14th october hearing

elusive moonwalker

Guests
LOS ANGELES – Testimony in the manslaughter trial of Michael Jackson's personal doctor could wrap up by Oct. 21, attorneys told the judge Friday.

During a 35-minute hearing before Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor, lawyers for the prosecution and defense said they expected the last witness for either side to finish by the end of next week or no later than Oct. 24. Defendant Conrad Murray and the jury were not in court for the session.

So far with 12 days at trial, 33 witnesses have testified for the prosecution in support of charges that Murray negligently gave Jackson a fatal overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol as a sleep aid in June 2009. Murray, 58, a cardiologist, has pleaded not guilty.

Steven Shafer, an anesthesiologist and an expert on propofol, was on the witness stand when court adjourned Thursday. Shafer will be the last state witness, prosecutor David Walgren told Pastor.

The defense will call about 15 witnesses, including "police officers, experts and some character witnesses," but could add more, defense lawyers said. There will be at least two defense experts and as many as four, depending on what Shafer says in his remaining testimony, defense lawyer Nareg Gourjian said.

Shafer could complete his testimony Monday or Tuesday, after what defense counsel J. Michael Flanagan estimated would be "a couple hours" of cross-examination. But a member of Shafer's family has died and he might not be able to return Monday, requiring cancellation of the day's proceedings, Pastor said.

Along with Paul White of Dallas, the defense's propofol expert, Shafer had been planning to attend a national conference of anesthesiologists this weekend in Chicago, where he was to receive a lifetime achievement award, Walgren said. Shafer won't go to the conference, the prosecutor said.

"I feel terrible," the judge said. "I'm sure all of us do. Doubly tragic, in the sense he had this personal loss and then not to receive this honor."

In another development, Walgren moved to admit into evidence 211 prosecution exhibits that jurors already have seen. Murray's defense raised objections to only two: a clip of Jackson rehearsing for his planned "This Is It" concert tour and a photo of Jackson's three children.

Pastor ruled for the prosecution and accepted all 211 items. Jurors will have unlimited access to them during deliberations, Pastor said, except for bottles of propofol, drug residues, medical instruments and other potentially dangerous items. Only if jurors ask to see these items will a bailiff bring them in and supervise their review by the jurors, the judge ruled.

Pastor, angered when Walgren and co-prosecutor Deborah Brazil showed up in court six minutes late, fined each $60. He deferred collecting the fines until "a later time" when he'll ask them to explain their tardiness, he said.
[/quote]
 
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A defense lawyer has disclosed in court that he knew months before trial that a key theory that Michael Jackson drank propofol would have to be abandoned.

Defense attorney J. Michael Flanagan made the statement in court Friday without the jury present in the case against Dr. Conrad Murray.

The judge and prosecutors were surprised when they were told earlier this week about the change in tactics.

The disclosure Friday came after prosecutor David Walgren complained that he is dealing with an ever-changing defense case.

Flanagan declared that was not true.

Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said he had never been advised in advance that the oral ingestion theory would be dropped.

Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

http://news.yahoo.com/defense-key-tactic-jackson-case-dumped-may-202334850.html
 
is there anything illegal about what defense has done? the prosecution has probably spent 100s of hours working on debunking the "he drank propofol theory" and now flanagan declares he knew it was wrong in may!!?? can he be sanctioned?
 
Erikmjfan;3511567 said:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A defense lawyer has disclosed in court that he knew months before trial that a key theory that Michael Jackson drank propofol would have to be abandoned.

Believe me or not, I had this feeling for quite some time. This "theory" was disclosed by the defense very early, I thought it might be all smoke and mirrors to force the prosecution to focus on the "theory" which won't be used.
 
Yeah to think the defence were trying to stop the pros using the chillien study when the knew they were never even gonna use that defence. lawyers as deceiving as their client
 
Yeah to think the defence were trying to stop the pros using the chillien study when the knew they were never even gonna use that defence. lawyers as deceiving as their client

To be fair, it is their job. By the way, it was quite obvious during cross. They concentrated on withdrawal from demerol "theory" and on "8 pills of lorazepam" theory. Not even a blip regarding "drinking propofol".
 
^Totally agree. Although I really do not buy their "knowing this all along," about the implausibility of Michael dying from swallowing propofol. Eight pills of anything won't really do very much to you (well, to be fair, it does depend on the dosage...), unless it's something highly horrible like acetaminophen, in which case it could very well nuke your liver. But, the cause of death was acute propofol intoxication as stated in the coroner's report. Nothing about Lorazepam being the cause of death. Therefore, I fail to see why the "8 pills" hypothesis is of any relevance to them when the official cause of death has already been declared? Not only that, but I think one of the witnesses earlier on said he didn't show any signs of someone who had suffered from a Lorazepam overdose, because it was rare for it to cause cardiac arrest at that dosage, and that the likelier result would be respiratory arrest?

Moreover, since they're pills, they would take about 30-45 minutes to take effect... (usual time pills start taking effect--whether you took 5 or 5,000 mg is irrelevant, the time elapsed would still be around the same and I can vouch for this), so if Michael took them when Murray was not there, then he would have been still awake, or at the very least semi-conscious. Definitely not pretty much dead, which is the way Murray found him. Pills just don't work that way. They take time.

Second: Michael injecting himself with propofol (a dumber hypothesis than the original, IMO):

1) Michael was needle-phobic. How on Earth was he supposed to inject himself with propofol if he was terrified of needles? And, even if he somehow got around this phobia about having a disgusting thing (IV tube) sticking out of his arm and making him feel terribly uncomfortable with its foreignness and hospital-esque sterility, what on Earth would possess him to think he could self-administer this? If he thought he could do that, what would be the point of paying Murray to hang around?

2) Propofol is very fast-acting. Even if he had injected himself with the fatal dose, how would he manage to plop himself back on the bed when the thing knocks you out in seconds? He would have been lying face-down on the bed, or slumped in some awkward angle in a corner near the bed, who knows...but obviously it would have been immediately apparent that something had gone horribly, horribly wrong, which would be Murray's cue to call 911 and stop screwing around.

Negligence, no matter which way you look at it.
 
Second: Michael injecting himself with propofol (a dumber hypothesis than the original, IMO):

1) Michael was needle-phobic. How on Earth was he supposed to inject himself with propofol if he was terrified of needles? And, even if he somehow got around this phobia about having a disgusting thing (IV tube) sticking out of his arm and making him feel terribly uncomfortable with its foreignness and hospital-esque sterility, what on Earth would possess him to think he could self-administer this? If he thought he could do that, what would be the point of paying Murray to hang around?


Yes. And this is why I wish there would have been a witness during the prosecution side of this case who would have told the court that Michael did not like needles. That would have at least cast doubt on the whole "Michael self-injected" theory.
 
is there anything illegal about what defense has done? the prosecution has probably spent 100s of hours working on debunking the "he drank propofol theory" and now flanagan declares he knew it was wrong in may!!?? can he be sanctioned?


I agree. I knew that theory wasn't going to work from the very beginning. But why is the defense constantly allowed to change their version of the events at the last minute? I don't understand that. I think that Walgren was perfectly within his right to complain about it. It's not fair to the jury either. The prosecution and defense of course are on opposite sides. But I do not think that gives either of them the right to sideswipe the other with switch-ups in a case presentation right in the middle of a court trial. This is all just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
^It makes them seem confusing and weird. Which is good for us. However, no reason to let our guard down. We're just beginning...
 
To be fair, it is their job. By the way, it was quite obvious during cross. They concentrated on withdrawal from demerol "theory" and on "8 pills of lorazepam" theory. Not even a blip regarding "drinking propofol".
The chilian motion was filed long after may.not sure how its their job to deceive the court and the judge
 
Yes. And this is why I wish there would have been a witness during the prosecution side of this case who would have told the court that Michael did not like needles. That would have at least cast doubt on the whole "Michael self-injected" theory.
Rebuttal stage i guess. but tbh its not really a strong arument as the defence can say it didnt stop mj having loads of cosmetic stuff done over the years and going to kliens
 
The chilian motion was filed long after may.not sure how its their job to deceive the court and the judge

Elusive, with all due respect. Let's talk abstract. This is what any defense does. Defense does not have to prove their theories and does not have to stick to their theories. It is prosecution's job to DISPROVE these theories. No defense in any case would open all their cards to the prosecution before the trial. Note: I am not talking about mandatory disclosure of material, evidence, test results and so on, I am talking about the defense strategy. If defense did not file this motion regarding Chilean experiment, it would made it clear for the prosecution that the defense is no going to rely on "drinking propofol" theory. And I noticed right away that this particular "theory" was not in the opening statements by the defense.
I was really worried before the trial about the testing of stomach contents by the defense. You can see from some testimony that prosecution caught this issue, some of the experts (don't remember who exactly) did the calculations based on these new results regarding lorazepam.
So far, I believe that this "switch of theories" is NOT working for the defense. No matter how you look at what's going on, the main thing remains: Murray's actions (or inaction) directly resulted in Michael's death.
However, switching the theory and keeping the cards close to the chest IS defense's job. Any defense, not just in this case. I hate to say it, but they scored on this point. Again, I feel that so far it did not help them at all. But it is for jury to decide. Remember, the jury is not suppose to be aware at all of "drinking propofol" theory.

(edited) I just saw your link to Mesereau comments. He said it much better than me.

"I don't personally see a violation," said attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. "You're supposed to operate in good faith, but you don't have to tell them every little strategy you intend to employ ... . Maybe this defense team was debating whether to use the issue up to the end."
 
Last edited:
Well its nots surprising coming from the defence as they have zero ethics. they even went to the lengths of spending time fighting a motion writing replies when they never even intended to use such info anyway.
 
