Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At the end sometimes it's the 'small' things that matter, that's one of the reasons I don't want Walgren to think certain issues don't matter or aren't as relevant, he needs to uncover every single lie told by Murray even white lies, as they show a pattern. IMOMurray would lie about something like that. He had no watch, he had no phone, he comforted the kids and told Katherine Michael died. The lies just go on and on.
GregMilamSky Greg Milam by MMcParland
Conrad Murray tells judge he has not made a decision on whether to take stand. Judge says he'll ask for last time tmrw. #conradmurraytrial
Someone else mentioned this on another board, did you all notice how White just pulled out an IV line out of his pockets, just like that, but earlier claimed it wouldn't fit and if did fit into a pocket it would be bulgy etc? Hope the jury noticed this.
Anyway that's it for me, will be having dinner and then logging off.
This might not make sense and I know this was a total lie. But when he said that Michael had his own supply of propofol it felt like a slap to Michael. Something like that. The way that Michael continually gets thrown under the bus these kinds of people it just increases my anger. I find it hard to describe how I feel anymore. The defense are the ones that are scumbags.
What kind of doctor is she? Looking at her credentials above is she an expert on propofol?
While I would love to have murray take the stand I don't think his attorneys would allow it. And we all know that a simple thing like being under oath would mean nothing to him in terms of telling the truth. Although the thought of Walgren crossing him...well, it is the stuff of which dreams are made...
I have been worrying a bit over the last several days that this trial may be putting too much emphasis on computer modeling and not enough on the physical inconsistancies the biggie of course is the lack of Michael's fingerprints. Is this because it is hard to lift prints from a syringe or because the judge gave the instruction not to assume something wasn't handled just because there are no prints? (or something like that)
And the location of the syringe in the room...white finally admitted that murray had to have drawn it up and left it somewhere in the room.. I was so hoping walgren would pursue that avenue more in depth with things like 'well, wasn't that dangerous or irresponsible or unprofessional to do? Or something like that. Or do you believe that in that 2 minutes Michael woke completely up, located the syringe, obtained it, laid back down, inserted it into the Iv port, injected it and fell into the same position as when cm left the room? So that when cm returned after 2 minutes he found him dead? but with a pulse? And he was correct to not call 911 immediately.
I know he touched on these things and I admit I was not able to hear all of the morning testimony and I don't want to be hypercritical of DW but I feel there were missed opportunities. I hope he can get to them tomorrow...I wish he would recall dr schafer. Who I didn't notice sitting in court listening to white's expert testimony
Lastly, since the defense got another expert involved through a back door, whose data their own witness confessed ignorance of , couldn't she be called to testify? To, you know, clear up some of those mysterious sourceless numbers?[/QUOTE
Yes, and Michael was TERRIFIED of needles?
my question exactly....by the looks of it ..she is more into astrology and the planet...than she is propofol. I am NOT to impressed with her credentials as they dont really pertain to this case. I am glad that she will be testify because walgren needs to clear up those grafts .
I feel like all these witnesses for the defense all over the place.
my question exactly....by the looks of it ..she is more into astrology and the planet...than she is propofol. I am NOT to impressed with her credentials as they dont really pertain to this case. I am glad that she will be testify because walgren needs to clear up those grafts .
my question exactly....by the looks of it ..she is more into astrology and the planet...than she is propofol. I am NOT to impressed with her credentials as they dont really pertain to this case. I am glad that she will be testify because walgren needs to clear up those grafts .
I got the same impression as you. Walgren mentioned other studies where even no free propofol was detected in urine... that's why Shaffer when asked insisted on the importance of knowing the propofol metabollite to make proper calculations for an estimation of a probable total amount given.I think some of you have missed the point with regards to Walgren's questions at the end. He was asking a lot of questions that elicited a lot of sustained objections, but the point he was trying to make out is that his analysis of the non changing level of propofol in the urine was taken from one study, and that proved to be largely inaccurate too as Walgren was pointing out with some quotes he highlighted from the text. Walgren was bringing up lots of other articles to first prove that Dr White had done very little, if any, research and secondly to lay the groundwork to possibly call back Shafer to testify on those articles in order to further undermine Dr White's assertion that Mike's urine level of propofol means he could not have been on an infusion. I believe Shafer is likely to come back in to show that assertion to be false.
Walgren knew there would be objections - as White had not read any of those articles - but he was laying the groundwork for possibly calling back Shafer and asking him about those same studies. That is my opinion, anyway.
Dr White
Walgren
Did you do any research to make sure that the 0.3% used by Onellis (0.3% of the propofol is excreted unchanged) was accurate ? My feeling is that it was the most conservative number.
Walgren shows an article used by Dr Onellis as a basis for her analysis. It was published in 1988. It indicated that less than 0.3% of propofol is excreted unchanged, but the model uses 0.3% . Dr White recalls a paper that said 1 % .
Based on this paper (less than 0.3%), could it be 0 ? . Dr White doesn't agree.
Walgren says that the article says that 0.3 could be an overstimate. Dr White says that the difference with a 3 hour infusion would still be huge.
Walgren shows a 1991 article about animals (dogs, pisces, rat) : there was no unchanged propofol at all , wether it was bolus or infusion. Dr White doesn't rely on articles about animals, he would prefer to rely on articles about humans.
Walgren shows a 1999 article : they found no free propofol in the urine.
Dr White indicates he did not search the subject
Walgren shows a 2002 article : they found much smaller... objection, sustained. The judge asks walgren to change the subject.