></o>
And you do recall Dr. M saying he needed to find a way to get him off of this. ? Yes.<o></o>
<o></o>
he said that he first started to give MJ propofol, becuase he was worried about this tour and he could sleep and that MJ convinced Dr. M to give him this propofol.<o></o>
<o></o>
I don&#8217;t remember the word convinced&#8221; <o></o>

<o></o>

see again he is presenting Murray's script to the judge, he was offered but he declined and Adams was the one doing it in March and April. Very obvious from the line of questioning.

Adams hasn't testified? But he will, at the trial? Is that how your thinking is going?

Of course he will testify, a very incriminating witness against Murray, he is the one who will prove that Murray was aware of propofol since day one, and he bought the single dose vials in April to administer to MJ himself .

Murray said that? Is that in Martinez' testimony?

it is in the search warrant, Murray talked about a meeting he arranged in March or April where MJ was given propofol by Dr.Adams and he witnessed everything . In the search warrant

Now see what the prosecution said "

<o></o>

Martinze,<o></o>
Prosecution:<o></o>
Mr. chernoff asked about this incident in March 2009, relayed about Dr. Mark burg via Dr. Adams, supposedly MJ was given propofol,<o></o>
<o></o>
In whos office was MJ was given propofol? Dr. Murray&#8217;s.<o></o>
<o></o>
And that&#8217;s because in his office he had a crash cart. and oxygen there at his office? (Other iem.. puls oxyometer? ) at the office? Yes.&#8221;<o></o>

<o></o>

Murray told them Adams gave him propofol in HIS (Murray's) office, how convenient , why would Adams do that? Adams lawyer said Murray and MJ came to his own office in March and he only gave propofol on three different occasions in 2008 for serious dental procedures.

So from the above Adams is essential to the prosecution to prove Murray was lying about everything.

OK, so Murray anticipated damaging testimony from Adams that did not happen?

My personal feelings? no doubt that's what was on his mind when he twisted everything that happened in that meeting to suit his defence startegy of blaming the victim

But, as it turns out Adams was a non-issue at the prelim.

when the defence raise the argument that MJ was asking for it, and Murray declined first to give it and he was pressured eventually and out of concern he accepted the job only in may and gave lorazepam to wean him off and those single dose vials were used by Adams not him in March or April....etc , Adams will be a great issue for the prosecution, he will destroy that theory completely.

See, the thing is, this doesn't seem to be any sort of defense that's being used so far. Expected at the trial, though, in that "Michael bullied Murray into giving propofol," and Adams could be some sort of "proof" of that?

who told you it was not already used? he said propofol was given in his own office in March or April, but it was Adams who gave it not him , Adams said he never went to Murray's office, MJ and Murray visited him in his office in March and no propofol was administered to MJ by him in 2009. Adams would be a PROSECUTION' proof not a defence proof, his testimony would be a very incriminating one if indeed propofol was the subject of the meeting.

But, where IS "Adams' account of events?" Is there a link?

&#8220;If Dr. Murray actually said that, he was lying"
In a search warrant affidavit, Murray claims between March and April, he arranged for Adams to treat Jackson with Propofol, and was there to witness the procedure. <o></o>
"My client wasn't in California in June, May, April, or even March," Agwara said. &#8220;Murray called him and asked for a meeting." <o></o>
The attorney would not go into detail about what happened at that meeting in March or even where it was at, but he said that was the one and only time the two doctors have met. <o></o>
"Why Dr. Murray has chosen to drag my client's name into this, we don't know," Agwara said. <o></o>
Agwara admitted Adams had given Jackson Propofol before -- on three or four occasions in 2008 -- all for dental procedures.

So this is expected at the trial? Because testimony about Adams was abruptly cut off in the prelim and that line of questioning was not allowed.

it will destroy the defence theory and open the door for the prosecution to say MJ always considered hiring a trained person to maintain sleep and it was Murray's greed what led him to convince Jackon to trust him with his life like that.

But WHERE did "Adams confirmation" COME from? Is there a text of Martinez' questioning of Adams, online somewhere? Give link, for context?

see above.

