Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 3

[ivy]

As the first week of testimony is over what do you think about the trial?

Who had the best opening statement?

How do you rate the prosecution?

How do you rate the defense?

How do you rate the judge?

How about witnesses? Which ones were strong which ones were week?

And anything else that comes to mind

 

[Kikuchiyo]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

As the first week of testimony is over what do you think about the trial?

It's been a devastating week, especially first day. hmy2: :nooo:
I feel very detached from the world, everything seems so surreal. It feels like a bad dream and I am waiting to wake up.
Nothing will bring Michael Jackson back but I hope that justice will prevail.

Who had the best opening statement?

Easy one, Prosecution!

How do you rate the prosecution?

So far, so good. I have few minor objections but I won't mention it here...

How do you rate the defense?

Actually I think they are doing a solid job considering all the evidence against their client (Dr. Mur-derer). They are mudding the water.

How do you rate the judge?

Great judge, very authoritative in the courtroom but also good-natured [his remark after false alarm: "Don't worry if it were an emergency, I'd be the first one out." :lol:]

How about witnesses? Which ones were strong which ones were week?

Every witness did their part well but Alberto Alvarez has made the strongest impression on me.

 

[max000]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

The lead prosecutor will be running for governor of california in the near future. The other lawyers will all have tv gigs. And MICHAEL JACKSON'S carcass will be splattered on that court room floor. Do you really want to talk about winners and losers.??

 

[Severus Snape]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

As the first week of testimony is over, what do you think about the trial?

I think this trial has been overall difficult to watch, especially considering the events of day one. From an intellectual perspective, I find it absolutely a fascinating sight to behold, but from an emotional perspective it is among the most unbearable things to witness. At the moment things hit you in court, you're on "analytical" mode, so you are thinking of their relevance in context of the trial and the endeavour to punish Murray...but when night comes and the feed is over, it hits you on a whole other level, often at a time when you are utterly unprepared to deal with the gravity and the reality of the situation.

Who had the best opening statement?

The prosecution undoubtedly had the best opening statement. They kept themselves organized, kept the point perpetually in focus, and provided supplements to their words in the form of the powerpoint [helps keep things in perspective/organized] and the photograph and audio as well. Overall, their opening statement had an overwhelming impact not only on an intellectual, but an emotional perspective, and both are important in the court of law.

How do you rate the prosecution?

Again, the prosecution has been excellent in proving their point thus far. They have kept themselves organized and efficient, they have not asked irrelevant or redundant questions, and they have provided a lot of very powerful and damning points/evidence.

How do you rate the defense?

Thus far, the defence has been weak, however, this is no reason to underestimate them. Their opening statement was thoroughly sloppy [case in point--misspelling Michael's name], and their questions have been redundant and irrelevant. They were also very disorganized (fumbling, stuttering, losing papers, etc). However, the task Chernoff & co. have at hand can only be described as Homeric--they are trying to defend something which simply cannot be defended, and are (in my opinion) being overambitious in pursuing a full acquittal. Their demeanour in court also comes off badly--Chernoff has thinly veiled contempt for a lot of the witnesses, most notably Alberto Alvarez.

Their only salvation lies in muddying the waters, a tactic which only works on the impressionable. Let us hope the jury has enough sense to not fall victim to the defence's strategy of choice.

How do you rate the judge?

The judge is absolutely excellent. We lucked out in having someone like him--he is authoritative but also very evidently a humble and decent person. I especially like how he explains everything so thoroughly, so as to prevent confusion. I also appreciate his sense of humour outside of court sessions, such as at the conclusion of the day's events. His comments criticizing the defence's media appearance strengthened whatever respect I already had for him.

How about witnesses? Which ones were strong which ones were week[sp.]?

All the witnesses we've had thus far have proven themselves to be valuable additions in some form or other, but I think the strongest ones thus far have been the paramedics and Alvarez.

Kai Chase by default is the weakest witness due to her profession and her (wise) decision not to interfere during an emergency situation. However, her testimony certainly has value, especially looking at it through a pro-prosecution perspective.

