Murray Trial - 30 September - Day 4 - Discussion

[gerryevans]

This reminds me of back in 2005 when some fans felt that TMez did not drive home a point he should have or did make the kind of connection we felt he should have made, etc. We know how that turned out.

I personally do not see why the difference in small details is a problem. As someone said we all see things differently and it has been two years. I know we worry and we want things to be perfect. But we have to be careful not create problems where none exist. The prosecution is doing a good job. We do not know what other evidence they plan present, what is in their closing statement, and how they plan to challenge Conrad Murray if he takes the stand. We don't know what the jury is thinking. So as much as we feel we know stuff the pros doesn't, the same can be said for them knowing stuff we don't.

Let us be careful how we discuss stuff here, since it is not a password-protected forum.

The small details can be important because the defense is going to stress "reasonable doubt". If they can add up many conflicting small details, it's conceivable they can argue discrepanices all over the place and convince the jury to their favor in the doubt department.

As much as this appears like an open and shut case at this point as presented by the prosecution, I was disappointed that
they didn't re-cross and straighten out this detail.

ETA: I just had a second thought. TheChosenOne, you're right. They are doing a good job and perhaps, they purposely DON'T want to correct the paramedics and show they were wrong in this area, because it could show they were wrong about other things, too. Like maybe they misread the equipment when Murray said their was a pulse, and when the paramedic looked at the monitor, he was actually wrong in how he interrupted what was happening. I don't know. I guess we really do have to trust in them. I just want Murray in jail.

 

[Ramona122003]

The small details can be important because the defense is going to stress "reasonable doubt". If they can add up many conflicting small details, it's conceivable they can argue discrepanices all over the place and convince the jury to their favor in the doubt department.

As much as this appears like an open and shut case at this point as presented by the prosecution, I was disappointed that
they didn't re-cross and straighten out this detail.

You are aware that they can recall any of their previous witnesses, sot it isn't a big deal. If the defense brings up such trouble in the timeline, they can recall the people to get it straight.

I also don't think if Michael was on the bed or not when the MTs came is that big of a deal. AA obviously stood firm that he helped collects drugs and the polices will confirm this story.

I honestly think we should wait till all these witnesses are called and the DA rests before we go on rants about what the DA should or shouldn't do or done. Despite what fans think, we don't know everything about what happened or who will be called. For example, fans had no clue about the tape Murray took of Michael, and the DA calling the person who drew up Murray's contract, the patient he treated and then abandon for Michael who also made that call on the 25th, and the person who makes heart monitor equipment to show how cheap Murray was since he could had rented all he needed for fairly cheap.

 

[TheChosenOne]

I just had a conversation with my Mum about the trial. She is a casual fan (no doubt due to my influence!) and has been watching the coverage when she gets in from work.

First thing I have to say is that thank goodness this is being televised because people are getting information from the primary source!

Anyway, she said that the charges need to be upgraded. She thinks Amir, Alvarez and the Sernoff were great and talked about the revelations in their testimony. I had to tell her it is stuff that we as fans already knew. LOL!

What has stayed with her is that the Sernoff felt Michael was gone long before Murray stated and that Murray never said that he had given Michael propofol. She never once mentioned the whole bed thing. She is focussing on when Michael died and how.

She also talked about the talking heads in the media. One has said that it would not have been possible for Michael to self-inject and another talked about the fact that Michael still had the thing attached to his groin and so could have not have been wandering from room to room, popping pills.

Just thought I would share, in light of the discussion that we have been having.

 

[8701girl]

She also talked about the talking heads in the media. One has said that it would not have been possible for Michael to self-inject and another talked about the fact that Michael still had the thing attached to his groin and so could have not have been wandering from room to room, popping pills.

This is what most of those ignorant media have to think bout! murray would have had to remove all of things off mj for him to move around.

 

[passy001]

Why Michael Jackson's Doctor May Wind Up In Jail
By Judge Jeanine Pirro
Published September 30, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments

Can the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor actually killed Michael Jackson? Should this medical malpractice even be a criminal case?
The answer to both is a resounding "yes"!

Involuntary manslaughter under California Penal Code section192 (b) requires the state to prove that Murray acted without due 'caution and circumspection'. In simple terms -- was Murray's conduct such a departure from the conduct of an ordinary prudent person under the same circumstances (in this case a physician) as to disregard either human life or the consequences of such an act. This criminal negligence requires that death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the reckless or negligent conduct.


Here's how prosecutors will meet their burden:
Dr. Murray was hired as a concierge doctor by Jackson to attend to his medical needs for $150,000 a month.
Murray secured propofol (an anaesthetic intended for hospital use only) to administer as a sleep aid for Jackson in his home.
Propofol must be administered by an anaesthesiologist with proper resuscitation equipment. No only was Murray was not an anesthesiologist, he also had no resuscitation equipment should it be needed. His request for such equipment for Jackson's planned tour indicates his knowledge of the need for such equipment when administering propofol.
Murray says he was out of Michael's room for only a short time to go to the bathroom, during which time he alleges Jackson self- administered the lethal dose of propofol.
Cell phone records will apparently show that Murray was out of the room for a longer period of time, talking on the phone with his girlfriend.
Murray's first phone call was not to 911, a doctor, an ambulance or a hospital, but instead to Jackson's assistant. He never asks that emergency medical help be called.
Here's what happened next: When the assistant, and then security arrives, the good doctor asks "if anyone knows CPR," while he (a cardiologist) feebly attempts to administer CPR with one hand while Jackson is lying on a bed -- eliminating the possibility of real chest compression!
When emergency personnel is finally called, Murray never explains Michael has propofol in his system to better assist them in their resuscitation efforts.
After Jackson is pronounced dead at UCLA Hospital, Murray wants to go return to the home and secure the "cream" (Jackson called propofol "milk') so he says, the world won't know about Jackson's use of the drug. This statement about the "cream" instead will be used as evidence later of Murray's "consciousness of guilt" -- his attempt to remove the incriminating evidence from the crime scene.
The improper administration of a powerful hospital anaesthetic; failure to have resuscitation equipment on the scene, failure to monitor a patient whose respiratory system was under duress; failure to call 911; failure to inform 911 of the presence of the anaesthetic in Jackson's system; lying about his bathroom visit as well as the amount of time spent outside the room will all point to substandard medical care.
Murray cannot be heard to argue he was "weaning Michael off his drug addiction" because he bought hundreds of bottles of propofol.
He cannot blame Dr. Klein for Jackson's dependency on demerol since Jackson died of acute propofol poisoning -- not demerol (although he will argue it in some way contributed to Jackson's death.)
He'll also have a hard time explaining how Jackson administered the drug to himself.
The bottom line question is whether the medical care Michael Jackson received was sub-standard and whether the doctor disregarded his life and consequently caused his death. Although they have no burden of proof, the defense has a lot of catching up to do. If convicted Murray faces four years in prison.
Judge Jeanine Pirro is the host of "Justice with Judge Jeanine" which airs Saturday evenings at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel. She is a former County Court Judge and District Attorney of Westchester County, New York


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...nd-up-in-jail/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1ZXJU1Pkw

 

[Milka]

I also don't think if Michael was on the bed or not when the MTs came is that big of a deal. AA obviously stood firm that he helped collects drugs and the polices will confirm this story.

It was a big deal for me though, although of course I don't know if they will recall witnesses, etc. But with the things that have been posted here and with what I remembered today from Senneff's testimony (if I remember that correctly), it is not much of an issue anymore. I just hope somehow this will all be cleared up in court as well.

My problem was that I definitely don't think the EMT's would lie, they have no reason whatsoever for that. But now it looks like they just didn't remember every single detail more than 2 years later. I'm still sure though that they got all the medical details right, including what Murray told them that he had given him, etc., not just because they took notes of everything, but also because that is their job.

And I also didn't know why Alvarez would lie, he has no reason whatsoever for it either, and he also didn't seem to be lying, he seemed very honest and also sad on the stand. That was just confusing and I wanted to get to the bottom of this.

P.S. The document that Memefan posted - that is in evidence, right?

 

[AllForLove]

Thank you for that! So I guess they got it wrong. And yes, why didn't they show this in court?



I vaguely remember that Senneff, I think, also said yesterday that they moved him, because he was lying on the floor at the side of the bed and they didn't have enough room to work there, so they moved him to the floor at the foot of the bed. I just remembered that, can someone confirm? Because that would mean it is possible that the EMT's just mixed up things a bit more than 2 years later and they did move him, but from the floor to a different part of the floor and that he was actually on the floor when they arrived.

Yes Milka, that's right - Senneff explained that they have had to move the body to a larger aera on the carpet at the foot of the bed, because they needed more place for their materials.

Edit : Yes the document is an evidence shown during the trial.

 

[Ramona122003]

It was a big deal for me though, although of course I don't know if they will recall witnesses, etc. But with the things that have been posted here and with what I remembered today from Senneff's testimony (if I remember that correctly), it is not much of an issue anymore. I just hope somehow this will all be cleared up in court as well.

My problem was that I definitely don't think the EMT's would lie, they have no reason whatsoever for that. But now it looks like they just didn't remember every single detail more than 2 years later. I'm still sure though that they got all the medical details right, including what Murray told them that he had given him, etc., not just because they took notes of everything, but also because that is their job.

And I also didn't know why Alvarez would lie, he has no reason whatsoever for it either, and he also didn't seem to be lying, he seemed very honest and also sad on the stand. That was just confusing and I wanted to get to the bottom of this.

P.S. The document that Memefan posted - that is in evidence, right?

I think any jury would forgive a MT for not remembering every detail except what is important. One of the MTs didn't even know he was working on Michael not because he was unrecognizable as some people suggested, but because he was busy collecting information.

Also, it could be that they didn't see the scene right. Murray and AA could had been moving Michael to a more open part of the room and Murray put Michael on the bed to help him gain some leverage. So when the MTs came, it looked like they were just taken him off the bed. You can clearly hear from the 911 call they were moving something because of all the noise. What's the DA going to say happened in that timeframe, that AA was packing drugs then instead of moving the patient per the 911 orders. That just makes Murray look worst, imo.

 

[Milka]

Yes Milka, that's right - Senneff explained that they have had to move the body to a larger aera on the carpet at the foot of the bed, because they needed more place for their materials.

Ok, thank you. So yeah, that to me then means, they just don't remember every little detail.

Edit : Yes the document is an evidence shown during the trial.

Ok, so even if this doesn't come up again during the trial, the jury will see it when they look at the evidence.

P.S. And about the 911 call, I said yesterday that it doesn't sound like they were moving him during that call, I listened to it again, because other people didn't agree with me, and yes, after listening again, there was something going on, only that the operator was talking at that moment too, so that's why I missed that at first.

 

[Soundmind]

alvarez and the paramedics testified during the preliminary hearing aswell, so the inconsistency should have been there as well? I hope it dident come as a shock to the prosecution and they can handle it cuz the defense is gonna use this ALOT during closing to catch doubt on Alvarez, Muhammed and Williams.

I noticed the same inconsistencies during the preliminary hearing. I think the prosecutors could have made it known that the "interview" with Alvarez on June 25 lasted 2 minutes and was not really an interview but they failed to do so .

^^^ I think it helps that even the two paramedics also have slightly different versions, what worries me is if the jury question his testimony regarding the iv bag and propofol bottle. I was surprised the paramedic weren't asked.

Blount said when they arrived MJ was completely on the bed and was repeatedly asked and insisted he was still on the bed. Faheem said before the paramedics arrived MJ was already on the floor and he could only see his feet . sneff said they were moving him and blount he was still on the bed. :wacko:

All the pros have to do is make it clear that all thesr things wete found in a bag hidden and theres no issue. its not like the bag was never found and its ones person word against the other.my issue at the mo is will the pros do a good enough job of connecting the dots for the jury.like yesterday with murrays ex paitent. they mentioned murrays phone message but didnt make it obvious that this call was made when murray should have been watching mj.also the medic sees the lidocane on the floor.it should have been said that lidocane is given before diorivan so the jury can sre the connection rather than it been some random drug murray didnt mention.

how could they have brought up that with the witness? calls for speculation sustained. The jurors will be told about the significance of the timing of this call when detective Martinez takes the stand and repeat what Murray told him.

Lidocaine will be talked about when an expert takes the stand to talk about the toxicology result.

But I'll repeat the same thing I said after the preliminary hearing, the prosecution did not present any kind of theory on what took place or what they believe was taking place at the time , their strategy seems to focus on impeaching Murray's statement and if they repeat the same mistake during the trial they will be for a sad awakining when the defence present their case. Everything in that statement was said in order to defend Murray and Murray at the time had the upper hand and knew what happened thus every word he said was chosen carefully . You will understand what I'm trying to say when the defese present their case.

 

[Justthefacts]

That is kind of an unfair thing to say when number one they are not done and number two Murray's lawyers are all put saying that statement to the cops was not true.

 

[Erikmjfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YajpxgP1Zk&feature=related

this is the "moving from bed part" of alvarez testimony, starts at ca 10:30. continues at part 17.

 

[Soundmind]

Murray cannot be heard to argue he was "weaning Michael off his drug addiction" because he bought hundreds of bottles of propofol.

he bought them but did he actually use them ? does the prosecution have evidence of chronic use in large doses? will they present the toxicology results of the hair samples? did they even have one or they did not bother?

 

[Milka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YajpxgP1Zk&feature=related

this is the "moving from bed part" of alvarez testimony, starts at ca 10:30. continues at part 17.

Thanks for that. No, he wasn't lying, that looks very honest and he really tries to explain every little detail, almost like those moments were forever imprinted in his mind, including body language.

 

[alia]

Yes, if I'm in Alvarez shoes, I will remember details of those moments and Michael look for the rest of my life. I'm sure the incident kept replaying in his minds for days on ends.

 

[diana79]

I wouldn't get too worried about this. If the same issues came up in the preliminary hearing, the prosecution expected this. They know what they're doing.

 

[Autumn II]

I noticed the same inconsistencies during the preliminary hearing. I think the prosecutors could have made it known that the "interview" with Alvarez on June 25 lasted 2 minutes and was not really an interview but they failed to do so .

Agree. They could have made it known. There will be other opportunities, hopefully, to cover material related to timing?

Blount said when they arrived MJ was completely on the bed and was repeatedly asked and insisted he was still on the bed. Faheem said before the paramedics arrived MJ was already on the floor and he could only see his feet . sneff said they were moving him and blount he was still on the bed. :wacko:

In the end, I think these discrepancies are details that don't affect the overall case against Murray, which is even stronger than anticipated. Doesn't mean anyone is LYING, but more that in situations of stress, perfect memory cannot be expected, and it also could mean a difference in order of entering the room? The important testimonies include the fact that the Personal Assistant, security who entered the room, AND the EMTs, AND the ER doctor, all said Michael was already dead. ER doctor wanted to "call time of death," and it was Murray who refused. All this indicates that Murray's "rescue attempts" were all for show, and Michael was already long-gone. These were important, and CONSISTENT points that were made. In the end, I think "on or off the bed" will be irrelevant. Other critical testimony was that Murray FAILED to tell EMTs or ER doctor about the propofol. This is damning evidence, that can't really be refuted.

how could they have brought up that with the witness? calls for speculation sustained. The jurors will be told about the significance of the timing of this call when detective Martinez takes the stand and repeat what Murray told him.

Right. That's probably what will happen.

Lidocaine will be talked about when an expert takes the stand to talk about the toxicology result.

Exactly. There is much in the way of medical-related testimony to come.

But I'll repeat the same thing I said after the preliminary hearing, the prosecution did not present any kind of theory on what took place or what they believe was taking place at the time , their strategy seems to focus on impeaching Murray's statement and if they repeat the same mistake during the trial they will be for a sad awakining when the defence present their case. Everything in that statement was said in order to defend Murray and Murray at the time had the upper hand and knew what happened thus every word he said was chosen carefully . You will understand what I'm trying to say when the defese present their case.

I think the "strategy" is and will be, to reveal the immense INCOMPETANCE of Murray, in multiple instances, in everything from not having a pulse-oxymeter with an alarm, to making multiple phone calls during that critical period when Michael was dying, to trying to confuse time-of-death, to neglecting to tell EMTs that he gave propofol, to yelling at the top of the stairs to "get help," when he had a fully FUNCTIONAL phone (no doubt) to call 911, to finally admitting having given Michael propofol for two MONTHS, and on, and on. (I'm sure any discussions of "demerol addiction" will be easily refuted by intitial tox reports, and autopsy report, and timing of Michael's visits to Klein's office. Klein is not even being called as a witness! IMHO, the "demerol theory" is a red-herring and the jury will see that, easily.)

Theories were presented during opening statements, to some extent, but these early witnesses are laying groundwork. It's not necessary, or even permitted, to lay out theories while questioning witnesses. This is "theory-building," piece-by-piece, that will be presented for the jury in final statements, in a very damning narrative. I can't see that the prosecution has made ANY "mistakes," or if they have, they have been only in the details (i.e. length of time Alvarez talked to police initially)

After watching four days now of the trial, my opinion now is that the case against Murray is even STRONGER than anticipated. (I'm wondering if discussions of "plea-bargain" are happening? As Raymone Bain said, to "spare the Jackson family further suffering, and spare the state of Callifornia the expense of the trial?")