Well none of us are surprised by their latest tactic. They have came up with numerous ways of how Michael died since day one, which leads one to surmise that changing stories is part of their strategy. My personal feeling is that the lawyers know this is a "guilty" case for them, so their aim is to cast out much doubt and negativity about Michael's character and person as possible. Their feeling is that "if we are going to lose, let's do some damage." Hence the defense's constant cross-examination about demoral (which was not fund in Michael's stomach or home) and addiction, to have the media make news on their negative theories. They fail to understand that Michael's legacy will never be permanently damaged by their smear campaign!!!
 
elusive moonwalker;3511874 said:
Rebuttal stage i guess. but tbh its not really a strong arument as the defence can say it didnt stop mj having loads of cosmetic stuff done over the years and going to kliens

Right...but in both cosmetic procedures and Klein visits, Michael had <i>somebody else</i> administer the doses. He did NOT administer it himself. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to Klein, or having Murray around? So, if anything, what you've brought up further disproves the "he injected himself" hypothesis. But, you're right in bringing it up--defence may try to hoodwink the jury with this info.

@Petrarose: Neither Chernoff nor Flanagan (nor Baldy, TBH I forgot his name) have anything at all to gain from a Michael Jackson smear campaign. They're defending Murray only because they're getting paid (and they're kind of doing a shoddy job at it, IMO). They brought up the Demerol, etc. to attempt to muddy the waters and cast reasonable doubt&#8482; upon the jury by parroting what the media has already stated--in other words, they're using media manipulation to their own advantage by attempting to conjure media-instilled prejudices against Michael Jackson. Even the smallest doubt can acquit a defendant, and they know this. So, they're trying to carve a place for themselves by instilling small doubt upon the jury...but thus far, I don't think it is working.
 
One thing that hit me and made me shiver was during the cross of steinberg.he said no reasonable person would agree to be given a dangerous drug with no monitoring etc. he said if murray told mj ill give u this with non of the right equipment and ill leave u alone and go talk on the phone u think mj would agree. and flanagan said u know that mjs a reasonable ,/normal person? it made me cringe as its like the defence are gonna go down the route of mj was the wierdo w.a.c.k.o everyone thinks thanks to the media and the defence will push that diwn the jurrirs throats
 
@elusive, yes me too! Flanagan managed to repeat some of it but so far it blew over. Although mud sticks the defence would have to prove that Michael had been made aware of how dangerous this was and without written consent they can't.
 
One thing that hit me and made me shiver was during the cross of steinberg.he said no reasonable person would agree to be given a dangerous drug with no monitoring etc. he said if murray told mj ill give u this with non of the right equipment and ill leave u alone and go talk on the phone u think mj would agree. and flanagan said u know that mjs a reasonable ,/normal person? it made me cringe as its like the defence are gonna go down the route of mj was the wierdo w.a.c.k.o everyone thinks thanks to the media and the defence will push that diwn the jurrirs throats

I wouldn't put it this way, they're not going to call him a weirdo, they're going to say he was desperate, but yes, I think the defense will probably be using the informed consent by calling other doctor(s) and nurse Lee, to say thet they refused to give propofol and axplained why they wouldn't do it. I'm a little bit worried also if Dr Adams testifies, because I think his card and phone nr were found in MJ's stuff and he is an anesthesiolgist. Please correct me if I'm wrong , but that's what I remember from Scott Smith's testimony.
But that's also a double edge sword against Murray, because if other doctors refused, then he should have refused too. And Dr Adams would be too happy to detail, again, all the equiment you need for propofol.

In the same range of idea, I'm wondering if the defense will call some of the Jacksons. Chernoff said something during his opening statement that made me wonder, I don't remember what it was, I would need to listen to it again, but I don't really want to right now.

I know that wouldn't help Murray, that doesn't change anything for him, I don't see how you can find him not guilty, but the defense is so desperate.
 
Last edited:
@elusive, yes me too! Flanagan managed to repeat some of it but so far it blew over. Although mud sticks the defence would have to prove that Michael had been made aware of how dangerous this was and without written consent they can't.
you'right, Murray probably told MJ he would be safe, because Murray thought he could handle the propofol. And I think he still does.
 
Wasnt the adams biz cards found in one of the hidden bags along with murrays biz cards?lee said mj told her it was ok to use cause his dr told him it was. although i think that would come under hearsay.tbh who knows what lee would say shes a strange one. her f.b account has loads of pro mj groups on it and i wonder what she would say about murrays claims about mj sackibg her the defence only have around 15 witnesses i bet half are paitents. will be funny when walgren asks them if they knew the nurses treating them werent trained or qualifyed.then u have police. other than a couole of experts he has no witnesses that will actually help interms of the allegations
 
On Monday is no court because Shafler`s fathter died. Right? When is the next court-day?
 
Court is still on monday tmk. nothing was anounced. the last tweet from abc said it was still set for monday
 
Back
Top