 

[bouee]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

I have been following this for 2 years now, so it's hard for me to imagine what the jurors or the general public might think.

The prosecution did a great job, their opening argument was clear and well organised. But I was shocked by the photo, and the recording. I heard on Skynews that the jurors looked shocked too. I'm not sure this should have been shown outside the courtroom, and I'm not sure the photo should have been used as a background for Walgren's presentation. That was too much for me.

One thing I noticed and really liked is that the prosecution presented the "human" side of Michael (talking or getting the witnesses to talk about the children and their relationship with their father for example, and even, in a way, that picture). It's important I think since unfortunately some people still see Michael as a "weird" person. IMO, the prosecution made it clear they were not talking about a superstar, they were talking about a 50 year old man, father of 3 young children. A human being everyone can relate to.


The defense is saying that Michael swallowed 8 pills of lorazepam and then gave himself propofol. That's what is going to be important, so it will all be about the medical experts. The defense is going against the coroner. I hope the prosecution will prove the defense wrong. If they don't , there will be reasonable doubt.


All the witnesses were good so far.

Michael's staff were good, but the defense sometimes managed to make some of them look like they were hiding something. I was a little bit disturbed by some of Faheem's , Kai's, and to a lesser extent, Alberto's answers. Like the confusion about when Michael was put on the floor, Kai saying she didn't know if Prince went upstairs with Murray (the stairway is right in front of the kitchen), Faheem saying he didn't remember what Cherilyn Lee told him, or he didn't remember if there was a camera recording the front door....These details are not important for the general outcome of the trial, but a little bit disturbing to me. It feels like there are some things they don't want to say, for some reason. It could be important or not important at all, the thing is I don't know why they would do that.

**** Edit : thanks to a post by Severus Snape in the Kai Chase thread : maybe Kai didn't remember if Prince went upstairs to avoid Prince being called to testify ***

The good things are that some important points are definitely confirmed : Murray hiding evidence (Alberto and paramedic Seneff), Murray lying about what he gave Michael (Paramedics and Dr Cooper). Mr Johnson (Nonin) was definitely important too, showing what kind of equimpent Murray was using to monitor Michael.

The prosecution called one of Murray's former patient, Mr Russel. I thought that was very good too, because Mr Russell said that Murray was a good doctor, had a very good relationship with him, until he suddenly "abandonned" him. It's good it came from the prosecution, it showed what kind of a person Murray is : people trust him, so Michael trusted him too, and he abandonned at least both of them.

So a tough week, but a good week so far.

 

[soulmum]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

It's definitely looking good for the prosecution but obviously we have to wait for the defense to present it's case. Really don't see any sort of spin they can put on this though. Murray left Michael alone under the influence of propofol and other drugs - guilty as charged.

 

[bouee]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

The lead prosecutor will be running for governor of california in the near future. The other lawyers will all have tv gigs. And MICHAEL JACKSON'S carcass will be splattered on that court room floor. Do you really want to talk about winners and losers.??

I definitely agree with you. But what happened to Michael needs to be publicly told. He was not responsible for what happened to him. It's important that it is made clear, IMO.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

As the first week of testimony is over what do you think about the trial?

I think the trial is utterly and completely heartbreaking. Not only did Michael die, but now this very private man is being discussed mostly as a BODY, like a "thing." Details of his medical "treatment" and condition are out there for the entire world to know about. He would be APPALLED. I also fear for the effect this graphic testimony could have on his children.

I'm quite capable of looking at evidence and testimonies in an analytical way, but always with the sense of immense sadness that it's come to this. . .

I think the MJJC coverage and support are absolutely top-of-the-line spectacular. That really HELPS everyone get through this.

Who had the best opening statement?

By far, the prosecution's opening statement was the best. They had more material to work with (Murray doesn't really HAVE much of a defense in terms of facts), but in addition to that, the presentation was organized and clear. The use of the photo was shocking, as was the audio, but probably necessary in order to present the strongest case.

How do you rate the prosecution?

Excellent. There are some points they could have pursued, and may yet pursue as the trial develops.

How do you rate the defense?

I wouldn't under-estimate the skill of the defense. They have almost NOTHING to work with but yet, somehow, are managing to put on a case. I would put these attorneys in the "shark" category, in that they are rude to witnesses, and are doing a lot with "incredulous" expressions and body-language.

How do you rate the judge?

Professional. Seems fair. Like how he jumped on the gag order, instantly.

How about witnesses? Which ones were strong which ones were week?

I found the EMTs to be the strongest, because they are medical professionals unconnected to Michael or the situation, other than trying to give him care. I also thought Cooper, the ER doctor, was a very strong witness as she established that Murrray TOLD her that he witnessed the "arrest." The one who touched me the most. . .moved me. . was Alvarez. He was crying, not really able to defend his facial expressions, and it seemed clear that he really cared about Michael, and may have made decisions that were not the best under the circumstances (such as not calling 911 immediately). I don't fault him for that, given the circumstances, and Michael was beyond saving, anyway.

The weakest witness was Kai Chase, although she served a purpose in HUMANIZING Michael, showing him to be a wonderful and caring father. The foods she cooked for him indicated that he had a desire to care for his health, and that of his children. I can understand the choice she made (going back to her cooking), and feel that under the circumstances it was (somewhat) a reasonable choice. (As a PERSON? I would probably NOT want to know her.)

And anything else that comes to mind

Pray for justice.

 

[JMie]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

As for me, I think the pros were much stronger, thank god for that.

This trial affected me greatly, it's been just four days and it seems like a month already. My friend was watching a history concert during our flight and I started watching with her but couldnt because I remembered the photo from the trial and burst into tears... I wish I never saw it....


As for the witnesses , I dint really know. Some were more confident than others but overall I think they did a good job forth pros.

The judge is great in my opinion.

Among the pros the most dangerous IMO I'd the guy whose name I don't remember but not Chernoff and not flanagan

 

[Hess]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

Murray will not win this case.

I think he will get 3 years. - but I hope he will get 4!

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

I personally am not at ease with the terms "who's winning or losing", because it trivializes the seriousness of the situation. I'm not watching this with a bucket of popcorn in my lap, folks.

However, I feel that the State of California is doing a stellar job at proving their case, better than the defense's effort to discredit it. Atty Flanagan is like an attack dog at times, which is expected, but is quite annoying, lol! He reminds me of my Algebra 3 teacher in high school...... :lmao:

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

I personally am not at ease with the terms "who's winning or losing", because it trivializes the seriousness of the situation. I'm not watching this with a bucket of popcorn in my lap, folks.

However, I feel that the State of California is doing a stellar job at proving their case, better than the defense's effort to discredit it. Atty Flanagan is like an attack dog at times, which is expected, but is quite annoying, lol! He reminds me of my Algebra 3 teacher in high school...... :lmao:

Oh, I can assure you, NOBODY has a "bucket of popcorn," Or a smiley that does THIS? :lmao: For most of us, this is yet another trauma, and I think giving our opinions at this point, (re: this thread) is entirely appropriate. This is something we just have to get through, somehow?

 

[Severus Snape]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

^Well, TMZ certainly does view it that way (judging by their posts), but for us as fans, it is obviously yet another trudge through trauma-filled 2009.

Regarding the defence attorneys, Flanagan is extremely experienced, and Chernoff has a good history behind him, so I am unsure as to why they are thoroughly lacking in this case--although I can't say it's exactly surprising. They have literally nothing to work with, as Autumn said, so that is why I suspect they will resort to attacking Michael's character by insinuating he was a drug addict. We've already seen overtures in that direction taken by the defence. Generally, attacks upon a person's character are the last resort attorneys turn to, a truly low and desperate ploy to discredit the other side when they have no evidence whatsoever to support their own stance.

It's a play on the emotions, and an appeal to opinion. Humans love to judge and be cruel to each other--interestingly enough, they often apply harsher standards when judging others than they do when judging themselves. Gotta protect the ego somehow, right?

With that said, I find it rather desperate whenever either the prosecution or the defence resorts to extraneous character deconstruction, that is, unless it is absolutely necessary (and I can't think of any point not past the line of desperation which would call for this). Sometimes it is thoroughly deserved (as in the case of Murray and his deadbeat dad antics), sometimes it is nasty and unwarranted, but it is almost always desperate.

However, returning to the defence evaluation, I find it remarkable that they have managed to hold on for this long. You can see the stress on Chernoff's face. Good. He should be scared. Well, really, Murray should be the most scared of them all.

By the way, I absolutely agree that both Chernoff and Flanagan have been totally rude to several witnesses already. I cannot believe some of the things they said/did while questioning the witnesses! Well, it's all to our benefit in the end--although it should not theoretically matter in these affairs, demeanour is a big factor in influencing humans' receptions towards each other, and most people are not objective enough to look past someone exhibiting a negative demeanour, even if he has valid points to make (although they don't have to worry about that in this case--the defence has no valid points at all, and they've been pretty desperate from the get-go).

In short, both Flanagan and Chernoff come off as highly unlikable, which is bound to turn the jury slightly off form what they have to say. Sad, but that's human nature--gotta know how to handle them humans! Shame on you!

Conversely, both Walgren and Brazil come off as likable/neutral, but still retaining professionalism. Judge Pastor is highly likable, but in a way which permits him to maintain his authority. Judge Pastor... ?

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

Oh, I can assure you, NOBODY has a "bucket of popcorn," Or a smiley that does THIS? :lmao: For most of us, this is yet another trauma, and I think giving our opinions at this point, (re: this thread) is entirely appropriate. This is something we just have to get through, somehow?

In the above light, i'll be flippant in my opinions on what is being treated by the media as a tv event. It's a welcome relief from the harrowing details of what was going on in that bedroom night after night.

We don't have televised trials in uk so this is actually the first one i've seen on tv. I imagined the lawyers would be playing to the gallery in a high profile trial to make a name for themselves, but have been really pleasantly surprised by how serious and business like the prosection have been. Walgren esp has been cool, well-organised and clear and is extremely easy on the eye (yeah, i'm shallow).

The defence by contrast are not telegenic at all. Chernoff just looks spivvy with his ill-fitting suits with the overly wide shoulders, like a minor character in a 1940s gangster movie who gets killed off early on for double-crossing someone. He's clearly been told to be more charming to witnesses, but his questions to Ms ng (volunteer in murray's clinic) - are you nervous, where are you staying in LA, can i call you by your first name as your surname is too diff to pronounce - were frankly creepy. Was he trying to pick her up? Flannigan looks like george hamilton's much uglier brother without the suntan. Impressive head of hair though. He overdoes the theatrics when he's badgering the witnesses, all that sighing and peerring over his specs, and he is so slow in his cross-exams, i lose the will to live sometimes. The third guy (can't remember name) with bald head looks like a thug but i could be prejudiced as he called mj a drug addict in his first question.

Love the judge, he seems really nice and fair and authorative. Picking up a double negative yesterday in one of the defence questions was pretty impressive.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

In the above light, i'll be flippant in my opinions on what is being treated by the media as a tv event. It's a welcome relief from the harrowing details of what was going on in that bedroom night after night.

We don't have televised trials in uk so this is actually the first one i've seen on tv. I imagined the lawyers would be playing to the gallery in a high profile trial to make a name for themselves, but have been really pleasantly surprised by how serious and business like the prosection have been. Walgren esp has been cool, well-organised and clear and is extremely easy on the eye (yeah, i'm shallow).

The defence by contrast are not telegenic at all. Chernoff just looks spivvy with his ill-fitting suits with the overly wide shoulders, like a minor character in a 1940s gangster movie who gets killed off early on for double-crossing someone. He's clearly been told to be more charming to witnesses, but his questions to Ms ng (volunteer in murray's clinic) - are you nervous, where are you staying in LA, can i call you by your first name as your surname is too diff to pronounce - were frankly creepy. Was he trying to pick her up? Flannigan looks like george hamilton's much uglier brother without the suntan. Impressive head of hair though. He overdoes the theatrics when he's badgering the witnesses, all that sighing and peerring over his specs, and he is so slow in his cross-exams, i lose the will to live sometimes. The third guy (can't remember name) with bald head looks like a thug but i could be prejudiced as he called mj a drug addict in his first question.

Love the judge, he seems really nice and fair and authorative. Picking up a double negative yesterday in one of the defence questions was pretty impressive.

I think the shabby presentation of the defense is intentional! That "poor" doctor, and his under-dog attorneys? The suits look like they come from the Goodwill (not that there's anything wrong with "recycling" clothing.)

Walgren? Utterly professional, focused, and intense (and easy-on-the-eye. . ) Political career in his future?

The judge. A little to prone to humor for my taste, and a little too "folksy." But sharp as a razor in picking up the double negatives, and the off-topic questions. Good for HIM, about the "gag-order."

 

[ivy]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 1

How about Week 2?

What do you think of Prosecution?

What do you think of the Defense?

What do you think about the Judge?

Most interesting piece of information we learned this week?

Best witness?

Worst witness?

Most surprising revelation of this week?

anything else you want to add?

 

[classic]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

I think that the prosecution is doing well. But, it is always so hard to predict a jury. What you think is so obvious may not be so to them.

I have not been able to watch most of it because of my work schedule. But, I was wondering if there has been strong testimony in regards to whether the actions of Murray's after Michael was given the medications resulted in his being unable to be revived by the EMTs or emergency room doctors. I thought that I read that one paramedic stated that Michael could have been saved if they were there sooner. But, I don't know if this is true or not. Perhaps someone can confirm it.

While people think so many of Murray's actions were negligent, I can't help to think about whether this jury is going to say that this stepped from a civil case to a criminal case. That is what has to be proved; that these weren't just medical mistakes (because, unfortunately, that occurs each day). The must prove that it went so much further than that.

Do people think that such is actually being driven home? I certainly hope so.

I think that the toxicologist and the emergency room doctor have been very powerful. I will say that some testimony does make you wonder about other things, though.

 

[twinklEE]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

regardless of the outcome of this trial Michael Jackson has been the ultimate loser in all this, I just hope and pray for Murray to be locked away and even if it's just for few years so be it.

 

[indranee]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

regardless of the outcome of this trial Michael Jackson has been the ultimate loser in all this, I just hope and pray for Murray to be locked away and even if it's just for few years so be it.

agreed :sad:

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

regardless of the outcome of this trial Michael Jackson has been the ultimate loser in all this, I just hope and pray for Murray to be locked away and even if it's just for few years so be it.

It's so sad, but you're absolutely right.

 

[Popescu]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

Guys, I don't think that these images will stick. I have watched a lot of his videos and performances lately. We are all so used to them so it just seems a natural thing for us, but they are mind blowing pieces of art. No one will care in fifty years time about the damn tape CM recorded or the Pepsi commercial. No one. He's so amazing that it won't matter. If anything, it will help in humanizing him.

What Michael did... he can't be compared with Elvis for instance. He's up there with Mozart, Michelangelo, Van Gogh... He revolutionized art and entertainment and this is what he will be remembered for. Trust me on this one :hug:

 

[soulmum]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

A very bad day for the defense. Dr Steinberg was 'smokin' and Flanagan was made to look like a fool. Murray's police interview just came back to bite him in the a**.

 

[myosotis]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

It seems that the defence keep trying to score points by inaccurately quoting witness statements back at them eg to the medical specialists. This becomes very wearing (You said 'this', No I said 'that') and is such an obvious tactic that I don't see how they can convince a jury that they have a clear defence case ( They haven't!)

Most interesting piece of info about a witness...Shafer's first wife, and Shafer worked closely with White on Propofol dosing ...interesting because people who work together on research and publish papers together usually have the same views....but this time they are 'presumably' supporting opposite sides?


One of the most ridiculous inferences of the week...Flanagans' attempt to infer that there may have been no point in calling 911 first because security had to open the front gate...as if security wouldn't admit an ambulance / fire - paramedic truck called by Murray.... and as if you couldn't tell security to open the gate AFTER calling 911

 

[ivy]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

how about this week?

How about Week 2?

What do you think of Prosecution?

What do you think of the Defense?

What do you think about the Judge?

Most interesting piece of information we learned this week?

Best witness?

Worst witness?

Most surprising revelation of this week?

anything else you want to add?

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

Re: Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 2

I think that the prosecution is doing well. But, it is always so hard to predict a jury. What you think is so obvious may not be so to them.

I have not been able to watch most of it because of my work schedule. But, I was wondering if there has been strong testimony in regards to whether the actions of Murray's after Michael was given the medications resulted in his being unable to be revived by the EMTs or emergency room doctors. I thought that I read that one paramedic stated that Michael could have been saved if they were there sooner. But, I don't know if this is true or not. Perhaps someone can confirm it.

While people think so many of Murray's actions were negligent, I can't help to think about whether this jury is going to say that this stepped from a civil case to a criminal case. That is what has to be proved; that these weren't just medical mistakes (because, unfortunately, that occurs each day). The must prove that it went so much further than that.

Do people think that such is actually being driven home? I certainly hope so.

I think that the toxicologist and the emergency room doctor have been very powerful. I will say that some testimony does make you wonder about other things, though.

I agree. Unfortunately I am not convinced Murray will be found guilty mainly because of the defense continually saying that Michael was an addict among alot of the other things they said. And I personally did not like how some of the prosecution's witnesses suddenly seemed to lose focus under cross examination and started basically agreeing with the defense, thereby potentially casting doubt on their own testimony. As good a job as the prosecution did overall on their side of this case, it doesn't necessarily mean an automatic conviction for Murray. The prosecution need to have a stronger comeback in the rebuttal phase of the trial. This is all just my opinion.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I have a few concerns. obviously its hard to comment until u see the defence case and cross is of major importance. i remember with mj trial alot said mez won the case on his cross examine before he had even started his defence Case my concern is based around the iv with no dip in it which combats the drip was used that night argument. flanagans argument that mj was put in conscience sedation which will be used as a reason for lack of monitoring etc.whether that argument will be supported by paul white is to be seen. but imo he will as that seems to be the main defence argument.there other slight things like murray asking for help at 1205 could been seen by some jurrors as he did ask but its not his fault no one rang 911 i know im grasping abit but being the person iam i look for the slightest thingthe one good thing is how excellent steinberg and the other were. they were as strong as u could have wished for. and thats a major factor because imo they are key witnesses.any defence witness will have to be special to have their testimoby go above those two.and hooefully shaffer will be as good as he said the most incriminating things about murray. i guess not knowing totally who the defence witnesses are makes u worried aswell. i guess its about the unknown

 

[smoothlugar]

The two doctors from the Medical Board made things very clear for the jury, particularly the process of the respiratory arrest and the reaction to that from a cardiologist such as Murray. Prosecutors knew defense would ask about that and did not emphasise in their direct examination, it became more stricking for the defense to encounter with such evidence in their cross (Murrays own words: 122 pulse, mouth to mouth, etc...).

My concerns are more with the initial death investigation, and not a homicide one, which led to some evidence not registered into written inventory initially (writing the vial "inside" the IV bag). In other aspects, the detective was OK, he even said that things found in the suitcase did not even prove was Michael's at all. Coroner was not very strong in cross and had to be re-examined by Walgren to point out that the anesthesiologist consultation played a very important role in determining it was a homicide.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Double post

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Yes i agree the intial investigation was slack. the mess up re taking pics of the iv bag with bottle in it is a big example.whats viewed as an important piece of evidence was messed up in every way poss

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re rogers testimony. smooth u mention walgren had to mention it was the other expert that said it would be homicide more was that expert shaffer?