Murray Trial - Day 14 - October 20 - Discussion

[Ramona122003]

That sounds more like an antidepressant and that you maybe got it wrong, because they usually take days to weeks, depending on the med, before they start to work (if they work at all and you don't have too many side effects and have to stop taking them). And it can take months or years sometimes, before they have the desired effect.

Benzos all work the same way in the body, so I really doubt that there are benzos like that. If there were any, doctors would only prescribe those instead of the ones that get you addicted within just a few weeks. Also, from what I remember about the meds that were found, they were all highly addictive benzos and there also was an antidepressant.

Could be, but I honestly don't remember now. If you could get a list of the drugs found in Michael's house I could get more accurate detail. Also from what I read antidepressant are classified as a benzo.

I also don't think all benzo acts the same way. I say that because Shefer was talking about how weird it was for Murray to use Lopz and Midazolam because it works on the same system but with different half-life.

 

[Autumn II]

???..

What I MEAN is, in the end, this is a Michael Jackson board, and "devil's advocacy" has no place here (not about YOU, twinklEE) What I MEAN is, that we all should be listening to testimony, and Shafer was spectacular! and that the defense has not much they can do, after that?

The victim is NOT to blame here. As we heard in testimony, a doctor.. .any doctor.. has a responsibility to do the right thing, regardless of what any patient might want. Shafer gave SEVENTEEN instances of lack of standard-of care. It really doesn't matter what Michael did or did not do, in the past? Murray was NOT an "employee," as Shafer pointed out. He was a DOCTOR, an if his patient. . any patient. . wanted something that was unsafe, Murray totally had the responsibility, to say "no." No less than three medical experts have testified to this now, and I really don't know how the defense can negate this?

 

[Justthefacts]

Someone help me out for a second. Paul White did he approach the defense with this drinking theory or did they approach him?

 

[xthunderx2]

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.

what I am gonna say here is NOT a personal attack on you so please dont take it that way, But I would like to set the record straight here...Soundmind IS NOT a medical professional....and I wouldn't take her opinion about ANYTHING to do with this case, She was WRONG about alot of this case,..and that is all I wanted to say about that subject. Second..Michael was a VERY smart man,,of course he knew about propofol and its risks...Michael TRUSTED Murray to keep him alive....the day Murray agreed to 150,000 dollars a month was the day that HE AGREED to make SURE Michael was safe..well Murray FAILED...and Michael is gone,,,THAT IS the ultimate price anyone could ever receive, So to sit back and discuss WHAT Michael did and did not know is a mute point, Murray was the one that was responsible for Michael Jackson's death,,,NOT Michael Jackson. Murray failed....and Michael died. I dont BLAME Michael for any part of his death,,how can I...he trusted his doctor....and his doctor failed him. Thats all I know to say. I like the rest of you want to say..yeah,,Murray is gonna be convicted ..but we simply dont know,,,I have a feeling that he will..BUT 4 years may be justice to some people...because he was convicted or because he willhave to carry around the label of "The Man that killed MJ" IMO...that is not justice,,imo,,this case was SEVERALLY undercharged...and Murray will serve his time and he will walk. ..but Michael will STILL be dead. So yeah,,,Michael payed the ultimate price because he trusted his doctor.

 

[missred07]

Exactly. And that goes for any other doctor that Michael would have allegedly gone to had Murray quit the job. To me, Murray had a choice as well. It's all on him that he made the wrong choice. That is nobody's fault but his own. And he needs to go to jail for that. This is all just my opinion

Can't agree you more. They can argue that MJ would go to any other doctors and still died sometimes anyway. But Murray had choice. It's his choice to put him on the trial now. MJ paid the ultimate price losing his life. Murray also need to take the responsibility. He is the one who say yes to MJ. He is the one who pump all those propofol into MJ. He is the one fail to watch his patient and bring him back in time. I don't see any excuse that he is not guilty. He belongs to the jail. The fact is Michael Jackson won't died on 6/25/2009 without Murray's doing. Murray is guilty as hell.

