smoothlugar
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 484
- Points
- 0
The syringes were of 10cc=10ml=10g, not 100g.No a bolus injection is not much bigger, 10ml=100g of propofol, that's considered an average bolus injection and if given RAPIDLY could cause death and it DID CAUSE DEATH before.
A bolus injection can cause death yes, but the tox screen showed larger results, remember the Anesthesiology Consultation (the interpretation from an anesthesiology, in the AR) is that the levels found corresponded with "propofol via continuous infusion, after a bolus injection".
"A" tube was found. Usually, in a hospital setting there is more than one "tube" for the different medicines.The tube was found, the long section of the tubing which normally is attached either to the bag or the vial was found. Murray's problem is no traces of drugs fond in the liquid obtained from that tubing
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
We know the defence's version. Chernoff said in June that "AC said it was difficult to inject himself, but not "impossible". (He was being very witty and interested obviously and interpreting the AC according to his interests). He also said that AC stated that "anyone" could have administered the medication once the IV was started (but not the patient; that's the point I wanted to make. This is impossible because there was no long tube with traces of propofol, as you also say).That's the defence’s version of the events; propofol vial attached to the tube which means propofol given via IV drip .Physical evidence collected from the scene contradicts this version.
True, but you were talking about a continuous infusion that's why the infusion pump was mentioned.50mg did not need no infusion pump
<o>
</o><o>Murray can claim whatever he wants to, what matters is what the toxicology exam showed. The fact that he contradicted himself so many times does not contribute to believe him.<o>Again the amount he claimed he was giving daily to MJ did not need an infusion pump</o>
<o></o>
I remember Chernoff smiling on the CNN interview when he said that the anesthesiologist must have considered all the facts in this case. (I thought that the AC was talking in general from a medical point of view only.)ANYONE (which means including MIKE) could have done it.
I said before that "intravenous injection by someone else" was stated on 26 June, and that the Anesthesiology Consultation (made by an anesthesiologist) was signed on 3rd August, after the toxicology exams were ready (which was later than the report of the 26J, as Justthefact has already stated).Since they said it was INJECTION BY SOMEELSE, it means it was a bolus injection
I agree. That's why that "clearing" of the crime scene could be even worse for CM.Keep in mind, they had to take into consideration the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOUND AT THE SCENE along with the tux report to determine the cause of death. <o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
But not on all the samples... I give credit to the AC and the professional interpretation of the levels found.But other cases of deaths caused by NORMAL BUT RAPID bolus injections of propofol do have almost the exact same levels of propofol concentrations, which make this point VOID.
There were two samples, one of them was the one collected at the crime scene. That's why I said Murray lied when he said he didn't give prop till 10:40.Urine concentration is enough prove it was used for a relatively very short time prior to death.<o></o>
Anyway I am not arguing. In fact there are many things I do not understand. I only want to seek the truth. I try to interpret as best as I can what it's written in the official documents only. But it's important to have the facts clear, because they're already complex on their own and it's esay to make assumptions that can contribute to confusion instead of clarification. My little aim was to contribute to the latter. What I want is that Justice is done.</o>
:agree:
PS: Soundmind, I asked about the "spike" issue because I've heard about it on different fan boards, and from Muzikfactory videos too. Once, I came across that term while reading the official documents, or that I wrongly think I remember, but when I tried to scan again for it, I couldn't find anything, that's why I asked, obviously I wasn't referring to Harvey Levin, who has told so many obvious lies regarding this case and in general, against Michael.
Last edited: