She sure didn't look like a limelight loving person to ME. Her body-language radiated discomfort and fear. She was on quite a few talk-shows in a short space of time, and then utterly disappeared. Will she be called as a witness? Maybe. In terms of the "basic questions," she appeared to have been scripted (and sure, maybe she came up with that herself. Doubt it, though). Anything outside of that script she couldn't really answer and looked like a deer in the headlights.
The POINT is, her "message" is ONLY good for the defense, and not the prosecution. In the court-of-public opinion, her message conveys that "Michael was seeking propofol." In terms of the defense, her statements make it look like Michael was a long-term propofol abuser, and Murray just managed to step in it. . because Michael was SO demanding.
Never underestimate the strategies of attorneys, and PR is a big part of that. (Even Sneddon hired a PR firm, early on.)
I can't think of a single reason why he would ask her. DiD HE? I doubt it, and he's not here to tell us the truth.
I said I wasn't going to get into this again about Lee and I won't. It's clear you have a bias against Lee and that's fine. If something about her makes you mistrust her, I can respect that. We all have hunches about ppl and it's okay to follow your hunch. The problem is when you take your hunches and put forth information and YOUR OWN perceptions as clear-cut facts. Okay, we get it...you don't trust Lee and there is nothing anyone can state, FACTS or otherwise, that will change this.
However, your PERCEPTION of her behavior or words are yours. You can own that, but to insist those perceptions should be accepted by others is a lil much, no? Her body language radiates fear and discomfort to you...and I TOTALLY AGREE with you. I just don't agree with you as to WHY this woman MAY have felt fear or discomfort coming forward when she did. See, alternate perceptions and ideas ARE possible.
You say her words seem scripted...and that's cool, too. Others may not agree and perceive her as genuine. Less experienced with dealing with the media, perhaps, but capable of relaying her observations in a clear manner.
Can you provide an example of a question she appeared like a deer in the headlights about? Again, I wouldn't say it's unusual for someone not use to dealing with media to seem this way. But I'm curious about the questions/instances you felt she was "caught out" somehow.
So do you think the defense will call her? Maybe Murray bought the propofol and had Mike ask around for an anesthesiologist to administer it with Murray only being the 'emergency' doctor. Once an anesthesiologist couldn't be found, Murray took it upon himself to administer it. In my opinion that makes Murray look even worse..
;D Agree!
Not sure if the defense will call her. She looked very unhappy on those talk-show rounds, and maybe she would not be willing to "hold the line" on that? Don't know.
Michael would have no reason to ask around for an anesthesiologist. MURRAY was the doctor, and would have those contacts. As a cardiologist who already did surgery, he would have worked with anesthesiologists, many times. So why didn't he call some of them? I can't imagine that he'd put that task onto Michael.
Not necessarily. And I TOTALLY GET why you are going this route, AutumII, however, trying to separate MJ from the subject of propofol will do more harm than good. That's my opinion, though. We can respectfully disagree.
According to Lee, Michael's questions to her were not to "administer" it, but more along the lines of what it WAS, and fishing to see if she could get it for him? But, if Murray already had it, then there would be no reason for Michael to "fish," or to mention it to Lee, at all!!!! So in that sense, Lee's "story" doesn't hold water, does it? Murray already HAD the propofol when, ALLEGEDLY, Michael was asking Lee about the propofol. Makes no logical sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense when you consider the time period this all allegedly happened. It's like a puzzle. When you empty the box and all the pieces fall out they don't make sense. But once you start spreading them out (facts, recollections/events/photos) you start to get a better idea where some of the pieces go. You may try to put a piece in a slot and it does fit becuz another piece has to be added first. The facts of this case are unfolding just like this for me.
Maybe some of the facts aren't making sense YET is becuz we are putting them in the wrong order right now. Think about it. It's not impossible that Michael inquired AND Murray purchased propofol in the same month. Both CAN be true. It becomes a matter of WHEN they were both done. One could have happened mere weeks apart within the same month.
The only sense that story makes, is to plant the seed with the general public (potential jury-pool) that "Michael had a long history with propofol and somehow 'bullied' Murray into giving it to him." We already know that will be a primary defense strategy, and Lee fed right into that.
See, I don't perceive it that way. My hope is the members of the jury don't see it that way as well. If I can think differently, then it's not impossible that they, too might be able to do so. This isn't something where only ONE explanation/point of view makes sense or conclusion must be drawn....imo.
didnt murray ask an anesthesiologist. who worked with him in texas? another drs name was brought up but i dont know if it was confirmed whether he was an anesthesiologist.or not
imo its one thing begging for dip and another thing asking someone if they know of a anesthesiologist..it shows mj was taking things seriously and goes with what the dr from ireland said. the question is what murray told mj interms of im can do this im trained etc
This is what I mean about different points of view on the same information. Thank you, elusive. Michael clearly took this seriously. Can't stress that enuf. It's up to the prosecution to bring this out should the defense go the doctor shopping route. I've not heard ANYTHING from ANY of the doctors in question that would indicate Michael did NOT take it seriously. The only one who will end up looking like a dumbarse is *wait for it* CONRAD MURRAY. If the pros. do their job right, the jury will have no choice BUT to believe Murray must've lied big time to convince MJ that whatever alternative method being used would be safe...and that he'd be RIGHT THERE BY HIS SIDE in case something went wrong. We know he didn't stay by MJ's side and with his history of lying who wouldn't believe he, the DOCTOR, didn't lie to Michael and give him a false sense of security. He LIED to get propofol. Why would he stop there?
well not really since she didn't do it for him. That proved that the nurse could not be bulllied, but a medical doctor could be?
weak, frail, sedated and 135lb Michael Jackson bullied 6'5 230 lb Conrad Murray? I don't think the jury will buy that at all, just like they shouldn't buy that Murray couldn't lift MJ to the floor for CPR
Thank you. And the bully defense doesn't work, imo. Can't say why I think so cuz I'm certain Murray's lil lurker/helpers stalk fan boards looking for things to exploit. He can only dig the hole deeper by going that route. I wouldn't want to stop him. HA!
I remember that doctor.. I'm not sure what his specialty was but I believe that Murray had asked him to join MJ's medical team and go to London with them. I can't wait to see if he testifies. It will show that Murray knew he should've had an expert in propofol available but since he didn't he risked MJ's life anyway.
Again, THANK YOU! So I'm not the only one with this point of view. Let's hope the jurors see it this way as well.
you probably mean adams, he's a las vegas anesthesiologist. i think he sedated mj with propofol during dental procedures (office dr. tadrissi) and murray had a meeting with him in march/april 09.
propofol is commonly used during dental treatments in the u.s.
adam's office in las vegas:
http://www.healthgrades.com/directo...iles/dr-md-reports/dr-david-adams-do-845f16f7
here's an interesting article from 2006 about the use of propofol in outpatient settings:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1614218/
the article is about a fight between anesthesiologists and endoscopists whether propofol should be administered by nurses, and what this could imply for oral surgeons who are using propofol as well.
^^^ Piece of the puzzle, ppl. Please do not sleep on these pieces.
At this point, I do see a picture emerging. The thing is ppl have to stop trying to force pieces where they will not fit? Trying to put a square peg in a round hole will never make sense.
All the prosecution has to do is show a picture to the jury. In my experience jurors like to think they know what happened or will accept a scenario that makes the most sense to them. Just like MJ's criminal trial, Sneddon and Co. could not decide what kind of pedo they wanted MJ to be which was a problem for them in putting Gavin and others in a neat category to label MJ with. They couldn't find a category to put MJ in cuz that's not what he was. And they couldn't fight factual information that allowed the jurors to make a clear-cut decision in a he-said/he-said situation. Those situations can go either way becuz it becomes a case of who do you believe the most...or not at all?
Same applies here. Murray's defense is all over the place. They can't decide WHY Murray, did not or could not have issued the fatal injection. NOR can they fight the facts of Michael's autopsy which tell a story of their own. All the defense needs is reasonable doubt, however, it has to be a doubt the jury can hold on to. It has to be a scenario that one can wrap their mind around as a possibility. Thus far, I, personally, see NOTHING, that holds water...nothing that the prosecution cannot counter with medical fact or Murray's own words about how he "found" Michael lying breathless...but that's just me. His lies are going to constantly trip him up.
Now, if others think certain scenarios may create doubt, I respect that. I just disagree that history of propofol use being that bowl of water...right now. So if the defense wants to go there and parade a bunch of doctors on the stand...they can bring it. The prosecution SHOULD be able solicit testimony from those doctors that will still put Murray under the bus...the short bus (no offense to anyone who has ever rode the short bus).
It's really in the prosecution's hands, now. And when put into proper context (based on pieces of the puzzle we do know of), I honestly do not see it to be an issue. Could even be used to put MJ in a sympathetic light. So many people in the world suffer from insomnia. Many may have dealt with it on a lighter level while some have had it on a level that remains untreatable. It doesn't mean they would resort to propofol, but it might make them relate to Michael on this level alone. When all is said and done, it was still MURRAY who administered this in an unsafe manner, etcetera etcetera. HE was the doctor. That has to be stressed by the prosecution. Dr. Kevorkian was the doctor. No one gave him a pass...even if they felt sorry for him and understood WHY he did what he did..with his patients' consent. Murray did not ignore his oath for the sake of mercy as much as he did for money. Not sure how much sympathy a juror would give him for that.
If I were the prosecution I know exactly what kind of jurors I'd be looking for.
