The Defense Strategy

Soundmind · Oct 5, 2011

this is a thread made to discuss what the defense wants to prove or disprove based on their line of questioning , Murray's interview with the police, and interviews made by Chernoff, Alford and Flanagan . I want to list why I believe the 10:40 am was chosen carefully , was a fabricated lie and why the defense whole case revolves around that particular timing and why I don't believe the defence really changed their timeline Murray in fact can't afford to change the timline. the confusion comes from this phrase " he told us he gave jackson propofol at 10:40am waited for ten minutes then left for two minutes when he came back after ten minutes he found jackson not breathing" so did he tell them "ten minutes" or no? These are the reasons behind that 10:40am timing1- 2 mg lorazepam @ 2 am , 2 mg lorazepam @ 5 am . At noon as Flanagan told the doctor during the cross the effects of these doses would have worn off so what Murray gave of lorazepam did not contribute to the death!!!! 2- 25 mg of propofol @ 10: 40 am infused over three to four minutes would have worn off by 11am , assuming 25mg worked in the first place . 3-25mg of propofol after 11 am had no effect on MJ whatsoever , so those phone calls between 11:27 -12:03 were not really acts of negligence!!! 4- For the same reason above ,leaving him after 11 am also was not an act of negligence!!5- Everything was designed in that statement he gave to shift the blame from himself to MJ and downplay the effect of the drugs he gave. In other words Murray knew MJ died during that phone call with Sade because he injected him and he saw him dying , he moved him thus we have perimortem abrasions caused by the wooden beads on his butt . Thus he gave those specific times, it is not true he gave propofol at 10:40 am . what we have beside his word to believe that? why give him an alibi? the guy is a notorious liar why should we trust his word ? He looked at his phone records while preparing his story and that timing fitted his story because before & after he was constantly on the phone. He wants people desperately to believe he left that room and when he came back everything was over after all the survival window was really short thus him not calling 911 immediately, not telling paramedics and UCLA doctor about propofol did not matter so were not really acts of negligence. When you believe his story that he LEFT you are rewarding him . Not only he killed MJ , but he denied him the chance of being revived , it was not too late, everything happened in front of him , if he did what Blount did MJ's chances of surviving would have been really high.

Autumn II · Oct 6, 2011

Thanks for starting this thread. It's a good opportunity, actually.

I have watched nearly every MINUTE of the trial, and I remain incredulous as to why this went to trial, at all? I think Murray should have said, "sorry," and ended this fiasco!

In the testimony, there is "minutia," by the defense, and overarching negligence presented by the prosecution.

There is a "time-line." There are now lists of drugs given. There are phone records. And so on. But the OVERARCHING presentation by the prosecution, is basically, "What the HELL was Murray doing?' There remains the extreme negligence of giving a general anesthetic in someone's HOME. Without proper rescue equipment! In that sense, a time-line doesn't matter very much? Phone records prove that Murray was on the PHONE, a LOT, the day Michael died.

The "beads?" Not sure why that MATTERS, in the end?

Murray was a "doctor" in way over his head. Oh, and there was that devastating audio recording? WHY did Murray make that, anyway? It only goes to prove how much HE was over-medicating Michael.

IMHO, this has become an embarrassment for the defense, but yet they are charged with doing SOMETHING?

The reality is, what Murray was doing was not ethical for a doctor, and the MINUTIA, in the end, will not interest the jury very much? Why would it, compared to the gross negligence that Murray was doing, with only one outcome possible, for his ONE patient?

Ashtanga · Oct 6, 2011

In my opinion?, the defense has nothing. All the evidences is there. What they can do to reverse the situation? Nothing and is completely impossible.

bouee · Oct 6, 2011

I'm not sure if my comment will fit here, but one of things I thought when Gourjian went through the emails about the insurance , is that he wanted to show that Michael did not want to give his medical records and help clarify the rumors, (ie compartmentalising medical info, as they said in their opening statement) Through Murray's email , it's understood that Michael thought that there was already an insurance policy. So..

Soundmind · Oct 6, 2011

you r right, they wanted the jury to believe he was doing that because he had something to hide and even when he was told securing the insurance dependent on those records he still insisted they were not released . Although when you read Murray's records of treating MJ there was nothing to be afraid of.

In my opinion?, the defense has nothing. All the evidences is there. What they can do to reverse the situation? Nothing and is completely impossible.

my point was it was a lie he left him and it was a lie he gave propofol @ 10:40 am and explained why i believe so. Agree Murray has no defense whatsoever, the evidence is very incriminating and in my opinion if the prosecutors were braver, there could have been a conviction on second degree murder. What he did that day was taking place for two months , every bolus injection could have killed him that's " a great disregard to human life"

Autumn II · Oct 6, 2011

Soundmind said:
you r right, they wanted the jury to believe he was doing that because he had something to hide and even when he was told securing the insurance dependent on those records he still insisted they were not released . Although when you read Murray's records of treating MJ there was nothing to be afraid of.

my point was it was a lie he left him and it was a lie he gave propofol @ 10:40 am and explained why i believe so. Agree Murray has no defense whatsoever, the evidence is very incriminating and in my opinion if the prosecutors were braver, there could have been a conviction on second degree murder. What he did that day was taking place for two months , every bolus injection could have killed him that's " a great disregard to human life"

See bolded. But, if it was "a lie that he left him, etc." then what do you think HAPPENED? He killed him intentionally??? Sat there and watched him die and did NOTHING? You're RIGHT. "Every bolus injection could have killed him." It was inevitable, given what Murray was doing, with no proper monitoring or rescue equipment. Murray told Dr. Cooper that he was "there when Michael arrested." But THEN what? He just SAT there? That's chilling! Don't know if Michael could have been saved, or not, but if Murray was THERE when he arrested, the EMTs were only five minutes away!

Agree, about Murder 2. I've ALWAYS thought that would have been the proper charge, with little or no risk that "Murray would walk." The jury always could have decided on lesser charges, but now there's no way to INCREASE the charges.

Soundmind · Oct 6, 2011

he was "there when Michael arrested." But THEN what? He just SAT there? That's chilling! Don't know if Michael could have been saved, or not, but if Murray was THERE when he arrested, the EMTs were only five minutes away!

He tried to save him on his own, he knew he screwed up big time and did what was in his best interst not what was in MJ's best interest which would have been calling 911 immediately.

Two scenarios :

1) did not leave, was there, injected an average dose , witnessed arrest, screwed up royaly trying to revive, waited 10 minutes to call Amir , wasted precious moments trying to fix what I did . or

2) gave propofol @ 10:40 am , very small dose , left for minutes almost an hour after the last dose , went back saw him breathless , he was beyond saving even calling 911 immediately would not have changed the outcome .

what of these two scenarios is more incriminating to Murray ?

Autumn II · Oct 6, 2011

Soundmind said:
He tried to save him on his own, he knew he screwed up big time and did what was in his best interst not what was in MJ's best interest which would have been calling 911 immediately.

Two scenarios :

1) did not leave, was there, injected an average dose , witnessed arrest, screwed up royaly trying to revive, waited 10 minutes to call Amir , wasted precious moments trying to fix what I did . or

2) gave propofol @ 10:40 am , very small dose , left for minutes almost an hour after the last dose , went back saw him breathless , he was beyond saving even calling 911 immediately would not have changed the outcome .

what of these two scenarios is more incriminating to Murray ?

The third scenario. That he gave him a massive bolus to KEEP him asleep as he conducted business and social life on the phone.

*~MJLovesMJ~* · Oct 7, 2011

So, do they know who Murray called or if he was in fact talking to anyone at all while Mike was left alone? Wish I could follow this case more.

Autumn II · Oct 7, 2011

*~MJLovesMJ~* said:
So, do they know who Murray called or if he was in fact talking to anyone at all while Mike was left alone? Wish I could follow this case more.

Yes. There are detailed phone records, and the people he called have testified.

*~MJLovesMJ~* · Oct 7, 2011

O.k, thanks. I'm sure the prosecution will make major breakthroughs in the next few weeks. Just so hard to see all the info and folks testifying. Makes you want go back in time and be there to stop everything.

Soundmind · Oct 7, 2011

In the toxicology report , the coroner said "benzos were administered by another"
Defense claims they had evidence MJ took 8 pills 2mg lorazepam .

the defense yesterday got the prosecution toxicologist to admit he had no way of determining how lorazepam was given that day .

the toxicologist confirmed the defense had no evidence to support their 8 pills story.

