Ashtanga
Proud Member
however I do believe he doctor shopped IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE because someone put the idea in his head that propofol was going to help him sleep
:bugeyed
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.
however I do believe he doctor shopped IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE because someone put the idea in his head that propofol was going to help him sleep
I agree, I think they try to multiply these foolishly looking strategies in trying desperately to raise doubt. It is desperate, cause the evidence has no mercy for Murray.Michael Jackson taking propofol and lidocaine orally is NOT supported by autopsy, since the traces are not found in oral organs: teeth, tongue, lips, mouth, gums, palate, glands, uvula, esophagus...
Murray's team are full of crap, never heard so much non-sense from them. Drinking propofol was the most laughable one. Autopsy does not support their claim/theory, period.
No matter what Murray's defends are claiming, I think their strategy is to put doubt on anything relating to the case, regardless is true or false.
I would not be that pessimistic to say they did not test for lorazepam in these cases. That is what Murray told them first plus why did they test for midazolam and not lorazepam?can you be sure? I serioulsy can't . Fleak already said she did not even size the juice bottles found there, did not even collect them . So what if he was poisoned ? what would they have done ?
You know what we went crazy over Beachlover's assumption that lorazepam was not tested for in the liver and the urine , and we thought they would have never been that incompetent .
At this point I won't be surprised if indeed they believed Murray and did not even bother to check whether he said the truth about the previous nights .
First, MJ's fingerprints are not on the syringe , who the hell said they were found on that syringe ?
second , even if they were and THEY ARE NOT , medically it is impossible for MJ to have injected himself .
Third Murray used that syringe to induce sleep that day , so his fingerprint would be on it .
Last the syringe was not even found under the bed as the media reporters are claiming , it was a needle that Murray gave to the paramedics to use . the syringe was found on the nightstand .
Why do you guys disappear for months and then when anything remotely related to "suicide" or "overdose" is mentioned you surface suddenly to ruin these threads . You are discussing things that have been already discussed and REFUTED medically tens of times
The explanation from Metzger in 2000 about prescriptions for Janet under another name was privacy (it was diuretics to help dieting).
In the "Search Warrant" the prescriptions related to MJ and under other names are mentioned, nothing strange, they were for the other medicines found (antibiotics by Lee and similar, already known), again, same issue of privacy.
I mean at autsopy they checked Michael for such things like anything in his mouth and such
I suppose Murray that day would use at least more than one induction dosage so as to explain for the u. bottle.
not necessary, I also believed that was the case first until I read more on urine production and exertion.
we are assuming the bladder exerted the 400ml at once , that all the urine was the result of the fluids Murray was giving via IV after he induced sleep using propofol. MJ was training ,they found liquid in his stomach , some of the 400ml came from fluids he previously drank. Bottom line the presence of propofol in both the bladder and the jug could have been the result of one shot of propofol.
if you read the previous pages maybe JUST MAYBE you would not have hurried to point the finger and condemn.
I believe it's time you start reading and comprehending the subjects at hand instead of trusting your 'gut feelings' that obviously let you down almost on everything .
add this subject to Adams, Lee, Metzger , lorazepam ..etc that your 'thorough investigative work' did not even consider .
if you read the previous pages maybe JUST MAYBE you would not have hurried to point the finger and condemn.
I believe it's time you start reading and comprehending the subjects at hand instead of trusting your 'gut feelings' that obviously let you down almost on everything .
add this subject to Adams, Lee, Metzger , lorazepam ..etc that your 'thorough investigative work' did not even consider and you was very determined to make the rest here dismiss .
This case is about medical facts , there are many here who are very willing to work out what did really happened that day , in the previous days and months , fortunately for us science don't lie . Most of us are not willing to base anything on 'gut feelings'. Gut feelings where there is no boundaries between reality and fiction could be quoted in the conspiracy section only.