 

[cinzia]

Have to say that I was upset by the discrepancy between AA and the paramedics regarding where Michael was found/placed.
AA seemed so sure of his details. But then the EMTs seemed sure also.
It seems to me, that if I were an EMT having to testify about such an event, the first thing I would have done would have been to review the run sheet. Sure 2 years have gone by but only one Michael Jackson. Surely had they read their own record of what happened, at a minimum they would have remembered Michael being on the floor as they wrote down. So why now is it different? I really don't understand this at all. Concerns me that many little inconsistencies will be used by the def. to try and create doubt and since that is all they can do as a defense they will attack like a pit bull...

 

[Diplomate]

If Murray decide to plead guilty, he will do just 4 years in jail and he will lost his licence to practice ? He can have more time in jail ?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

he bought them but did he actually use them ? does the prosecution have evidence of chronic use in large doses? will they present the toxicology results of the hair samples? did they even have one or they did not bother?

Doesnt matter imo if he used them or not. the intent was there and that contridicts his defence. the excuse for the tape recording in may was to show mj the state he was in and from that date or before start to wean him yet murray bought loads more shortly after the tape was made and into june. thats not the actions of someone weaningre the theories that may be need to be created by the pros. this is something i worried about by i think i agree with autum. at the end of the day its about showing the negligence and to do that you dont realky need to have a yheory of what happened in the last hour or so interms of how mj passed. the negligence is all the actions of murray combined.i think in one sense it may be dangerous for the pros to say this is how we think murray killed mj. because no one but murray knows and once the pros come up with a theory the defence will just create more excuses around it and the case will become more about the moment of death rather than the actual charge of negligence

 

[Autumn II]

Doesnt matter imo if he used them. the excuse for the tap recording in may was to show mj the state he was in and from that date or before start to wean him yet murray bought loads more shortly after the tape was made and into june.

Exactly. Dates of purchase, and quantities, of propofol will easily dispute the "weaning theory." And besides, one does not "wean" off one medication, by substituting others (benzos) that are physically addictive.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I do wonder how the defence plan to defndd murray recording mj without putting murray on the stand to explain why he did it. how do u cross a tape recording? is it a play by the pros to get murray to take the stand otherwise how else does murray get his reason fir doing it out there

 

[claudiadoina]

We so need to win this trial.

Even thought no verdict that the jury could reach won't be fair, but it would be a clear message to all the general public and the media that Michael wasn't just another rockstar with an addiction who killed himself with an overdose.

 

[Autumn II]

I do wonder how the defence plan to defndd murray recording mj without putting murray on the stand to explain why he did it. how do u cross a tape recording? is it a play by the pros to get murray to take the stand otherwise how else does murray get his reason fir doing it out there

Given his history of lying, I think that the defense can't risk putting Murray on the stand, at all. Probably his "defense" will consist mostly of so-called "character witnesses." Former patients, who say, "Well, he didn't kill ME!" Even if he took the stand, there is no genuine way he can refute the delay in calling 911, or not having rescue equipment and additional personnel, or giving propofol, at ALL, and all the rest of his gross negligence.

Also, the defense will pursue the "Michael did it to himself" trend. I've heard a lot of commentary on tv already, by medical experts, saying how this would have been entirely impossible. They can try the "demerol withdrawal" tactic, but the tox report and autopsy report are expected to refute that.

Now that I've seen four days of testimony, Murray's case is even WEAKER than I thought it would be.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I guess one of the lawyers going around saying mj was addicted to diprivan and murray taped him to show him what he was like is his defence and thats why the judge put the gag order in. the defence were trying to get murrays reason for the tape out there without putting him on the stand and hope
the jury get to hear it somehow.

 

[smoothlugar]

About the apparent contradiction between paramedics and bodyguards testimony my understanding at the preliminary hearing was that first Murray and Alberto moved him down on the floor on the far side of the bed, hence that Faheen could only see the feet.

But as there was little space on that area (the right of the bed), they were trying to remove him to the feet of the bed and in that process it was when the first paramedic came. I am assuming it wouldn't be easy and maybe they rested some part of the body again on the bed and that's why the first paramedic says half body is on bed and the second who entered said that it was all on the bed.

 

[Soundmind]

I think the "strategy" is and will be, to reveal the immense INCOMPETANCE of Murray, in multiple instances, in everything from not having a pulse-oxymeter with an alarm,

50 mg of propofol did not need pulse oximeter with an alarm if the doctor was watching , did not need any equipment to revive because such low amount would have done nothing to him , the same applies to 25 mg , can the prosecutors prove Murray was giving more than that daily? that's the question . Don't tell me he bought galons of propofol , so what ? did he really give him "dangerous" doses that needed the sophisticated monitoring equipment the prosecutors r showing to jurors?

to making multiple phone calls during that critical period when Michael was dying,

they said he gave him propofol at 10.40 am 25 mg dose infused over a period that lasted between 3 to 4 minutes , which means when he started calling and texting by 11: 27 the effects of the dose of propofol he gave ended and by the time he left the room during the last call to his girlfried which took place more than an hour after the dose he administered would have no effect on MJ . how the prosecution will respond to that? he left him alone he should have known better? really ?or MJ could not have done it and Murray was there when Jackson died? the jurors want to know what the prosecutors think took place . Will the prosecutors bother to tell them ? or they will keep hinting MJ could have died at 10:40 and Murray did not notice because he was busy on his phone WHICH IS NOT TRUE ,because Murray did notice and did see MJ dying.
could the prosecutor prove he died before Murray call to his girlfriend which the defence claims now and which is true?

Theories were presented during opening statements, to some extent, but these early witnesses are laying groundwork. It's not necessary, or even permitted, to lay out theories while questioning witnesses. This is "theory-building," piece-by-piece, that will be presented for the jury in final statements, in a very damning narrative. I can't see that the prosecution has made ANY "mistakes," or if they have, they have been only in the details (i.e. length of time Alvarez talked to police initially)

nope, Walgren did not present a theory , did not tell the jury what the prosecutors think took place that day. the prosecutors want to limit the testimony to what happened on that particular day but we all know the jurors r human beings and they want to know what happened why did it happen , could MJ do it , was Murray really weaning him off propofol? You have to tell them what you think happened , not narrow your argument to impeach a statement that you all sooner than later will discover the significance of every information (lie) mentioned in it to the defence case.

After watching four days now of the trial, my opinion now is that the case against Murray is even STRONGER than anticipated. (I'm wondering if discussions of "plea-bargain" are happening? As Raymone Bain said, to "spare the Jackson family further suffering, and spare the state of Callifornia the expense of the trial?")

the prosecutors do have a very strong case but as I said before they r taking huge risk when they don't present a theory of their own that explains everything and counter Murray's version of what took place in the last months of MJ's life.

when White take the stand and testifies 50 mg did not need monitoring , How walgren will respond?

When Dr.Rogers take the stand and testifies that the effect of 25mg of propofol vanish within five minutes ten minutes OK half an hour and the doctor could leave after that , how Walgren will address these facts?

When experts say MJ received 150 to 200 mg of propofol that day in total , what's then the significance of the empty 1000mg vial that was found there? if the prosecutors don't tell the jurors what they think happened to that vial ,that empty vial would be a point to the defence not them.

Walgren told the jurors in his opening statement that Murray bought enough propofol to give mj 1600+mg everyday . Seriously now , does anyone in his/her right mind believe he gave him anything near that amount? does he even have an evidence Murray gave him that ?

 

[Milka]

Soundmind, some of your posts sound like you were actually there that day or like you have spoken to certain defense witnesses. How come?

 

[Arklove]

We so need to win this trial.

Even thought no verdict that the jury could reach won't be fair, but it would be a clear message to all the general public and the media that Michael wasn't just another rockstar with an addiction who killed himself with an overdose.

Exactly...That's how I see it....My boyfriend has been listening to the radio all day while at work and he says they talk about the trial all the time...The public's perception is that Murray is obviously guilty and the charge is definitely too soft...

 

[Soundmind]

Soundmind, some of your posts sound like you were actually there that day or like you have spoken to certain defense witnesses. How come?​

I did not talk to anyone lol you only need to read Murray's statement and watch Chernoff and Flanagan interviews to understand everything. Beside we have the autopsy report and the toxicology result if you read them correctly you would reach the same conclusions I reached on the time of death and manner of death. 1+ 1= 2 not 11 that's it and I'm telling you I'm not speculating I'm 100% sure Murray was with MJ when he died and saw him dying and he did not give him an IV drip and did not leave him and return after one hour like some here believe or two minutes like the defence claim .