Naturelle
Proud Member
Thats what I would like to know. Seeing how cm acted so "egregious" (sp), more charges should be stacked...shoot, they did it to Michael in '05?
Latest on MJJC
Murray Trial - Day 14 - October 20 - Discussion
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
Thats what I would like to know. Seeing how cm acted so "egregious" (sp), more charges should be stacked...shoot, they did it to Michael in '05?
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
Murray says he only gave him 25 whatever. So chances are 25 is all he had in the syringe
Autumn II
Proud Member
Absolutely! Shafer is the ultimate authority on this, and NO ONE here is. Were we even hearing the same testimony, or what? I think a mark of maturity is the ability to change opinions, when new information becomes available? Right? There is NO WAY this amount of medications was "normal" or "within therapeutic range." If you did not actually take in or absorb the testimony, I'm sure it will be available on Youtube soon? Just LISTEN to the expert?
Snow White luvs Peter Pan
Proud Member
This testimony made me believe CM was imposed by the AEG guys eventhough they deny it. Why the heck didn't they asigned Michael a doctor expert on sleep disorders?
If Dr. Shafer's testimony desn't show the jury that basterd is guilty on many levels, they've got a problem! I really don't know how the defense could beat prosecution's witnesses. I highly doubt they will be able to do so.
If Dr. Shafer's testimony desn't show the jury that basterd is guilty on many levels, they've got a problem! I really don't know how the defense could beat prosecution's witnesses. I highly doubt they will be able to do so.
mccartneyAP Anthony McCartney AP reporter
Chernoff also told judge his cross examination would take 90 mins or so. Judge Pastor asked "Is that in Flanagan hours?" #murraytrial
mccartneyAP Anthony McCartney
Not a joke by me, straight from the judge's mouth (via transcript)
mccartneyAP Anthony McCartney AP reporter
What you didn't see on TV re: the stipulation is that defense wanted Walgren's name as the tab puller. Instead, it reads 'people's attorney'
Chernoff also told judge his cross examination would take 90 mins or so. Judge Pastor asked "Is that in Flanagan hours?" #murraytrial
mccartneyAP Anthony McCartney
Not a joke by me, straight from the judge's mouth (via transcript)
mccartneyAP Anthony McCartney AP reporter
What you didn't see on TV re: the stipulation is that defense wanted Walgren's name as the tab puller. Instead, it reads 'people's attorney'
I think Walgren just set the stage on the lorazepam today. He and Shafer explained what it is, how it works and travels in the body, etc. I think he's leaving the rest for the defense to bring out on cross as we know they will have plenty to ask LORAZEPAM (Flanagan's fave word). The main thing the DA seemed to want to get on record today was how loraz. got into the stomach and to confirm that the amount was not as high in the stomach as the defense portrayed. Defense amount was inflated and misleading. He also gave a scenario for how much he believes may have been given based on coroner's samples. No doubt we're going to hear more about loraz. tomorrow on cross. And Walgren can clarify whatever he needs to on redirect...so...let's all hang tight and not fight.
Yes, I also believe he set the stage today, there will be cross and redirect, etc. A lot of things were explained and brought up piece by piece and then the puzzle pieces started to fall into place later during the same testimony or during somebody else's testimony.
I think it's already on youtube, or some of it. His testimony definitely changed my opinion and I'll watch it again on youtube, but not today, it's 3 am here already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_SlefnLtgI&feature=channel_video_title
Ramona122003
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,447
- Points
- 0
We already know that Murray wasn't really treating insomnia so we can get that out of the way.
We know that Murray was given Michael general anesthesia levels of propofol so we have to look at it from that point-of-view. When we do, it seems like the 40mg isn't that high of a number and like Anderson said it is high therapeutic. No one believes that the Lorazepam was unnaturally high and Shafer, who knows more about these drugs than both of us combine, didn't say anything about it being outraged or unheard of.
Also Shafer never said Murray gave it as a continue dip. He said that Murray gave Michael an injection of Lorazepam every half of hour from midnight to around six. Which from my understand is common in anesthesia, which was basically what Murray was doing on the 25th.
Finally cinzia, yes it's juvenile to us for a doctor to blame a patient, but not everyone sees it that way. Another example, Elvis literally did have a doctor feeding him drugs in his house and he was left blameless, even now, because the general thinking is that Elvis was an addict and he would had gotten drugs regardless if that doctor helped him or not. Also for the record, Anna Nicole Smith's doctors and boyfriend were with her when she died. They knew she wasn't well, but the kept given her drugs regardless.
Michael wasn't an addict. But, the defense can and will argued that Michael shared some blame because if Murray didn't do what he wanted, Michael simply would had gone to someone else. So, it gives some people reasonable doubt not to blame Murray for everything, even though you may agree he acted like a selfish, idiot. The fact that Michael was willing to rig himself like a test subject every night doesn't help either.
Autumn II
Proud Member
As I said, the mark of maturity consists of whether or not a person is ABLE to change long-held opinions in the face of new evidence? Shafer's testimony was totally brilliant, and I grow weary of ad hoc analyses of blood-levels, dosages, and so forth, in the face of this expert testimony. Shafer said (and I BELIEVE him), that "either, Murray pushed dose after dose, even after Michael was dead," or left a drip running with an ASTOUNDING amount of drugs. One or the other.
If you know BETTER than this expert, then go for it, and proclaim your credentials, at knowing BETTER. Or, just LISTEN to testimony and adjust to what you "might have thought?" It's one or the other. Murray intentionally pushed a boatload of drugs, that would have had only one outcome, or he left a drip running, and was the most incapable doctor on the PLANET. The science does NOT lie, and NO ONE here knows better than Shafer, ok? NO ONE. And if you want to continue to say that you DO know better, just prove it? Oh, yeah. Prove it, or STFU. This is about Michael, and the end of his life, and I think we'd do well to really listen to and absorb that testimony?
Lorazepam is a benzo, not an anesthetic, it's not used for anesthesia. Benzos might be used before surgery to calm the patient down, but you would never give Lorazepam every half hour during surgery when the patient is already getting Propofol, it is not needed and just increases the risk of all kinds of things going wrong. The experts also said that you shouldn't mix Lorazepam with Propofol.
qbee
Proud Member
Those charges were always in place for Michael. The judge just gave a rulling to the jury on how they could be used.
wendy2004
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,456
- Points
- 0
But this isn't about what Michael was willing to do, Ramona. And we can be sure that he didn't expect to be left ALONE or NEGLECTED in any way while rigged up to anything. People may want to give Murray a pass and think he shouldn't do jail time for his actions but the fact is he was the RESPONSIBLE party here. He was the doctor and should have been the one in charge for the sake of his patient or in spite of his patient;however one wants to look at it. And I think the experts, thus far, have conveyed that very well. Perhaps the DA in the other cases weren't as good as Walgren. I don't know. I didn't watch those trials. I think Steinberg, Kamangar and Shafer have done an exceptional job at showing how this all falls on Murray, regardless of anything or anyone else. It was his duty as a doctor to do the right thing and/or at the very least follow the proper standard of care.
If the jurors hang on to that, Murray is toast.
wendy2004
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,456
- Points
- 0
I love me some Judge Pastor. :lol:
Ramona122003
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,447
- Points
- 0
I know Lorazepam is a benzo, but it's often used in conjunction with propofol, which was my point. Shafer even said himself that Lopz is often used with propofol to heighten the effect. The last expert said that Lopz was dangerous and and a bad choice for insomnia because you can become depended or addicted to it.
I also didn't say you supposed to give Lopz every half hour, but the final amount was still therapeutic levels per Anderson, which is why they didn't test for the Lopz in Michael's stomach or pee. Even when the defense actually tried to make it a point that the Lopz was unnaturally high, Anderson diagree and said it was within normal range. Even the sleep guy said it was normal range, despite the fact Lopz was a terrible choice.
Btw Autumn II, I have you on ignore so there's no point of you talking to me.
Autumn II
Proud Member
The charges were put in place by the D.A., Cooley. At that time, he was running for re-election as D.A. I think he wanted a "sure thing?" Charges are not cast in stone, but are at the discretion of the D.A. (BTW, he LOST that election, and is no longer a part of it.) But once the charges were in-place, they could not be changed, and Walgren is doing the very best he can, within those parameters.
I researched and wrote about Michael's trial, extensively. During the course of that research, I talked to MANY attorneys in Santa Barbara. They faxed me court records, basically proving the corruption (IMHO) of Sneddon, the Santa Barbara D.A. You would not BELIEVE what a D.A. is capable of? Sneddon had MANY cases of "malicious prosecution" lodged against him. He won NONE of them, but settled out of court, at tax-payer's expense. I have NO reason to believe, that L.A. is not the same? Those who believe that there is no corruption in the law, are simply. . delusional.
Now that we've heard Shafer's testimony, it seems OBVIOUS that the charges were too light. There was NO possible outcome of this, but Michael's death. Justice for Michael IS the point, right?
Ramona122003
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,447
- Points
- 0
I agree, but the problem is we haven't heard the defense's case. As T-Mez said, the DA should be winning at this state. It's too early to say that the defense is toast and everything is in the bag.
Also, some people do take issue to what Michael was willing to do to himself to get 'sleep'. We have fans on this forum that all but called Michael a mental case who couldn't make his own decisions. I'm sure Michael expected Murray to take care of him, but he put himself in a position where he was at someone's complete and utter mercy. This isn't like going to surgery when you have a team of people taking care of you, he left his entire life in the hands of one person. To most, that's unbelievable, especially if he was warn that this drug could kill him.
People may agree with Murray was responsibility, but those same people would also point out that Michael had a responsibility too not to take this drug and risk his own life over a couple hours of sleep. Which is the primary reason why this case isn't murder two.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
Having said that surly you would agree that Michael has already paid for his mistake?
Ramona122003
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,447
- Points
- 0
All benzos are addictive, I didn't argue that they weren't. But, all the drugs Murray gave has a shorter time frame before one becomes addicted or depended. One of the medicines Michael had in his house, can't remember the name, had a two year normal time span before one became depended. You have to ask Sound which one it was, but I think it was a drug given by Dr. Adam.
But agree. On cross, we maybe get allot more information about the Lopz levels.
And twinklEE, sorry to say but that's your opinion. Most people I've met and talk to don't see it that way, that's simply a fact. This isn't coming from haters or dispassionate general public, these are people who grew up with Michael since the J5 days. They do think Murray should be held accountable for what he had done, but they also think Michael hold some responsibility because he was warn, going by Lee, about what could happened. They also bring up the question of what normal person would ask for an anesthesia to sleep. They doubt Michael though or believed propofol was just another sleep medication.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
Lee also said the coroner thanked her because they had no idea how Michael died. She also said Michael begged her for Propofol however when challenged she backed off. She is not credible. And just like Klein was all over the TV talking about Michael's medical issues which were private.
Ramona122003
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,447
- Points
- 0
Of course Michael had paid. He payed to high of price if you ask me and I hate Murray for what he had done. However, I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about how others view it.
However, in the end it isn't even about them. It's about those people on the jury and we don't know what they think, feel, or believe. It's easy for us to sit back and said what should happened, but that doesn't mean it will because I don't know how those people think. I hope and pray justice can be done, but I chose to remain cautiously optimistic. I can't and won't bury other people's opinions because I disagree with them because they maybe people on that jury that feels the same way in their hearts of hearts.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
def agree
cinzia
Proud Member
I wasn't aware that her doctor was present when she died as the news reports stated only her nurse was with her at time of death.
But in any case it is true that some times people want to blame the victim.
Wearing a short skirt...must have wanted to be raped, left your keys in your car, must have wanted to get it stolen, forgot to lock your front door, must have wanted to get robbed.. I fail to understand why society today enjoys sharing the blame with the victim. Murray could have and should have said no to Michael. Then we wouldn't be here today with this trial. Murray could have covered all the bases called for by the standards of care and we wouldn't be here today. Murray could have been a competent doctor placing his patient first and we wouldn't be here today. Had murray said no, Michael would more than likely be here with us today. Michael placed himself in the care and trust of this man, this medical professional. He placed his life in this man's hands but I doubt he realized how weak those hands were. And I don't think having an IV equates to being rigged up like a test subject.
wendy2004
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,456
- Points
- 0
The problem with this kind of thinking is that we ALL put ourselves at risk when we TRUST a doctor...not realizing they are could be a BAD doctor and that's whether we are in a hospital setting or not. We have no way of knowing that a doctor will screw us over until something goes wrong. If we're lucky, we survive and never go back to that doctor. I think Shafer said it best when he read from the Hippocratic oath and mentioned how ppl trust doctors and there's an expectation that they will NOT harm us. We allow them to cut into us with knives and give us drugs THAT MAY KILL US. We do it with the explicit trust that ULTIMATELY they will do these things WITHOUT causing us harm or death. Is it dangerous? Of course. Anyone having surgery is putting their life into the hands of a doctor or a team of professionals. Anyone being written a prescription for a drug that may cause them to be drowsy to the point of not being able to drive or speak or may make them throw up as a side effect STILL has an expectation that the doctor would not prescribe them a dosage that will end their life. Michael was no different, here, imo. He had every right to EXPECT Murray to NOT drop him when he put his life in Murray's hands. I'm sorry. If he cared nothing about his life Murray would not have been there in the first place.
Autumn II
Proud Member
NO, it's NOT "too early." Wow. Shafer's testimony was incredibly good, and no, it's not "too early." It's now OBVIOUS?
It doesn't MATTER what "Michael wanted." "Warned?" He never signed a consent form. A doctor has responsibilities, and that is what this case is ABOUT?
This case SHOULD have been Murder Two. Or even Murder One, given Shafer's testimony. Have you been WATCHING the trial? At all? A doctor is not, and should not be an EMPLOYEE. This was made totally clear, in several testamonies.
This is not about what Michael was ''willing'' or ''eager'' to do, he was not sitting at home popping pills to get high, he hired murray to help him get to sleep, was propofol the wrong approach to achieve that? Surely. But the main point still remains that Conrad Murray was the one who violated standard of care, who was grossly negligent, he was the one not monitoring/abandoning his patient. Michael paid Murray to ensure he was safe, he didn't pay him to just abandom him/not watch him while he was put under. Murray knew he had not met any of the safety requirements, the man was even to cheap to get a decent pulse oximeter with an alarm. He was simply reckless. Michael hired Murray to TAKE CARE OF HIM. TO WATCH HIM. TO MONITOR HIM. TO PREVENT HARM HAPPENING to him. He didn't just hire him to supply him the propofol and benzodiazepines. He didn't tell Murray to just get him the stuff, and he'd be able to handle the situation. Murray's job was to make sure nothing happened to Michael, but he royally fcked up cuz he wasn't monitoring his patient. Murray was supposed to be his care taker not his supplier. Those are two different things. As far as the defense is concerned will they argue it was Michael's fault? Absolutely, they're gonna try to shift the blame from Conrat to Michael, but the fact still remains that Conrat was grossly negligent. His negligence caused Michael's death, not Michael's supposed desperation to take Propofol. Propofol in the right setting, with the right equipment, with somone present to monitor the patient is a safe drug, although not meant to be used for insomnia, but nontheless it's safe. If we believe the rumors about michael having gotten Propofol earlier for sleeping purposes, it proves that if administered properly, with a competent doctor present (anasthesiologists) and the necessary equipment, nothing really goes wrong. The issue here isn't ''OMFG what did Michael think by 'demanding' propofol'', the issue here is ''OMFG what the f_ did Murray think when he GAVE Propofol under such circumstances (lack of equipment, personel, training etc)
Last edited:
cinzia
Proud Member
You have said exactly what I was getting ready to write. I absolutely and totally agree with you. Brilliant. Thank you.