And THAT is the defense we can expect at the trial? "The innocent Murray bullied by Michael defense?" Good luck to Murray, then (not

that's ESSENTIAL to their defence, and Adams meeting in March plus proving those single dose vials bought in the first week of April were used by no one but Murray is ESSENTIAL to the prosecution to systematically destroy the defence's strategy to blame MJ.

 

[Autumn II]

OK, then. That helps, for clarity.

 

[Billie_Jean09]

What happened to Michael matters SO much to us. So many thoughts going through our heads.
:doh:
He is at peace now but we will NEVER give up our fight for justice. :wub:
What next? This is so hard.And It Doesn't Seem Right
'Cause The Will Has Brought
No Fortune
Still I Cry Alone At Night

 

[StacyJ]

SoundMind,

how will Murray explain the 225 vials he ordered from April to June then? He sure as hell wasn't attempting to wean someone off with that many vials

 

[Soundmind]

SoundMind,

how will Murray explain the 225 vials he ordered from April to June then? He sure as hell wasn't attempting to wean someone off with that many vials

First, out of the 225 vials, 125 were 1000mg vials, those vials ALONE, would have been more than enough to sedate MJ for 24/7 , for 14 days. in other words 325 hour worth of continuous NONSTOP sedation.

Do you even believe anything remotely close to that took place?

not to mention the time the smaller vials and the 44 benzos vials would have lasted.

Second, under the circumstances Murray was giving propofol; no infusion pump , no monitoring equipment , NOTHING, how could anyone believe MJ was being sedated and SURVIVED one day of being infused with propofol for 8 hours of sleep?

MJ was lucky ( since when!!!) okaaaaay . he survived the first night, the SECOND NIGHT? the THIRD NIGHT? REALLY?!!!!!
I'm waiting the hair toxicology, it will be essential to prove what Murray's intentions were from the very beginning.

My theory, I repeated it many times, he bought those single dose vials to convince MJ he could do it, but once he achieved what he had been working for since March, which was to be hired to give propofol , he used lorazepam and all those vials were means to charge MJ more for the 'tremendous efforts 'Murray was expected to deliver in administering those amounts , and to go even further with the game he was playing.

Hair toxicology would prove or disprove the above, but be sure no way in hell MJ received even quarter the amount Murray bought and survived that long under those circumstances.

 

[Autumn II]

Murray told them Adams gave him propofol in HIS (Murray's) office, how convenient , why would Adams do that? Adams lawyer said Murray and MJ came to his own office in March and he only gave propofol on three different occasions in 2008 for serious dental procedures.

So from the above Adams is essential to the prosecution to prove Murray was lying about everything.

I can't imagine that the prosecution will have any problem at all proving that Murray was lying. There are plenty examples of that, without having to throw Michael UNDER THE BUS!

when the defence raise the argument that MJ was asking for it, and Murray declined first to give it and he was pressured eventually and out of concern he accepted the job only in may and gave lorazepam to wean him off and those single dose vials were used by Adams not him in March or April....etc , Adams will be a great issue for the prosecution, he will destroy that theory completely.

Disagree. There are plenty of other examples of Murray's outrageous behavior to have to resort to destroying Michael's character. I hope this does not HAPPEN! So far, the judge has not allowed this tactic. I hope the trend continues at the trial.



Lorazepam is physically addictive. That, in itself, if true, is insane, if Murray tried to "wean" Michael from a non-addictive medication to one that is addictive!

Adams would be a PROSECUTION' proof not a defence proof, his testimony would be a very incriminating one if indeed propofol was the subject of the meeting.

Don't think so. Adams, if he is called to testify at all, could be for the defense tactic of "victim" Murray, giving in to "Michael's demands." I think negligence will be easy to prove, without having to resort to such tactics.



I really do hope we can stop talking about Adams now? He didn't even testify in the prelim . . . . .

 

[Soundmind]

well, at some point it will come out that propofol was MJ's idea, whether some here like to accept that fact or not, their believe that such admission equals throwing MJ under the bus will be irrelevant to the prosecution's case.

The prosecution's are seeking to find what truly happened, not to do the same mistakes Sneddon did in 2005 . Shift time-lines and name co conspirators ( Lee, Tohme, Metzeger...etc) to shove a fictional theory down everyone else throats cus the victim would appear more victimized , and eventually all the defence needs to do point out the inconsistencies in their theory and made them a joke in front of the jurors.

I don't believe the prosecutors will ever LIE and claim Murray came with the idea to give propofol to convict Murray. Their job is to seek the truth, and once they start to base their case on APPARANT lies , everything will be destroyed and Murray will walk.

Adams, Lee and Metzeger would be Defence's witnesses if the prosecutors did commit such mistake. Adams , Lee and Metzeger would be Prosecution's witness if the prosecutors stick to facts and tell the jurors that Murray was fully aware of propofol since day one and they will deliver testimonies from witnesses to prove not only he accepted the job immediately , but he was encouraging Jackson to trust him and abandon all the safety measures Jackson was concerned about.

Adams was talked about in the search warrant, Adams was brought up in the hearing, Adam's lawyer did give a statement confirming he saw MJ and Murray at a very crucial time covered by the investigation. Adams did met investigators .Adams should not be dismissed because his presence refutes many illusions about this case.

Let's dismiss Adams , let's dismiss Lee, Let's dismiss lorazepam.....etc, why?

we want the truth, we want to know what really happened, no one should be dismissed, unless he is ON RECORD lying like Karen Faye and Randy Jackson .

 

[MJFan07]

I will try to deduce some theories based on what we know so far:

1) Murray was administering a very powerful drug without proper training, proper monitoring equipment and proper resuscitation equipment (this in and of itself warrants an involuntary manslaughter charge)
2) He was being promised massive amounts of money to do so
3) He was very adamant about his role and that no one interfere as indicated by Ortega&#8217;s testimony
4) During the day of Michael&#8217;s death he was not properly monitoring his patient as can be gleaned from the phone records
5) After discovering Michael was not breathing he partook in actions that hindered resuscitation

Based on the above, I see a few possibilities:
1) Michael was desperate to sleep and as a result was willing to pay Murray large sums of money although not properly trained. Murray then messed up and tried to cover his tracks. While possible, I don&#8217;t really buy this. I have no reason to believe that Michael would be so reckless as to go under complete anesthesia night after night with only an untrained doctor by his side and without proper medical equipment. My impression has always been that MJ was very knowledgeable about medicine and while he was desperate to sleep I think there&#8217;s more to the story than just that.
2) Michael was paying Murray large sums of money for confidentially, to be at his call 24/7 and to leave his practice and other patients for an extended period of time. Murray was to help him sleep, stay hydrated, healthy, etc. This would make sense as to why he would not hire someone that specialized in treating insomnia b/c he needed him for more than just that. Murray, however, due to either internal pressures (perhaps worried that the concerts would be cancelled and he&#8217;d be out of a job) or external pressures (perhaps AEG would ask for his removal if Michael did not show up rested for rehearsals) was taking greater risks with Michael than he should have. And given that Murray was giving him sedatives, it is very possible that Michael was not even aware of the extent of drugs Murray was giving him. If I was heavily sedated I probably wouldn&#8217;t be fully aware of what the doctor was doing. Murray then messed up and tried to cover his tracks. I don&#8217;t really buy the he lost his temper theory. Had Michael fired him he would have asked him to leave and not allowed Murray to treat him that night. Had AEG fired him then I don&#8217;t really see why he would have taken it out on Michael. If anything Michael would be the one person that could try to get him rehired. I think the temper story only makes sense if he heard from someone else that MJ was going to fire him shortly. I can&#8217;t remember all the people he talked with on the phone but I&#8217;m not sure any of them would have such info.
3) This was an intentional hit. Either someone else convinced Michael to hire Murray and Michael agreed for the reasons mentioned in 2) above or someone else convinced Murray to partake after he&#8217;d already been hired. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a doctor (especially one that had good reviews from other patients) would be so incompetent as to, again, administer a very powerful drug without proper training, proper monitoring equipment and proper resuscitation equipment, would refuse to listen to concerns from others about his patient, would pay no attention to his patient that he&#8217;s being highly paid to monitor, and would hinder resuscitation if it wasn&#8217;t intentional. I would think he would have messed up sooner with someone else and had other malpractice suits to deal with if he was this incompetent. The only other explanation for his incompetence, other than intent, that I can think of would be the promise of money. Perhaps he was so focused on that that he didn&#8217;t care how reckless he was being, which really brings me back to theory 2 above. The only thing that doesn&#8217;t make sense to me about theory 2 is why buy all the propofal in advance? That leads more to either theory 1 or 3. Theory 1 for obvious reasons and theory 3 b/c it makes it look like theory 1 is what happened. If this was intentional he would have done everything to make it look like it was not intentional.