To be more clear both of them agree lorazepam was in high concentration but neither would be able to prove using scientifical evidence that their assumption regarding lorazepam is true .
Neither side can eliminate the opposite side's theory.

untill further evidence this is a point for the defense .

elusive moonwalker · Oct 7, 2011

If there were no pills in mj stomach that is the answer.and the loraz found in the stomach doesnt support the 8 tablet theory. what else needs to be said.the witness shot down their theory in one foul swoop

Ramona122003 · Oct 7, 2011

Soundmind said:
In the toxicology report , the coroner said "benzos were administered by another"
Defense claims they had evidence MJ took 8 pills 2mg lorazepam .

the defense yesterday got the prosecution toxicologist to admit he had no way of determining how lorazepam was given that day .

the toxicologist confirmed the defense had no evidence to support their 8 pills story.

To be more clear both of them agree lorazepam was in high concentration but neither would be able to prove using scientifical evidence that their assumption regarding lorazepam is true .
Neither side can eliminate the opposite side's theory.

untill further evidence this is a point for the defense .

Sorry, but I really can't see this as a point to the defense just because the person who did the tox can't disprove how the drug was taken. The tox guy clearly said that the amount of lopz in Michael's body didn't equal 8 pills using questionable methods to get how man tablets it would be. He also said that it isn't usual for drugs to end up in the stomach even if it was given through an IV. He even pointed out if Michael took it as a pill it would move slower into the bloodstream and the effects wouldn't be slower. Which meant, Michael couldn't had just ate 8 pills in a couple of minutes to get his blood levels for lopz that high.

To me, the DA killed the pill theory. but I think it will be the autopsy that will put the final nail in this coffin given that they found no evident of pills and I'm sure they check given that they took media reports seriously.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 7, 2011

Agree

Ramona122003 · Oct 7, 2011

There's one more thing I forgot.

The tox guy also said that the lopz's levels were at a high therapeutic range and were within the normal limits. So the lopz was high, but it wasn't considered OD or even dangerous kind of high. I don't know much about lopz, but I don't think taken 8 pills at once are considered therapeutic levels.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 7, 2011

Very true

Soundmind · Oct 7, 2011

mmmm ,Flanagan asked him what was the amount of lorazepam in stomach . he said it was ...... Flanagan pointed out that meant 6x of the one found in the blood . Flanagan then said would not that be considered an indication of oral lorazepam , the expert replied no . He explained futher why although it might look large in fact it was 1/40 of a 2 mg lorazepam , then he said "but I'm not eliminating the oral theory" What the prosecutors got from this witness is important contrary to what Chernoff claimed in the opening statement they don't have evidence MJ took lorazepam himself . But the defense was able to acheive one major thing, toxicologist could not confirm all lorazepam that was found and listed as a contributing factor was injected by Murray himself . In fact the coroner in the autopsy report and during the preliminary hearing did confirm he believed lorazepam was injected by someone else. Re read please the autopsy report you will find it . Hopefully the prosecutors run more tests , have other experts to clarify this issue. Flanagan specifically asked the coroner whether one of the reasons he called this case homicide because someone else gave benzos and the coroner replied yes.

Soundmind · Oct 7, 2011

There's one more thing I forgot.

The tox guy also said that the lopz's levels were at a high therapeutic range and were within the normal limits. So the lopz was high, but it wasn't considered OD or even dangerous kind of high. I don't know much about lopz, but I don't think taken 8 pills at once are considered therapeutic levels.

His estimation was 11 mg of lorazepm, not unheard of .

adrianmonk · Oct 7, 2011

i have read the autopsy report multiple times and am unable to find where the coroner said that the benzos were given by another???? :ermm: I could just find where he said that the evidence did not support propofol self-administration.

where is the info from the prelim hearing too?

also, the evidence obviously doesn't support 8 pills taken at once but it could support 5 pills taken at once, which is still a lot:

2 mg given IV at 1am --> ~1 mg in bloodstream at TOD
2 mg given IV at 5am --> ~1.5 mg in bloodstream at TOD
10 mg (5 pills) given orally (85% bioavailable so only 8.5 mg goes to bloodstream) at 10:30am (takes 1-2 hours for peak blood levels) --> 8.5 mg in bloodstream at TOD

adds up to the 11mg the toxicologist stated. I feel they will state this, not 8 pills.

