yeah, my point was the doctor knew or I assume should have known based on the autospy report that MJ had vitiligo and he could have pointed out the lack of sunlight for someone suffering from vitiligo could be a reason you know huminize the victim instead of you know talking about psychiatric issues then at somepoint he said " obviously we had someone who had substance abuse problem" demerol ! not expecting him nor the prosecutors to be biased but come on at least try to understand the guy , give him the benefit of the doubt!!
Re demerol ,The jurors have been hearing about Klein since day one, and let's admit it the over all impression from all the questions even the prosecutors' phrasing MJ was receiving something he should not have been recieving and he was doing something 'wrong' at Klein's office . That's a problem , to me at least why if you could as a prosecutor enlighten the jury about such a thing especially now when the victim supposedly took not only propofol but the two drugs that killed him , why would not I try to refute the defense claims? why always agree with them ? why r they taking Murray's word as facts eventhough they had the records to refute such claims ?