yes Soundmind..I too am very interested as to how you came to the conclusion that Murray ONLY gave Michael 25mg of propofol...as per the professional...that would not even be enough to keep him asleep...however we all know that Michael had enough in his system to kill an elephant. If we take what it is you previously posted about the 25 mg..then that means that you are taking Murrays word for WHAT he says he gave Michael...and THAT means that you believe that he was using this on Michael the previous days and months..per your post. I thought we already came to the conclusion that if Murray had used this on Michael prior to June 25th..Michael would of pasted away long before he did.?? Also it has never been proven yet that Michael died of a bolus injection....it has been proven and testified to that it was Medically impossible for Michael to have given himself that last final dose ..do you agree?My question is, given your detailed analyses of amounts of various medications, and components of the medical equipment, and amounts of medications found as per the autopsy report -- I want to know what conclusion you would draw from all of that? That Murray wasn't giving a dangerous amount of propofol? Or, that he wasn't giving a dangerous amount of propofol, but WAS giving a dangerous amount of benzos? And then, is it that Michael didn't receive a dangerous amount of propofol, but that someone gave Michael a massive bolus? Murray did? Michael somehow did that himself? Someone else? I mean, what is your conclusion from all of that material?
But there were two samples of u. tested that's why I said at least two induction boluses dosages were needed (for each sample). (Similar as what Rogers suggested).I also believed that was the case first until I read more on urine production and exertion.
(...) the presence of propofol in both the bladder and the jug could have been the result of one shot of propofol.
"But there were two samples of u. tested that's why I said at least two induction boluses dosages were needed (for each sample). (Similar as what Rogers suggested).PS: An average induction bolus dosage is 2 - 2,5 mg/Kg, not the dose Murray alleged. Nobody was discussing that. "
your post soundmind.....in the statues hearing thread
He says I gave him 25mg over three minutes , no expert can say that was negligent on his part , the UCLA doctor daid she did not understand why he would even use such a small amount because it would have done absolutely nothing. So if the jurors heard that , and the prosecutors did not prove that was a lie, it will be a point for the defence not the prosecutors.
he says I remained there watching him for almost an hour , and the effect would have worn off within minutes of injection , what expert would say that was negligent ?
I see what you mean. But let me explain my point. It doesn't have to do with levels detected in toxicology in both samples but with the "use" of the jug. I'm assuming that for the jug to be used, the victim must have been awake. So the 0.10mg of profofol detected in those 450ml must reflect previous use to that moment (of being using the bottle). (I know there are also other possibilities to explain the jug content...).You are assuming in order for propofol to be found in both , he must have received at least two injections, something I intially believed.
But when you read further on the subject urine production and exertion, medically it's very possible the concentration in both was the result of the induction dose.
when urine was produced?
when urine was exerted?
400 ml exerted at once? there were intervals? if so both the urine in bladder and in the jug would have traces of propofol in them .
What I have searched is "that the flood flow is the driving force behind urine formation, that urine is only a reflection of exposure to a drug, not at what level they are and that the concentration of drug(s) and metabolite(s) in urine depend on the time of urine formation relative to sampling and drug administration".http://www.franklincountyohiocoroner.com/pdf/toxicology-department-at-fcco.pdf
What I mean is that that "exposure" to propofol, previous to the last lethal dose (no time for more urine to be produced) cannot determine with certainty the amounts of miligrams administered by Murray. (I know the levels are not consistent with large amounts kept trough continuous infusion for long hours- that's clear, according to comparisons in blogs and that you also explained, but the exact amount has not been advanced by prosecutors yet, so it's almost impossible to determine whether it was 150mg- as defence suggested in their hypothesis- or a bit more and that DOES NOT include the last fatal dose given by Murray, because it didn't reflect in urine).
PS: My aim is not to go on arguing, but just bear in mind that we cannot be so conclusive so as to specify amounts or doses given by Murray, when prosecutors have not done it yet.
i just can't understand one thing
how come he has no idea what he's done to the world? does he not realize that because of him, many hearts r brocken, many eyes r still crying, many lives r forever changed, so many things r destroyed forever... and nothign can be the same.
just how?
I'm assuming that for the jug to be used, the victim must have been awake
What I have searched is "that the flood flow is the driving force behind urine formation, that urine is only a reflection of exposure to a drug, not at what level they are and that the concentration of drug(s) and metabolite(s) in urine depend on the time of urine formation relative to sampling and drug administration".http://www.franklincountyohiocoroner.com/pdf/toxicology-department-at-fcco.pdf
What I mean is that that "exposure" to propofol, previous to the last lethal dose (no time for more urine to be produced) cannot determine with certainty the amounts of miligrams administered by Murray. (I know the levels are not consistent with large amounts kept trough continuous infusion for long hours- that's clear, according to comparisons in blogs and that you also explained, but the exact amount has not been advanced by prosecutors yet, so it's almost impossible to determine whether it was 150mg- as defence suggested in their hypothesis- or a bit more and that DOES NOT include the last fatal dose given by Murray, because it didn't reflect in urine).
PS: My aim is not to go on arguing, but just bear in mind that we cannot be so conclusive so as to specify amounts or doses given by Murray, when prosecutors have not done it yet.
What I have searched is "that the flood flow is the driving force behind urine formation, that urine is only a reflection of exposure to a drug, not at what level they are and that the concentration of drug(s) and metabolite(s) in urine depend on the time of urine formation relative to sampling and drug administration".http://www.franklincountyohiocoroner.com/pdf/toxicology-department-at-fcco.pdf
What I mean is that that "exposure" to propofol, previous to the last lethal dose (no time for more urine to be produced) cannot determine with certainty the amounts of miligrams administered by Murray. (I know the levels are not consistent with large amounts kept trough continuous infusion for long hours- that's clear, according to comparisons in blogs and that you also explained, but the exact amount has not been advanced by prosecutors yet, so it's almost impossible to determine whether it was 150mg- as defence suggested in their hypothesis- or a bit more and that DOES NOT include the last fatal dose given by Murray, because it didn't reflect in urine).
PS: My aim is not to go on arguing, but just bear in mind that we cannot be so conclusive so as to specify amounts or doses given by Murray, when prosecutors have not done it yet.
Yes, that's a possibility too and probably more likely. That means MJ was sedated for a longer time and that Murray lied when saying on that day he only gave one dose of propofol at 10:40. (propofol was present in the urine produced hours before: jug sample).not necessarily.
an external condom catheter is attached to a bag, once the bag is filled its contents need to be emptied.
mj could have been sedated while murray was emptying the bag.
Wellcome. As you say we cannot rely on Murrays statements because he lies all the time. The coroner stated MJ died from "acute propofol intoxication" and that the benzodiacepine effect was a contributory factor so they will have the elements to stipulate the dosage was "toxic" and not "therapeutic" (i remember the defence asking Ruffalo about whether a 150mg bolus would be within the range of a therapeutic dosage).Thanks. This is very clear. That is my understanding, too, that no exact amount has been given by the prosecution, and that it's "almost impossible to determine" if the figure given by the defense is accurate (...). The "last lethal dose" would be more precise, because, as said above, urine production would cease.
It's also clear that Murray was doing something he should not have been doing, although we can't know with certainly the level of risk he exposed Michael to in the days/nights preceding the lethal dose. Also, given Murray's past history of lying, we can't rely on his statements to be accurate.
Wellcome. As you say we cannot rely on Murrays statements because he lies all the time. The coroner stated MJ died from "acute propofol intoxication" and that the benzodiacepine effect was a contributory factor so they will have the elements to stipulate the dosage was "toxic" and not "therapeutic" (i remember the defence asking Ruffalo about whether a 150mg bolus would be within the range of a therapeutic dosage).
(In the link on toxicology in my previous post, the distinction between these definitions for doses is explained.)
Thank you.
But is it possible to specify within which range the amounts could be placed?
Another question:
- would the effect of two injections be cumulative in the urine from bladder
Wellcome Daisy. In the preliminary Ruffalo admitted to the defence that the concentration level of propofol in blood was within the range of an induction bolus for anesthesia (around 150mg). But that means the last fatal dose, not the total amount given by Murray on that day. (BTW, Ruffalo made so many mistakes, already commented on this forum that he's not too reliable imo).
As the link I posted earlier on tox says the urine test would "reflect exposure" during the previous hours (while the formation of urine takes place) but not the actual propofol level at the time of death.
It seems Murray first gave the propofol and then when he realised Michael was not breathing he gave flumazenil (the benzodiacepine reversal) to reduce the effect of the "non breathing" caused by the benzos he had previously given as well, a great dose too. (There's no reversal for propofol). That's my understanding.So why then, in the same syringe, ALSO give the propofol? Which also can impair breathing? I mean, why "rescue" from one medication, while simultaneously giving another that can have the same effects? Depressing or stopping breathing?
for someone who claims he did nothing wrong he sure as hell lies alotYes, that's a possibility too and probably more likely. That means MJ was sedated for a longer time and that Murray lied when saying on that day he only gave one dose of propofol at 10:40. (propofol was present in the urine produced hours before: jug sample).