Ramona122003 · Oct 7, 2011

Soundmind said:
mmmm ,Flanagan asked him what was the amount of lorazepam in stomach . he said it was ...... Flanagan pointed out that meant 6x of the one found in the blood . Flanagan then said would not that be considered an indication of oral lorazepam , the expert replied no . He explained futher why although it might look large in fact it was 1/40 of a 2 mg lorazepam , then he said "but I'm not eliminating the oral theory" What the prosecutors got from this witness is important contrary to what Chernoff claimed in the opening statement they don't have evidence MJ took lorazepam himself . But the defense was able to acheive one major thing, toxicologist could not confirm all lorazepam that was found and listed as a contributing factor was injected by Murray himself . In fact the coroner in the autopsy report and during the preliminary hearing did confirm he believed lorazepam was injected by someone else. Re read please the autopsy report you will find it . Hopefully the prosecutors run more tests , have other experts to clarify this issue. Flanagan specifically asked the coroner whether one of the reasons he called this case homicide because someone else gave benzos and the coroner replied yes.

The tox guy and the person who did the autopsy, however, are not the same person. This is the same person who said he wasn't even sure the pee found in the jug was Michael's and I'm certain they tested it before given it to him. All he can say was the amount and he said that the lopz could had gotten in the stomach through the blood, which isn't unusual. Which means, Michael eating eight pills could not be the only cause.

Keep in mind as well that he said that drug levels can go up after death so the lopz could had been actually lower. The defense try to say that lopz doesn't disperse based on a book for an leading tox scientist, but the tox guy made it clear that he didn't considered it reliable since that statement was based on only two case studies. So the elevated levels are based on many assumptions to begin with.

Another thing, even if the amount of lopz was higher in the stomach, it would effect death because it wasn't in the bloodstream. Lopz works by making your brain so sleepy it forgets to breath. It can't do that if the vast amount is in the stomach, so whatever Michael supposedly took couldn't had effected him in that moment.

And once again, that 4mg number comes only from Murray. The defense cannot prove that Murray only gave that amount, he didn't even bother to write it down on paper. All the DA has to ask the jury is why should they believe Murray on the numbers given that he lied about everything else.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 7, 2011

Murray claims he gave x amount of loz are 2 and 5am. yet he tells the drs at the hospital he had no idea when he gave anything.yet after hiring a lawyer he suddenly has a full timeline of what he gave and when.and no medical notes given to fleek either. that is a huge issue in itsself.

jaydom7 · Oct 7, 2011

elusive moonwalker said:
Murray claims he gave x amount of loz are 2 and 5am. yet he tells the drs at the hospital he had no idea when he gave anything.yet after hiring a lawyer he suddenly has a full timeline of what he gave and when.and no medical notes given to fleek either. that is a huge issue in itsself.

I hope the jury remembers that.. He told the er doctors that he had no sense of time with no watch, yet he told the police times of medications and went he went to pee yet he didn't mention his hour or so of calls and texts.. Murray is a liar and a crook

Soundmind · Oct 7, 2011

i have read the autopsy report multiple times and am unable to find where the coroner said that the benzos were given by another???? :ermm: I could just find where he said that the evidence did not support propofol self-administration.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-CA</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>AR-SA</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Page 11

Opinion:
Toxicology studies show a high blood concentration of propofol, as well as the presence of benzodiazepines as listed in the toxicology report. The autopsy did not show any trauma or natural disease which would cause death.

The cause of death is acute propofol intoxication. A contributing factor in the death is benzodiazepine effect.

The manner o death is homicide, based on the following:

1. Circumstances indicate that propofol and the benzodiazepines were administered by another.

2. The propofol was administered in a non-hospital setting without any appropriate medical indication.
3. The standard of care for administering propofol was not met (see anaesthesiologist consultation). Recommended equipment for patient monitoring, precision dosing, and resuscitation was not present.
4. The circumstances do not support self-administration of propofol.

Dr. Christopher Rogers. 8/19/2009.

Rogers at the preliminary hearing ;

In determinig that this was a homicide, did you determine cause of death.

Accute propolfol intoxication and benzodiazipine effect. The autopsy showed (mentions drugs. Mostly propofol but benzos in less amts.)

Both benzos and propofol are ? medications. (

So, this combined effect, they combined and worked together to create heightened sedation.

Yes, I would expect in combination they would have produced heightened than by themselves.

Cross by Flanagan.

You conclusion as to this being a homicide, assumes the admnistration of propofol by another? Yes.