I guess to conclude, I think there&#8217;s still a lot we haven&#8217;t heard and I don&#8217;t really know what to make of it all at this point. I&#8217;m not sure we&#8217;ll ever really know.

 

[Autumn II]

Moving right along. . . . Thanks, MJFan07.

 

[cinzia]

So is Chernoff and Murray going to try and blame Dr Adams for killing MJ? Dr Adams had nothing to do with Murray's insane decision to give MJ propofol at his house. And Murray is lying when he says he did not sign up for this.. The man was buying tons of propofol in March according to the pharmacist so what does he mean he didn't sign up for it?

Did he not think the pharmacist would be testifying?

Did he not think the authorities would find out that he was having the propofol sent to his girlfriend's house? what does he mean he did not sign up for this and he was trying to get him off that stuff?

IF murray is saying that Michael was already addicted to Propofol when he was hired, as that seems to be saying, then who was supposed to have been giving it to him, where was it being purchased. Murray was allegedly Michael's doctor for, what, 3 years, I think I have read. So when did he discover this alleged 'addiction'? Is murray saying that Michael was wandering around from doctor to doctor seeking treatments which would justify the use of propofol? If that's the case, why didn't the good doctor do something about this 'problem' sooner? And if he knew about it and ignored it?

3) He was very adamant about his role and that no one interfere as indicated by Ortega’s testimony

This business of murray taking KO to task for sending Michael home...this continues to bother me. Did he feel he had to say this because he felt his role was somehow being threatened or just massive ego?

The line of thinking that murray was pressured by Michael to do something so outrageous, well, I have a problem with that. Murray was/is a cardiologist of over 20 years practice. I haven't seen any evidence that he provided poor care in the past. (Doesn't mean its not there, just haven't found it). I can't believe he could be pressured into performing such substandard medical treatment. I would believe that he could be bribed, if you will, by an extraordinarily high salary. He had huge debts and this would have been an easy way out, not to mention adding to his prestige to be known as physician to the star of TII.

Could he have convinced Michael he could handle this propofol? But if Michael had received it in the past, he would have known what was required, equipment wise. No? And he would have seen there was none of it around.

And the lack of needle marks. If all the puncture marks noted on the autopsy report are indeed as a result of the resuscitation efforts, then how was murray administering all this medication over all this time? I mean, surely wouldn't there be some evidence of old needle marks?

And purchasing so much propofol, why? Is this another example of murray's lack of understanding of the medicine? Or was he stockpiling it for England?

Also don't see how he wouldn't have been going to London with the entourage. IF Michael wanted, needed someone to give propofol, and IF he was happy with murray, why wouldn't he go with them? Unless Michael had someone else lined up in England. Which seems unlikely.

This is all kind of rambling, isn't it? But I'm starting to think that I would love to hear what a psychiatrist would have to say about murray. Perhaps he has such a massive ego, and an inability to set limits (how many children by how many women?) (accrued how much debt?), perhaps he thinks he can bs his way out of things. I don't know.
Michael was SO smart, how could he have been so dumb...

 

[CherubimII]

Why do people who post here insist on giving credibility to
Conrad Murray, and then basing your theories around his words, when he is a known multiple liar out to save his own sorry ass?

 

[StacyJ]

yeah I've never understood that either. Murray is saying he believed MJ was getting addicted to propofol and he was trying wean him off but who else was giving it to him for him to get 'addicted' to it? Murray was the only one feeding his alleged addiction. According to Murray himself he gave MJ anesthesia 6 nights a week for 2 months straight as a sleep aid. Why would Murray continue to feed his patient's addiction? Murray won't find anyone else who will admit to giving MJ anesthesia nightly as a sleep aid except for himself.

He claims he was not going to take the job. I really wish he would've stayed his behind in Texas or Las Vegas with his poor patients

 

[xthunderx2]

Why do people who post here insist on giving credibility to
Conrad Murray, and then basing your theories around his words, when he is a known multiple liar out to save his own sorry ass?

:clapping::clapping::clapping:..Preach Sista Preach!!

 

[CherubimII]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:..Preach Sista Preach!!

From William Shakespeare: Macbeth Act 2: Scene 2

Macbeth does murder sleep', the innocent sleep,
Sleep that knits up the ravell'd sleeve of care,
The death of each day's life, sore labour's bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course,
Chief nourisher in life's feast,--

It is natural for anyone to want to restore oneself with sleep.
There is a lot wrong with being a doctor of bad medicines either deliberately or through negligence.

 

[Autumn II]

Why do people who post here insist on giving credibility to
Conrad Murray, and then basing your theories around his words, when he is a known multiple liar out to save his own sorry ass?

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Yup. I really hope we can move on now from material that comes from CONRAD MURRAY's words! He's a confirmed liar, for sure. There is a lot to talk about in this thread according to court testimony. Let's just DO that, and not continue to trash MICHAEL?

 

[MIST]

I don´t think Michael was sedated for 8 hours.
It seems he used to come home late after rehearsals, often got ideas and called Kenny Ortega 3-4 am.
He could have slept in the mornings but I´ve read about meetings he had with people, eating with his children and I was wondering when the man slept.
Nurse Lee said Michael told her he could only manage to sleep a few hours, I don´t remember if it could have been in March. I think he mentioned he hadn´t slept for 2 nights for fans around him in march or maybe april.

Michael wasn´t a doctor.
Someone told him propofol could help him to sleep and it was safe if you used it in the right way.
Maybe he used it during history tour,maybe not but I think Murray convinced Michael that he would be safe if only a doctor was there looking after him.If something went wrong it was close to the hospital.

 

[cinzia]

1.Thinking about Ortega's testimony, he said he and Michael started talking about TII in April. So why was Murray buying propofol in March already? Also according to KO the schedule was Michael working 6 hrs a day, 4 days a week. So why the need for murray to 'assist' Michael 6 nights a week. KO also says Michael missed a series of rehearsals in June. But when? Could this have any relationship with the way Michael presented on 19 June? Now we don't know the reason for him missing rehearsals but speculating here, could murray have been loading him up with benzos during that time? Just how many rehearsals did Michael miss, anyway? Do we know?

2. According to security, murray's car was already in the driveway when Michael arrived home on that last night. Yet according to the coroner's report: a Det. Smith states that Michael placed a call to murray at 0100 complaining of dehydration and inability to sleep and then murray showed up. Anyone know anything about this? I haven't seen any testimony by this Det. Smith so perhaps it turned out to be an erroneous report after all when it was investigated..

Where does the evidence lead us? Around in circles I feel:tease: since so much of it hinges on 'that man' and his many versions of events depending on who he was talking to. The evidence shows lack of proper monitoring equipment and among other things an empty oxygen cylinder which means what? Maybe he used it up on Michael.
I can't see anything which would convince me that Michael either drank it or injected himself. But it's going to be up to a jury, not me.

( Interestingly, it wasn't until 15 June 2009 that murray officially notified his patients that 'because of a once in a lifetime opportunity, I had to make a most difficult decision to cease practice of medicine indefinitely (boy wasn't that true!)'...'in my absence I will continue to manage the practice as much as possible...from a distance.'
So how could he be 'assisting' Michael for 2 months, 6 nights a week yet he didn't stop his clinic work until 15 June. )