 

[Ramona122003]

what I am gonna say here is NOT a personal attack on you so please dont take it that way, But I would like to set the record straight here...Soundmind IS NOT a medical professional....and I wouldn't take her opinion about ANYTHING to do with this case, She was WRONG about alot of this case,..and that is all I wanted to say about that subject. Second..Michael was a VERY smart man,,of course he knew about propofol and its risks...Michael TRUSTED Murray to keep him alive....the day Murray agreed to 150,000 dollars a month was the day that HE AGREED to make SURE Michael was safe..well Murray FAILED...and Michael is gone,,,THAT IS the ultimate price anyone could ever receive, So to sit back and discuss WHAT Michael did and did not know is a mute point, Murray was the one that was responsible for Michael Jackson's death,,,NOT Michael Jackson. Murray failed....and Michael died. I dont BLAME Michael for any part of his death,,how can I...he trusted his doctor....and his doctor failed him. Thats all I know to say. I like the rest of you want to say..yeah,,Murray is gonna be convicted ..but we simply dont know,,,I have a feeling that he will..BUT 4 years may be justice to some people...because he was convicted or because he willhave to carry around the label of "The Man that killed MJ" IMO...that is not justice,,imo,,this case was SEVERALLY undercharged...and Murray will serve his time and he will walk. ..but Michael will STILL be dead. So yeah,,,Michael payed the ultimate price because he trusted his doctor.

I don't mind disagreeing with people. I just don't care when people call me a devil's advocate. lol

On a serious note, yes Sound was wrong about allot of things. But, given that she has personal experience with benzos I tend to take some of what she said seriously. Like she was right when she said from the start that Lopz would play an important role and Murray gave allot more that 4mg that night. She also pointed out how stupid Lopz was given how highly addictive it was. She was also right about the self-injecting not being possible because the blood levels were far too low. I think the main problem with her theory is that she didn't account for the heart to still be beating and thought death happened in less than a minute. To be fair, no else thought so either.

Also, if you thought from my posts I was passing some kind of blame on Michael, let me assure you that's far from the case. I completely agree with everything you said and as a doctor Murray had a moral and professional duty to say no to Michael. The fact that he didn't and didn't respect the power of the drugs he was given is inexcusable in my eyes and I'm glad Shefer laid that out with finality today.

At the same time, however, I can't ignore the fact that others don't share my opinion and they maybe on that jury. For some, this maybe more of a civil/malpractice case than manslaughter. Some may feel that Murray should lose his license, but shouldn't have to go to jail for something Michael was asking for and would most likely get with or without Murray. The fact is people do often blame the victim for their own dismiss.

This mindset is called the just world theory. Namely, if something bad happened it's somehow your fault.

-You got rape, you shouldn't have been out pass midnight wearing a mini-skirt.

-You got shot, you shouldn't been around those kids at that part of town.

-You lost your job, you should had work harder.

-Your doctor took the wrong leg, should had gotten a better doctor.

-Your doctor misdiagnosis you about having a gum disease and you lost your teeth, this actually happened to someone I know, you should have gotten that second opinion.

People tend to blame the victims, justify or not. All we can do is pray that the jury see things the way we do.

 

[Naturelle]

I'm sure it did, I was sitting behind a computer screen and honest to God his reaction scared the ish out of me. I can't imagine how people must have felt who actually got to see his true self in reality.

Does anyone remember the night of the 24th of June? Kenny had been tweeting the fans and was in his back yard with his doggy as he explained "how wonderul Mike did that night, and we were in for a hugh surprise. He was saying,Michael was fabulous" !!! And all that time he was NOT telling us the truth, which I can understand. He probably didn't know what the hell was going on with Michael.
That was on twitter btw.

 

[Ramona122003]

Does anyone remember the night of the 24th of June? Kenny had been tweeting the fans and was in his back yard with his doggy as he explained "how wonderul Mike did that night, and we were in for a hugh surprise. He was saying,Michael was fabulous" !!! And all that time he was NOT telling us the truth, which I can understand. He probably didn't know what the hell was going on with Michael.
That was on twitter btw.

Actually, he was telling the truth about June 24. Everyone, even Karen with her crazy self, said that Michael was great on his last night. Some even said he was glowing. This is supported by everyone including the bodyguards and the brothers, specially Jackie, who talked about how great Michael looked on TII. Btw, Jackie actually saw the raw footage while it was being edit by Kenny.

Kenny specially said Michael was sick on the June 19 and he sent him home. When he came back on the 23, Michael was well and gave one of his best rehearsals.

 

[Milka]

Could be, but I honestly don't remember now. If you could get a list of the drugs found in Michael's house I could get more accurate detail. Also from what I read antidepressant are classified as a benzo.

No, antidepressants are antidepressants and not benzos. Antidepressants are not addictive and are used to treat depression and anxiety by raising the levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain like serotonin. Has nothing to do with benzos at all and they are what most doctors give for depression, anxiety and also insomnia as they are not addictive. Totally different class of meds.

I also don't think all benzo acts the same way. I say that because Shefer was talking about how weird it was for Murray to use Lopz and Midazolam because it works on the same system but with different half-life.

You didn't get what he said. He said they all work in the same way and do the same things in the brain, the only difference is how long they stay in the body (different half-life). And because they all work in the same way and do the same things, it doesn't make any sense to give different ones. By doing that you actually have a higher risk of giving too much because of the different half-life and you don't know exactly anymore how much the patient has in the body, how much has already been metabolized and how much is still there if you give benzos with a different half life several times in one night and switch between the two a couple of times.

Oh, and I just checked, I'm guessing the med you are talking about is Trazodone, which is an antidepressant.

 

[Naturelle]

I'm sure it did, I was sitting behind a computer screen and honest to God his reaction scared the ish out of me. I can't imagine how people must have felt who actually got to see his true self in reality.

Guys, I missed this...when was it ? morning? afternoon or before dismissal? I've seen him get pissed and role his eyes but this sounds like he took it a step further. Murry right?

 

[Ramona122003]

On one final note and I will rest this subject for the night, I think the thing that will hang Murray is not so much that he gave Michael propofol, which is really bad, but everything he did afterward.

One can argue about the role Michael played in his death, but there is something that can't be argued, Murray didn't care nothing about Michael when his butt was on the line. How can anyone justify him not calling 911. Even if he thought Michael was beyond saving, he owed it to Michael and his family to at least try. At the very least they would have the peace of mind that everything was done to save their love one and Murray robbed them of even that.

He didn't tell the MTs and he doctors in that ER what drugs he gave and what happened. This falls under the same argument as the above. He owed it to do everything he could to save Michael's life and that meant owing up to his mistake and telling the people what happened. Instead, he put his pride and his own well-being first and hid drugs and lied about what he gave when ask.

The worst of all is when he talked to the polices two days later, he lied again to what he had done and casually cased blame to Michael. He owned up to nothing he had done and share Michael's medical history like it was everyday news. Now, he has the nerve to play victim and say how Michael dragged him into this.

For the love of god, Murray could at least pretend to show some compassion. Instead, it's all about him. I don't see how any person can't be disgusted by Murray attitude, whether you think Michael caused his own death or not.

 

[Milka]

On a serious note, yes Sound was wrong about allot of things. But, given that she has personal experience with benzos I tend to take some of what she said seriously.

I have personal experience with them too. And with antidepressants. Too much experience actually. And on top of that I have read a lot about them for several reasons over the last 10 years. It's not like I'm pulling the things that I'm saying out of my behind.

P. S. Oh, and I actually posted during the prelim in January, before I ever heard an expert say that, that I don't get why he gave him 3 different benzos in one night, because you absolutely lose sight of what is in the body due to the different half-lives and that you would stick to one. I remember people didn't take this seriously and someone even said "maybe he did it to avoid overdosing" - which didn't make sense because the risk of that is higher with all the different half-lives and not really knowing anymore what is in the body. And Shafer said exactly that. I said a lot of other things too ... like Murray is responsible even if Michael took the Propofol himself, because it shouldn't even have been in the house. All experts now said that. I said either at the beginning of the trial or a couple of days before, that using Propofol for insomnia is the worst off-label use that I have ever heard of. One of the experts also called it an off-label use and said something to the effect of that it's incomprehensible to use it that way.

There were not many things that surprised me in the expert testimonies, I knew most of what they would say and how they would explain things. The only real suprise were the 40 mg of Lorazepam.

 

[Ramona122003]

No, antidepressants are antidepressants and not benzos. Antidepressants are not addictive and are used to treat depression and anxiety by raising the levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain like serotonin. Has nothing to do with benzos at all and they are what most doctors give for depression, anxiety and also insomnia as they are not addictive. Totally different class of meds.



You didn't get what he said. He said they all work in the same way and do the same things in the brain, the only difference is how long they stay in the body (different half-life). And because they all work in the same way and do the same things, it doesn't make any sense to give different ones. By doing that you actually have a higher risk of giving too much because of the different half-life and you don't know exactly anymore how much the patient has in the body, how much has already been metabolized and how much is still there if you give benzos with a different half life several times in one night and switch between the two a couple of times.

Oh, and I just checked, I'm guessing the med you are talking about is Trazodone, which is an antidepressant.

This is what I've read about benzo:

Benzodiazepines have robust efficacy in the short-term management of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), but were not shown to be effective in producing long-term improvement overall. According to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), benzodiazepines can be used in the immediate management of GAD, if necessary. However, they should not usually be given for longer than 2–4 weeks. The only medications NICE recommends for the longer term management of GAD are antidepressants.

Likewise, Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) recommends benzodiazepines alprazolam, bromazepam, lorazepam, and diazepam only as a second-line choice, if the treatment with two different antidepressants was unsuccessful. Although they are second-line agents, benzodiazepines can be used for a limited time to relieve severe anxiety and agitation. CPA guidelines note that after 4–6 weeks the effect of benzodiazepines may decrease to the level of placebo, and that benzodiazepines are less effective than antidepressants in alleviating ruminative worry, the core symptom of GAD. However, in some cases, a prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines as the add-on to an antidepressant may be justified.


Yeah, you're right. Benzo can be use for depression, but it isn't an anti-depression. But, I also read this:


All major antidepressant drugs, except trimipramine, mirtazapine and nefazodone suppress REM sleep, and it has been proposed that the clinical efficacy of these drugs largely derives from their suppressant effects on REM sleep. The three major classes of antidepressant drugs, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), profoundly suppress REM sleep. Mirtazapine either has no effect on REM sleep or increases it slightly.[92] The MAOIs almost completely suppress REM sleep, while the TCAs and SSRIs have been shown to produce immediate (40-85%) and sustained (30-50%) reductions in REM sleep. This effect often causes increased fatigue in patients who take large doses of antidepressants for extended periods of time. Such fatigue can occasionally interfere with a patient's everyday activities. Abrupt discontinuation of MAOIs can cause a temporary phenomenon known as "REM rebound" in which the patient experiences extremely vivid dreams and nightmares.

 

[ivy]

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.

I really have a hard time believing, imo of course, that Michael knew nothing of this drug. Even a lay person could use google or wikipedia to learn that propofol is an anesthesia, not sleep medication. If you chose to believe Lee, I personally have mix feelings about her, she warned Michael and read him the PDF. If Michael did ask other doctors about this drug, I can't believe none of them told or warn him about what could happen. I can't believe Michael met nothing but shady doctors throughout his life.

If Michael did know that propofol was an anesthesia, why would he chose a cardiologist? A cardiologist isn't an anesthesiologist who knows and works with this drugs and therefore knows its power and effects. Now, who can surmise or theorize that Murray was hired as a second hand in case something went wrong and Michael wanted another doctor to go along. Which I do believe is likely, but then I wonder how Murray convince Michael that he could do the job to two doctors.

okay I'll play devil's advocate. We all know Neil Ratner - an anesthesiologist that has toured with Michael. We also know that Dr. Adams was at least offered the job. In my opinion yes Michael was knowledgeable about the drug but any other person that was given it he was told it was safe when given properly - that's what my doctor told me a month ago when I had my procedure on my hand. And most probably Michael was given it with no problems before. So most probably he assumed that there would be no problems as along as he was given it by a doctor.

As today's testimony pretty much proved it and as Michael was giving $150,000 to Murray. I believe he had no intention of self administering drugs.

You then have Murray a cardiologist is giving anesthesia - not something he's that knowledgeable about. Remember Murray's interview when Paris said to him she knows he tried his best. Well Jackson's denied it but our Latoya had run her mouth to the tabloids before quoting Paris saying how did it happen Murray was the best doctor. So perhaps not only Paris but Michael was tricked into believe that Murray was the best doctor ever and that's why Michael trusted his life to Murray and /or assumed that he'll be okay with only Murray.

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.

murder 2 either requires an intent -which is most probably not present or at least almost impossible to prove in this case.
The other condition requires doing something that would almost in majority would result in death - I think that's not on the table on this case because Murray gave MJ drugs 79 nights with no problems and then caused him to die. that's like 1% chance of death.

(example : when you drink and drive you might or might not have an accident, you might or might not hurt a person - thats IVM.
a murder 2 would be like when a drunk driver sees 30 people standing and driving on to them - which most probably he'll hit and hurt some of them. there's a high probability)

 

[Naturelle]

That sounds more like an antidepressant and that you maybe got it wrong, because they usually take days to weeks, depending on the med, before they start to work (if they work at all and you don't have too many side effects and have to stop taking them). And it can take months or years sometimes, before they have the desired effect.

Benzos all work the same way in the body, so I really doubt that there are benzos like that. If there were any, doctors would only prescribe those instead of the ones that get you addicted within just a few weeks. Also, from what I remember about the meds that were found, they were all highly addictive benzos and there also was an antidepressant.

I have a wee bit of experience with these type meds., (don't want to drag-out the DSM-IVR tonight), Normally, anti-depressants are prescribed due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, seratonion levels can dip which can cause many things in the hpyothalamus to function differently or not function at normal levels, (receptor uptakes) it's very complicated, seratonion uptakes
I'm sure Michael was most likely having anxiety due to his up comming tour. Most psychiatric doctors have to see you a few times to see, underlyning problems a patient is experiencing. There a meds that can help with anxiety and depression, (trail '05) not sleeping, eating- a whole gamet of things can be going on in the body.
And to clarify, Michael wasn't crazy, or disunctional as people like to throw out stigmas towards people who may need to get their chemical uptake balance again an when he's felt better he could have tappered off graually.
He DID NOT need propofol by NO MEANS! ( plz excuse my sp) it's late for me but I hope that would have help Michael.:flowers: I truly wish someone other than cm would have crossed his path and made the referal to Dr. Nader Kamanger.

 

[Ramona122003]

I have a wee bit of experience with these type meds. Normally, anti-depressants are perscribed due to a chemical iimbalance in the brain, seratonon levels can dip which can cause many things in the hpyothalamus to function differently or not function at normal levels, (receptor uptakes) it's very complicated.
I'm sure Michael was most likely having anxiety due to his up comming tour. Most psychatric doctors have to see you a few times to see, underlyning problems a pateint is experiencing. There a meds that can help with anxiety and depression, (trail '05) not sleeping, eating- a whole gamet of things can be going on in the body.
And to clarify, Michael wasn't crazy, or disunctional as people like to throw out stigmas towards people who may need to get their chemical uptake balenced again an when he felt better he could have tappered off graually.
He DID NOT need propofol by NO MEANS! ( plz excuse my sp) it's late for me but I hope that kinda helps.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read and heard that most people don't like to take anti-depressants because they don't feel 'right' after they take it. I think the common feeling/expression is drain or just not feeling like themselves. I think this is the common complaint from people who, for the lack of better words, get off their meds.

 

[Naturelle]

Actually, he was telling the truth about June 24. Everyone, even Karen with her crazy self, said that Michael was great on his last night. Some even said he was glowing. This is supported by everyone including the bodyguards and the brothers, specially Jackie, who talked about how great Michael looked on TII. Btw, Jackie actually saw the raw footage while it was being edit by Kenny.

Kenny specially said Michael was sick on the June 19 and he sent him home. When he came back on the 23, Michael was well and gave one of his best rehearsals.

Ok, I always wondered about that night. Everything happened so quick that week. Thanks though

 

[Autumn II]

murder 2 either requires an intent -which is most probably not present or at least almost impossible to prove in this case.

The other condition requires doing something that would almost in majority would result in death - I think that's not on the table on this case because Murray gave MJ drugs 79 nights with no problems and then caused him to die. that's like 1% chance of death.

We have NO idea what Murray did, or did not do. He kept no medical records, and is a now well-known liar. Steinberg talked about "six points of extreme lack of standard of care." Shafer said, "SEVENTEEN points of egregious lack of standard of care." We have NO idea, except for Murray's words, what he was or was not doing to Michael. His "lack of adequate standard of care," KILLED Michael. It matters not a bit what he was doing BEFORE, June 25.

We have now heard abundant testimony about Murray's EXTREME negligence. THAT is "Murder two." Sorry, but it IS.

 

[ivy]

We have NO idea what Murray did, or did not do. He kept no medical records, and is a now well-known liar. Steinberg talked about "six points of extreme lack of standard of care." Shafer said, "SEVENTEEN points of egregious lack of standard of care." We have NO idea, except for Murray's words, what he was or was not doing to Michael. His "lack of adequate standard of care," KILLED Michael. It matters not a bit what he was doing BEFORE, June 25.

We have now heard abundant testimony about Murray's EXTREME negligence. THAT is "Murder two." Sorry, but it IS.

and bolded is the important part. How are you going to prove without reasonable doubt that what Murray did to Michael - that we have no idea of what is it - was highly risky and almost for certain to cause harm and death especially when nothing happened to him for 79 days? How are you going to prove murder 2 when multiple doctors have said breathing stopping was normal and expected and easily could be reversed with proper monitoring and equipment? Like you said we have no idea what kind of treatment Murray exposed Michael to. What if the other 79 days was acceptable?

note: I too wish the charge was higher but honestly I don't think it was provable without reasonable doubt based on what we have seen so far.

 

[Autumn II]

and bolded is the important part. How are you going to prove without reasonable doubt that what Murray did to Michael - that we have no idea of what is it - was highly risky and almost for certain to cause harm and death especially when nothing happened to him for 79 days? How are you going to prove murder 2 when multiple doctors have said breathing stopping was normal and expected and easily could be reversed with proper monitoring and equipment? Like you said we have no idea what kind of treatment Murray exposed Michael to. What if the other 79 days was acceptable?

note: I too wish the charge was higher but honestly I don't think it was provable without reasonable doubt based on what we have seen so far.

There is absolutely NO proof of what Murray was or was not doing to Michael for "79 days," except for Murray's interview with police, and I, for one, choose to NOT believe Murray, about anything. I DO believe Shafer, though, because of his credentials and his testimony, with details. The trial is about that LAST day, and what Murray did or did not do, and I, for one, choose to believe Shaver, that it was "egregious." And THAT is "Murder two."

 

[Naturelle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read and heard that most people don't like to take anti-depressants because they don't feel 'right' after they take it. I think the common feeling/expression is drain or just not feeling like themselves. I think this is the common complaint from people who, for the lack of better words, get off their meds.

Sometimes it may take weeks for them to work. One may not work and it can be like trail and error to reach the desired affect.
Some pple are so far out there they give up and refuse to be treated. I have had experience with them for many years and when the doctor/patient canprescribe a med that will work for the patient, hopeully they will give it a try they stick with them.
I had a friend who didn't give them a chance and gave up to easily plus she was an alcoholic and she ended up killing hersel in a very grafic way. I had no idea she ha given-up.

 

[ivy]

I realized that I was being quite vague (sorry my sleep time has long passed)

It matters not a bit what he was doing BEFORE, June 25.

A simple defense of "I did the same things, gave the same drugs for the 79 days win the same fashion and nothing happened so I don't understand what happened on that night" very easily brings reasonable doubt that his actions almost in majority would result in death. It would make it look like an accident. I don't believe what Murray says as well but "I gave half the dose of what I gave the prior 6 weeks" is a planned statement imo.

even for june 24th, some evidence is circumstantial. murder 2 his harder to prove than IVM. (Especially to a jury who is supposed to be not biased. )

 

[Autumn II]

I really don't think the devil needs an advocate? Anywhere? Wow, that's bad.

This trial is not about "79 days," at ALL. This is about what Murray did to Michael, on the LAST day. Murray was the doctor, and in that role, this could not POSSIBLY be Michael's fault. Experts have already testified to this, right? Doesn't MATTER what Michael may have "wanted." As a medical professional, Murray could have, and should have, said "No."

His failures were already so egregious, that it's incredible. I just very, very gratified, that no one HERE is on that jury.

peace, out.

 

[ivy]

This trial is not about "79 days," at ALL.

I KNOW that.

This is about what Murray did to Michael, on the LAST day.

Yes it is but in a murder 2 that 79 days would come into play as a defense strategy. actually wait till the defense turn starts. We'll see if they will mention "he gave half of what he usually gave" multiple times. let's see if that would be a "reasonable doubt" focus.

Murray was the doctor, and in that role, this could not POSSIBLY be Michael's fault.

and who blamed Michael? I certainly didn't. I said he had no intention of "self" doing anything and was tricked to believe Murray was the "best". That's putting the blame on MURRAY.

Experts have already testified to this, right? Doesn't MATTER what Michael may have "wanted." As a medical professional, Murray could have, and should have, said "No."

and no one disagreeing to that.

His failures were already so egregious, that it's incredible. I just very, very gratified, that no one HERE is on that jury.

first of all this so unneeded. It's okay to have a different opinion but there's no need to push that opinion on to others as gospel and/or try to minimize other people. I can also assure you that there's no one on that jury that thinks like you either. Remember they are selected to be not biased so they are/ will give Murray the benefit of the doubt and evaluate his statement. I don't think they would automatically reject anything or approach it as a lie.

casey anthony trial is a wonderful example for this. that jury didn't come with the "expected verdict" did they? We have no way of knowing if that jury is any "better" than any of us or if they think "similar" to what we are thinking.

 

[Autumn II]

I actually DO trust the jury to have common sense, and I see NO correspondence with the Anthony trial, at all.

Off-topic, but I think that "the devil" should have no advocacy, at all. NONE, and certainly not here. There is enough evil in the world, without advocating for it. Just my opinion, but I still believe in the GOOD in most people, and today? Especially, in Shafer.

And really? Let the chips fall where they may? I still DO trust in goodness. The jury are PEOPLE, and they've seen great testimony for the prosecution. I choose to HOPE, ok? I really do.

 

[bobmoo79]

Actually, he was telling the truth about June 24. Everyone, even Karen with her crazy self, said that Michael was great on his last night. Some even said he was glowing. This is supported by everyone including the bodyguards and the brothers, specially Jackie, who talked about how great Michael looked on TII. Btw, Jackie actually saw the raw footage while it was being edit by Kenny.

Kenny specially said Michael was sick on the June 19 and he sent him home. When he came back on the 23, Michael was well and gave one of his best rehearsals.

Didn't MJ do Earth Song on the June 24th? When I saw TII MJ was clearly not doing great, was not glowing and in fact looked utterly exhausted and actually quite ill, especially during the Threatened section.

 

[Ramona122003]

Didn't MJ do Earth Song on the June 24th? When I saw TII MJ was clearly not doing great, was not glowing and in fact looked utterly exhausted and actually quite ill, especially during the Threatened section.

Yes, that was the Earth Song rehearsal. I guess it's a matter of perspective, but no one who was at the rehearsal, not even Karen, has claimed that Michael was sick on the 24. Everyone in fact said it was his best rehearsal. I wouldn't see a need for the bodyguards to lie about what they saw and not even Murray's defense, who was looking for Michael being sick, say he was sick on any of the unedited footage, least of all June 24. The DA in fact used footage from the 24 to show how alive and healthy was and how unbelievable it was he was dead 12 hours later.

 

[walkingonthemoon]

I realized that I was being quite vague (sorry my sleep time has long passed)

A simple defense of "I did the same things, gave the same drugs for the 79 days win the same fashion and nothing happened so I don't understand what happened on that night" very easily brings reasonable doubt that his actions almost in majority would result in death. It would make it look like an accident. I don't believe what Murray says as well but "I gave half the dose of what I gave the prior 6 weeks" is a planned statement imo.

even for june 24th, some evidence is circumstantial. murder 2 his harder to prove than IVM. (Especially to a jury who is supposed to be not biased. )

and simple logic will tell you that he can not possibly have been doing the same things for 79 nights or else Michael would have been long gone way before he was... (besides, when did murray say he was mixing lorazepam and versed and propofol and leaving the room for 79 nights? It's not what he said at all. In fact, what he did say was that he was doing something different on the last night than on the other nights.)

also, are you trying to say that because someone didn't kill someone for 79 days then it's proof he couldn't have killed him on day 80 either?
that's like saying after a car accident for example "oh, i don't know what happened, i always travel this road at night and always pass that red light because no cars ever come from any other direction. i don't know what could have happened, my experience told me no other cars could be there". do you think that just because someone keeps doing something totally reckless and escapes any bad consequences by luck they should not be held responsible when $hit happens cause they couldn't have known they won't be lucky that time around? isn't that absurd?
it's almost like saying " it could only be proven that murray's actions were risky and likely to cause harm if Michael had died on 99% of those 79 nights?"

besides, imo it's completely useless to claim to know at this point what would or wouldn't have happened if the prosecution chose to charge murder2, because that is not the case they are presenting right now. If they'd charged murder2, they would be presenting a different case. Just as murray would most likely be presenting a different defense. i guess we all have our opinions, but none of us actually know.

 

[bouee]

It bothered me that the tiny veins were talked about. Michael had an iv in place. He wouldn't need to find a vein. granted I missed parts of the testimony but did Shaffer ever address a scenario of an already in place prop. syringe that just had to be injected?

Shafer ruled out all possible self injections theories , based on the femoral blood level that was found by the coroner and the fact that it takes a few minutes between the moment when you stop breathing and the heart stops. Dr Shafer estimated this time to be about 10mn. During these 10mn, propofol would be metabolising.

Propofol metabolizes very quickly, so to reach the level that was found by the coroner you need to re inject propofol before it lowers too much, ie before the patient wakes up. So the only way to reach that figure would be multiple injections before the patient wakes up , or an infusion.

That's definitely ruling out any kind of self injection : a single self injection, (it even rules out a single injection by Murray wether it was 25mg or higher), or multiple self injections.

2nd EDIT : so even if the syringe was ready, already in the injection port and all that Michael had to do was push the plunger, self injection never happened, based on the toxicolgy report, and IMO that's the strongest proof.

Dr Shafer thinks that multiple injections by Murray is not a credible theory, because Murray would have had to reinject too often, he thinks there was a drip and that propofol kept coming in after Michael stopped breathing, at least until his heart stopped. Then Dr Shafer showed that the drip scenario fitted with all the evidence, and how the drip was set up.

I hope what I'm writing makes sense, if it's not clear then have a look at Ivy's summaries, you will see the graphs that Dr Shafer showed, it's very clear and esay to understand with the graphs

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Quoted from this topichttp://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...17-amp-18-New-stomach-contents-testing/page18I think I just realized what White will say. At least I think I do. The damn figures add up. Murray says he gave 25. A syringe can only hold 100. They have "an expert" (White), who will testify that the amount given was 125. It is my belief that he will also testify that self injection was possible, with a single dose of 100 mg of Propofol.Prosecution will have to call Shafer once again to explain why this is impossible.

but the concentration levels were far higher than if a dose of just 125 was given. did shaffer ever actually say how much he thought was given.obviously he gave senarios based on 600 for eg.and said it would be imposs for mj to self inject because the concentration levels were so high. but was a final amount mentioned i remember 1000 been mentioned.abyone else. basically im saying u dont want the defence saying mj coukd have injected one full syringe and that could have caused the concentration levels that we saw. but shaffer seemed to totally debunk that theory.re white i belive the defence contacted him to write a report. he also said in that report that he believed murray gave more loraz than he told the police about. so cross will be intresting.The drug ramona mentions that was given as it takes longer to form a dependency was prescribed my metzger.lastly i dont see the point in keeping the discussion about whys it not murder two going. the conversation is over a year out of date. we are in the middle of the trial.it is what it is.