You’ve made several findings in your conclusion of you is it a fact, you indicated that certain that benzo was administered by another. yes.
and that propofol was administered outside a hospital setting? Yes.
Miss next q.

In your conclusion, situation doesn’t support self administration of self treatment of propofol? Yes.

Did you come across any factors that were inconsistent with your conclusions. No, I don’t believe so.

And once again, that 4mg number comes only from Murray. The defense cannot prove that Murray only gave that amount, he didn't even bother to write it down on paper. All the DA has to ask the jury is why should they believe Murray on the numbers given that he lied about everything else.

The DA has to prove his case , still you r right , why should they believe him?

elusive moonwalker · Oct 7, 2011

Its about proving murray "significantly contributed to mjs d" thats the legal definition under the law. did he significantly contribute by buying the dip and bringing into the house with no resus ect equipment.not monitoring not calling 911 ect.

Ramona122003 · Oct 7, 2011

jaydom7 said:
I hope the jury remembers that.. He told the er doctors that he had no sense of time with no watch, yet he told the police times of medications and went he went to pee yet he didn't mention his hour or so of calls and texts.. Murray is a liar and a crook

Exactly.

The defense is clinging to this 4mg number, but it comes from a highly unreliable source. Keep in mind as well that in the statement he gave, he was an hour off and somehow forgotten all those phone calls. He can recall every drug he gave, the time, and the amount without any notes to look back on, but he couldn't remember the time he found Michael and what he was doing himself. So, even if we don't go by what he told the doctors at the ER, how can you believe a person on the time he gave each anything if he was an hour off when he found the patient unresponsive? Given the short amount of time you have to revive a person, it's kind of important.

Autumn II · Oct 7, 2011

elusive moonwalker said:
Its about proving murray "significantly contributed to mjs d" thats the legal definition under the law. did he significantly contribute by buying the dip and bringing into the house with no resus ect equipment.not monitoring not calling 911 ect.

That is correct. There seems to be a mis-perception here that if some factual material given in testimony can't be verified, or if there are conflicting testimonies, that that somehow constitutes "reasonable doubt." It does NOT. So, the defense can sigh and look incredulous (Flanagan) about the investigator's testimony, but in the end it doesn't matter, overall, as to whether or not her thumb-print got onto some evidence?

What MATTERS is Murray's pattern of behavior. It's absolutely outrageous, and negligent, that he did not KEEP MEDICAL RECORDS or notes on the final months he was treating Michael! Among other things, that means he didn't know WHEN he gave which drugs, and at what amounts! That is further confirmed by his inability to give the ER doctors TIMES when meds were given, or when Michael was down, or anything. NO doctor or nurse would be so careless, unless it was someone EXTREMELY negligent!

Maybe in the end, the prosecution will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the ratio of lorazepam found in stomach compared to blood level, and what that would signify? That doesn't MATTER, in proving negligence. The reasonable doubt here would be, "Was there or was there not negligence?" I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious now?

elusive moonwalker · Oct 7, 2011

Maybe in the end, the prosecution will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the ratio of lorazepam found in stomach compared to blood level, and what that would signify? That doesn't MATTER, in proving negligence. The reasonable doubt here would be, "Was there or was there not negligence?" I think the----------------------------------------------------yes exactly. thats what im trying to say.its about him in the eyes of the jury significantly contributing to what happened.to get off they have to think his contribution was minimal

Autumn II · Oct 7, 2011

elusive moonwalker said:
"Was there or was there not negligence?" I think the----------------------------------------------------yes exactly. thats what im trying to say.its about him in the eyes of the jury significantly contributing to what happened.to get off they have to think his contribution was minimal

Yes, that is my point. I'm sure that the jury is as weary as we are of the nano-evidence of tox-report, AR, precise measurements of blood-levels versus stomach contents or urine. Was the dose large and sudden, small and insidious, or whatever?

In the end that is not the POINT of something Murray should not have been doing in the first-place! To me, the "nano-evidence" is sounding a whole lot like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic, now. The ship is STILL going down.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 7, 2011

Yeah i agree. interms of yesterday and andersons testimony if im on the jury what mattered was the toxis results. showing there was nothing in mj bar what murray gave. everything else is just a side issue and would prob go over you head as inscheme of the case it isnt a major factor

The Defense Strategy

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests