Murray Trial- Day 15 -October 21st

[elusive moonwalker]

Yeah he is but i hardly doubt it helps the defence case. not when the otherside makrs their points each such an easy to understand why.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Im watching TMZ Live nowThey are talking about why June 25th was so different from all other nights? They think it was the other drugs (Loraz, Midazaolam etc that maybe killed Michael)and according to them, here is the problem because the coronoer said PROPOFOL killed him and as soon as the jury starts speculating of maybe it was the other drugs that killed him then there are reasonable doubt

and thats why u shouldnt watch tmz.ridiculous logic

 

[jaydom7]

Im watching TMZ Live now


They are talking about why June 25th was so different from all other nights? They think it was the other drugs (Loraz, Midazaolam etc that maybe killed Michael)


and according to them, here is the problem because the coronoer said PROPOFOL killed him and as soon as the jury starts speculating of maybe it was the other drugs that killed him then there are reasonable doubt

Well Murray gave MJ the other drugs too. Besides the coroner said the cause of death is propofol with the Benzodiazepine effect, so the benzos did have an effect which is true. Has TMZ been paying attention to the fact that Murray loaded up MJ on Benzo's too?

 

[Vici]

and thats why u shouldnt watch tmz.ridiculous logic

yes, i mean its not like i agree with tmz, because it seems tmz forgot to mention that the autopsy report clearly states that the cause of death is "homicide, by acute propofol intoxication with a benzodiazapine effect"

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Thats one of many reasons. murray gave the benzos.he bought loads in april. mj was under benzos in that tape recording.so no the 25th wasnt the first time benzos were given with diprivan as in murrays own words he gave dip for two months and said he used the benzos many times aswell.. i guess tmz dont even know the charges if they think that creates doubt interms of did murray significantly contribute to the death. which is what the pros have to prove.

 

[soulmum]

Surely there's no doubt whatsoever that Murray gave all that stuff which combined caused Michael's death, he admitted as much in his police statement. He also admitted leaving Michael alone (probably a hell of a lot more than 2 minutes though) so logically it should be a clear cut thing to find him guilty? Even if MJ did self administer it doesn't alter the fact of gross misconduct on his part.

 

[OnirMJ]

u understand its a criminal trial not malpractice? yes he does. you dont charge for testifying. going on about not liking the other dr in the case he mentioned to walgren so shaffer didnt charge for his services. chernoff saying you only testifyed once in 10 years so not charging doesnt make that much diff as u didnt charge cause you didnt like katz. hes been involved in many cases giving expert advice but just testifyed in the one.chernoff was trying to confuse shaffer on whether he testifyed in mal paractice cases or criminal ones

now trying to say white was his teacher. no. he went to stamford and white was a teacher there but he wasnt his teacher.
1988 3 papers shaffer did with lots of diff drs including dr white he did computer programing from that paper.

going through shaffers C.V talking about shaffer and his wife asking white about a residency programe in 1978. cause of that he went to another uni. doing anesthesia after that they went back to stamford in 86. during that time they did research on the paper that was released in 88. b4 86 his wife worked with white he worked with another dr. .

in the 88 paper white created the data was complied for what purpose? to demonstrate continuas infusion provide mathmatical models. shaffer and his wife did the mathamatical models. in 88 was infusion of diprivan not being used? he thinks it wasnt common. mainly used for induction not maintaince.

trying to imply shaffers lieing about his history with white

Who is dr. Katz? Why Steven Shafer didn't like him? Does anybody know? What was that trial about?

 

[adrianmonk]

he was injecting almost 20ml each time BASED ON HIS WEIGHT an average dose.

which would be 16 mL based on michael's weight at 2.5 mg/kg, still not possible.


besides, this is not a "study", it is a case report from 2001 where the authors (doctors? ph.ds? toxicologists? undergrads?) make their best guess based on their clinical expertise and the evidence as to what happened. so it's basically an antecdote. there was a compltely different situation than michael's case, so i don't see how anything in this case report is applicable.

drs shafer and white are doing/are going to use their clinical expertise to come up with their plausible scenerios with michael's case, based on the evidence. i don't know why you keep bringing up this paper, when we have expert testimony to listen to (none of the authors of this paper are experts on propofol, this is the only paper any of them ever wrote on the subject)


p.s. i finally found the article to prove it was published by searching for the authors, the full text is available (at least to me) by clicking on the springerlink icon in the upper right corner: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11355404

i'm done with this.

 

[bouee]

Chernoff being confusing and rude is a strategy IMO. He comes across as being rude and aggressive, he's hard to follow, he was fast, jumping from a thing to another. Mot of us had a hard time taking notes yesterday, because you don't know where he's going, and some things that you would think are details or irrelevant might turn out to be important later. He was trying to confuse Dr Shafer.

I had to re read everybody's notes on this thread and Ivy's summary, and when it's written it's easier to understand, you read at your own speed, it doesn't sound as rude or agressive as it actually was.

I think the jury will react to his method as we did, they probably won't like it, and had a hard time following him. But they can read the transcripts, if they want to be clear on what has actually been said. Because in the end that's what matters, what was actually said, not how it was said. I wouldn't underestimate Chernoff, his method is a double edge sword, it works both ways.

He interrupted Dr Shafer many times, forcing him to say things he didn't want to say or wanted to clarify. Walgren can clear this up on re direct, I hope he will spend time re asking all the questions that Dr Shafer couldn't answer the way he wanted to. It's important to get the correct answer and information from Dr Shafer, and also important that Walgren shows the jury that Chernoff's way of questioning is clearly misleading.

So I read the notes and summaries and this board again, and tried to sort it out :

The whole IV set up confusing questions : Basically Chernoff was trying to say that you couldn't be sure there was a propofol infusion, because you don't know if there was a tube. He failed , Dr Shafer's answers were very very logical : Murray had bought these tubings before, was trying to buy some again and get them shipped to California, where Murray only had one patient. The tear on the bottle comes from a spike, not a needle. And Shafer's question "how would you draw the propofol if there was no tube ?" It doesn't matter if the bottle was in the bag or hung on the pole. What can you deduct from that : There was a vented tube, that tube disappeared. It was a bad move from Chernoff IMO, it makes it obvious Murray hid that tube.

I'm not sure I get what Chernoff wants to say with there was no infusion. They want to say that Murray injected 25 mg in 3 to 5 mn , which would be a sedation dose, as opposed to a general anesthesia dose. At least that's what I got from Chernoff showing the 3 propofol graphs at the end, and the questions he asked about the 3 to 5 mn time frame. But that theory hurts the self injection theory, since it was almost impossible for Michael to self inject with a syringe, and his fingerprints were not on the syringes, and not on the propofol bottles . Chernoff also insisted on where the injection port actually was on the long saline tube that was found. At first I understood the port was closer to the the spike, but I was more listening and taking notes, than actually watching, and from the notes here, it sounds like some of you saw that it was lower, which makes sense with the autopsy report. Then if it was lower, it was even more difficult for Michael to reach... The self injection theory is so much easier if there was a drip, and a second vented tube. All that Michael had to do was to un clamp the line.

Then the whole thing about the size of the syringe, and how much propofol can fit in the syringe if mixed with lidocaine. I think Chernoff will use that for the self injection theory. Saying there had to be 2 injections, one by CM, the other one by MJ. Because the maximum that could fit is 5 cc, so 50mg propofol in a 10 cc syringe. It goes back to what I just wrote about self injection with a syringe, it's not credible.

Then Chernoff tried again to discredit Alberto Alvarez. Why ? Why do that if the bag doesn't matter , is he going to say that both the bag and the bottle were planted there ? The bottle that Murray bought and got delivered at his girlfriend's appartment ? How would Alberto do that if he was outside the house (the nanny had to open the front door to let him in, she could confirm that on the stand). Dr Shafer had a very good answer saying that Alberto was referencing "a blue bottle with a milky substance". I don't understand where Chernoff is going with Alberto, maybe that's one of the reasons why Chernoff wants Dan Myers and Orlando Martinez on the stand. Maybe he'll play Alberto's interview. Maybe he also wants to confuse everybody again with what was found, where and when, and discredit the evidence. It's a waste of time, Murray did buy all this stuff, and got it shipped to California.

Then he spent a great deal of time establishing Dr Whites credibility, and trying to paint Dr Shafer as the bad jealous guy who tried to publicly smear White's reputation. He did establish White's credibility, Chernoff had a point IMO with the "I was disapointed comment" showing that Dr Shafer took the oral ingestion very seriously too and worked with Dr White about this (he contacted him after the Chilean study) . Walgren established the fact that Dr Shafer shared his opinion with the defense, Dr Shafer even gave his software to the defense so they could also try scenarios.
OK, but how come Dr Shafer was not aware of the beagle study then ? Dr White didn't inform dr Shafer he was conducting a study ? Not such a good move from Chernoff again.

When Chernoff was asking about all the studies Dr Shafer has done with Dr White, it sounded to me that Dr White was relying on Dr Shafer for the calculations and modelling. Chernoff made Dr Shafer appear more specialised in this area than Dr White. Well I would thank Chernoff for this, because that's very important in this case, since Murray was not keeping records. It sounds like Dr Shafer is more qualified to make scenarios, or rule scenarios out. Chernoff even showed that the Astra Zeneca insert graph that Dr Shafer did is still valid, after 25 years.

Then there was the whole thing about if the data is not correct, then the calculations and modelling will be wrong. And the data can not be correct since there was no medical records, and you have to guess the doses that were actually given. So a lot of info is missing : how many doses, how large each dose was, when was each dose was given. Chernoff is using Murray's deviations to defend him. So basically Dr Shafer has to assume all this information to come up with possible scenarios, but he can easily refute a scenario. So he can say "that did not happen', but he can't say "this is what happen".

Chernoff actually had a point when he pointed out that the 40mg lorazepam scenario couldn't work, because Dr Shafer started the injections at midnight, when Michael was still rehaersing, instead of 1 30. Actually I was a little relieved at first, the 40mg figure shocked me, it implies so many , so many, ugly things from Murray, as ugly as giving propofol the way he did.
But then, it was not 40mg, it was probably lower, but still it doesn't make it better, there was way too much lorazepam. Walgren needs to adress this on re direct, and ask Dr Shafer for other simulations, maybe combining them with midazolam.
Maybe it's me, but I want to hear more about what was going on with the benzos. Propofol is not physically addictive, benzos are. How can Murray prescribe 2mg per night in April , according to the lorazepam bottle found at MJs home, and be somewhere bewteen 11mg and 40mg 3 months after ? And that's lorazepam only, he was also buying vials of midazolam, and midazolam was foud in MJ's system. How much did Murray think he would be giving Michael in august or september , where was he going with that ? Would Michael have been able to even recover from such a treatment if he had survived the propofol ? What about the amount of flumazenil that was bought? Why buy so much? I wish the prosecution would adress that, but I don't know if they can. Can they be sure of the amounts given with the hair tox results, if they did a hair analysis ?
From yesterday's testimony, though, it is clear the defense doesn't want this issue adressed. When Dr Shafer said he couldn't predict how MJ would react to lorazepam after 80 days of IV benzos, Chernoff said "the fact that it was bought doesn't mean that it was used".

So at first I was disappointed by yesterday's testimony, I thought that Chernoff had made a few good pints here and there. But when I re read it, and tried to sort it out, I think he is actually grasping at straws, it confirms, again, that they have no defense.

 

[ivy]

As far as I can see from discussions here and on twitter etc, there's a group that has believed and/or still believe that there wasn't a Propofol drip. Most of it is based on the fact that there was no tubing found.

I said before what if the Propofol IV drip is the murder weapon. What if actually what Shafer said has happened? Murray left Michael on IV without a precision pump and Michael died. and Murray knowing what he did, removed the murder weapon? He got the tubing out and hoped to come back for the rest. That's logical. and yesterday's testimony has showed us that "there was no propofol tubing hence there was no drip" is used as a defense - just as I predicted.

There's something curious. Shafer's report lists Michael altering the roller clamp was a possibility. I also agree with the commendatory on In session, that's a lot easier defense strategy. Touching the roller clamp is a lot reasonable than taking 8 pills or drawing and injecting yourself Propofol when you are not alert.

But obviously the defense cannot go that route, because admitting that there was an IV would mean admitting that Murray removed evidence from the scene - which would make him look a lot guiltier on the eyes of the jury. Still it would leave the abandonment (leaving Michael alone for a long time with an IV that he can manipulate issue).

Also I believe defense's logic is quite obvious. They are depending on the fact that no one had mentioned the propofol bottle in the IV bag initially. He'll argue (and actually hinting that) LAPD felt like they needed someone responsible for MJ's death and came up with the Propofol in IV bag to blame Murray.

 

[myosotis]

Yes, I wondered where a lot of this was going...around the Prop bottle and the bag...noting the demo Prop bottle was a different size and Shafer hadn't seen the actual size of the cut in the bag...implying the actual bottle might not fit through the cut....but since the bottle was found IN the bag, I'm not sure why he went there (it had to fit if it was found inside the bag...)....A very puzzling Cross exam. (But yes, I agree Ivy's point ^ about the defence strategy is very likely ^)


I wonder if they will mention how the cut in the bag was made...there was a large knife on the nightstand, I seem to recall.

 

[bouee]

Surely there's no doubt whatsoever that Murray gave all that stuff which combined caused Michael's death, he admitted as much in his police statement. He also admitted leaving Michael alone (probably a hell of a lot more than 2 minutes though) so logically it should be a clear cut thing to find him guilty? Even if MJ did self administer it doesn't alter the fact of gross misconduct on his part.

I agree it's a clear thing, the verdict can not be anything else than guilty : Murray bought the stuff and the equipment, got it sent to California where he only had one patient, admitted to giving propofol, he didn't have the right equipment to give propofol, monitor Michael, and ressucitate him. Even with all this, Michael could have been saved. Murray didn't call 911 right away, but Murray called other people instead, lied to the paramedics, lied to the UCLA doctors, lied to LAPD. There is more than enough to convict him, and take his licence away. And I think it's going to happen, at least we will see this.

I'm not worried about the verdict. Now all that matters to me is find out what happened, if that's possible, or at least get the clearest possible picture, and clear Michael's name , he did NOT self administer anything, I want this cleared. To me that's all that matters now.

 

[ivy]

Yes, I wondered where a lot of this was going...around the Prop bottle and the bag...noting the demo Prop bottle was a different size and Shafer hadn't seen the actual size of the cut in the bag...implying the actual bottle might not fit through the cut....but since the bottle was found IN the bag, I'm not sure why he went there (it had to fit if it was found inside the bag...)....A very puzzling Cross exam. (But yes, I agree Ivy's point ^ about the defence strategy is very likely ^)


I wonder if they will mention how the cut in the bag was made...there was a large knife on the nightstand, I seem to recall.

The bottle fits in the IV bag through the cut. Remember Walgren placed it during Alberto's testimony.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Excellnt points ivy and bouee. totally agree. i wonder though why did walgren bring up the clamp theory. because as u say if the defence went that way that would mean admitting there was an iv. so why did walgren even bring it up and put it in the
jurrors minds

no doubt the defence stratergy is to discredit the iv line as thats the core of the pros case. Hence why wr havr the attacks on alberto fleak and the obsession over the iv yesterday not been the same model etc

 

[Autumn II]

which would be 16 mL based on michael's weight at 2.5 mg/kg, still not possible.

besides, this is not a "study", it is a case report from 2001 where the authors (doctors? ph.ds? toxicologists? undergrads?) make their best guess based on their clinical expertise and the evidence as to what happened. so it's basically an antecdote. there was a compltely different situation than michael's case, so i don't see how anything in this case report is applicable.

Thank you. I had asked Sound earlier to post the name of the journal and the date (that didn't happen), because with any publication it's important to know date and origins to be able to evaluate its importance with any accuracy. Now I see this is ANECDOTAL, which is far different from published results of a controlled study (human or animal or other). Therefore, this ten-year old case-study is not very useful nor applicable.

A problem we've been having here is theories and scientific "evidence" presented as if they were fact, when they are not. I do think it's best to stick to the testimony we've heard in the trial (testimony, AND crosses) to be able to analyze this complex material. This random study is NOT useful, and does not "prove" anything at all.

drs shafer and white are doing/are going to use their clinical expertise to come up with their plausible scenerios with michael's case, based on the evidence. i don't know why you keep bringing up this paper, when we have expert testimony to listen to (none of the authors of this paper are experts on propofol, this is the only paper any of them ever wrote on the subject)

Actually, we still don't know if the authors of this paper are graduate students, or experts, or what. I suggest we stop using this (red herring?) Both Shafer and White will propose theories (well, Shafer has already done that), based on their reports and past studies for reference. I think that is where our focus should reside.

There are two tactics being used. One is Shafer's "best of his knowledge" analysis of medication levels, and the resulting proposed scenarios. White will do the same next week, and then we can compare apples and apples, not apples and bears? So, that strategy is based in science. The defense strategy seems to be misquoting witnesses back at them, trying to confuse them and get them to agree with the misstatement, and then pointing out the inconsistency. A witness being tired or stressed by these badgering questions does NOT equate with "being a bad witness." If the jury reaction is even slightly like mine, I'm pretty sure they don't like these sincere and professional witnesses, such as Shafer, being badgered and bombarded.

p.s. i finally found the article to prove it was published by searching for the authors, the full text is available (at least to me) by clicking on the springerlink icon in the upper right corner: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11355404

i'm done with this.

Agree. I think we should stop talking about this article now. It's not being used for reference by either side, and seems to be low-level scholarship.

 

[bouee]

Excellnt points ivy and bouee. totally agree. i wonder though why did walgren bring up the clamp theory. because as u say if the defence went that way that would mean admitting there was an iv. so why did walgren even bring it up and put it in the
jurrors minds

Good question, I guess it's a strategy, Walgren has more info than we have. Maybe Walgren had anticipated it, and was pointing out how desperate the defense is, and the big deal the defense is making with that vented tube.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

My only concern re the missing iv is if u have a jurror thats of the opinion that if u cant physically produce the missing i.v line then im abit concerend about saying yes this is what happened. of course theres lots of other evidence that supports the iv been used and u have the testimony of murray hiding other evidence so its certainly believable that murray took the iv line. but u just try to look at all angles cause u can see the defence doing an oj interms of the glove not fitting ie there was no iv line found

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Concerned me abit aswell how shaffer mentioned 80 days of benzos and chernoff was like when did murray ever say that. and once again said to shaffer thats another assumption of yours

 

[elusive moonwalker]

One question. were any other diprivan bottles found that had a needle mark in them which the defence could claim murray used instead of the one in the iv bag. i presune there must have been one for murray to start off with a bolus? but how much was left inthat bottle

 

[ilmjj]

Concerned me abit aswell how shaffer mentioned 80 days of benzos and chernoff was like when did murray ever say that. and once again said to shaffer thats another assumption of yours

I liked how Dr Shafer said something like what else was he to do because there were NO medical records.

 

[Autumn II]

My only concern re the missing iv is if u have a jurror thats of the opinion that if u cant physically produce the missing i.v line then im abit concerend about saying yes this is what happened. of course theres lots of other evidence that supports the iv been used and u have the testimony of murray hiding other evidence so its certainly believable that murray took the iv line. but u just try to look at all angles cause u can see the defence doing an oj interms of the glove not fitting ie there was no iv line found

IV tubing went into one of those big pockets in the Cargo pants Murray was wearing that day, and then into a dumpster behind Baby-Mom's apartment complex?

"Beyond reasonable doubt" does NOT mean that every fact must be verified in an iron-clad way. There is a "gestalt," or overall picture that I'm sure the prosecution will paint in their summation. Which IS, those seventeen instances of "egregious failures of standard of care." There is NO possible way to explain those away. What Murray did to Michael was so far removed from standard practices as to be mind-boggling, and I still don't discount the common sense of the jury.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

True but like i think bouee said its like chernoff is turning the wrong that murray did in having no records and trying to use that to defend murray by accusing shaffer of making assumptions and not basing his theories on facts. when shaffer cant because of murrays
actions . i hope walgren drills that point home on redirect and that shaffer isnt just making assumptions for the sake of it

 

[Ramona122003]

Excellnt points ivy and bouee. totally agree. i wonder though why did walgren bring up the clamp theory. because as u say if the defence went that way that would mean admitting there was an iv. so why did walgren even bring it up and put it in the
jurrors minds

no doubt the defence stratergy is to discredit the iv line as thats the core of the pros case. Hence why wr havr the attacks on alberto fleak and the obsession over the iv yesterday not been the same model etc

They brought it up because it is a valid point. If the jury do come to believe an IV was used and it wasn't even a good IV line, the jury will naturally jumped to the thought that Michael could had messed with the clamp and the propofol spilled into him while Murray was out of the room. As In Session and Ivy said, that would actually be a good defense strategy if the defense wasn't fighting so hard to prove that there wasn't an IV.

As for the LAPD plant theory, the problem with this is how does AA fit into the plot? He had no contact with the LAPD until August and the LAPD had the propofol with the bag since Murray told them. Here's a major question, why did Murray stick a slit, therefore useless, saline bag into his medical supplies along with a empty, therefore useless, bottle of propofol? He had no use for them, yet he's trying to play that it was all his important stuff.

Also the IV tubing. He used an IV for 2 months before the 25. What happened to the IV he used in those time? Did he just decide to throw it away, even though by his own statement he used it as early as the 24?

 

[ivy]

autumn is right - beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute proof. Also during the jury selection they asked jurors is they are okay with not all questions being answered.

there's also two types of logic - deductive and inductive.

jurors can start from the end and go to the beginning.

Think like this there were 2 people in that room - Michael and Murray. If prosecution can prove that Michael didn't swallow pills and weren't able to self inject then what are you left with? Murray.

and acknowledging your weakness can only make you stronger. walgren is trying to portray even though the jurors might think Michael somehow contributed to his death, Murray is still responsible.

 

[bouee]

Concerned me abit aswell how shaffer mentioned 80 days of benzos and chernoff was like when did murray ever say that. and once again said to shaffer thats another assumption of yours

I was glad Chernoff asked that, because now we have 3 doctors (Steinberg, Kamangar, and Shafer) metionning benzos. I was hoping to hear "hair tox results", but Dr Shafer said he based this on Murray's interview, and Chernoff didn't let him check Murray's interview. Dr Shafer also said that it made sense with the empty lorazepam vial found. There was 40mg in that vial.

Edit : Dr Shafer also said that Murray bought the lorazepam

 

[Ramona122003]

True but like i think bouee said its like chernoff is turning the wrong that murray did in having no records and trying to use that to defend murray by accusing shaffer of making assumptions and not basing his theories on facts. when shaffer cant because of murrays
actions . i hope walgren drills that point home on redirect and that shaffer isnt just making assumptions for the sake of it

My point exactly. The defense is using the lack of medical records as a plus, but I think it's the thing that's going to bit them in the butt, especially since they're the ones who keeps bring it up.

As a doctor, no one should have to guess what you did to a patient. Which is why you take charts so you can show others what you've done, not just for other doctors' sake, but for the sake of the family as well.

 

[Justthefacts]

Murray bought all of those benzos but says he never used them on Michael then were are they now?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Very true. what shaffer is having to do is a prime example of what all the other drs talked about interms of why u need records so u can see what was given when u look back

 

[bouee]

My only concern re the missing iv is if u have a jurror thats of the opinion that if u cant physically produce the missing i.v line then im abit concerend about saying yes this is what happened. of course theres lots of other evidence that supports the iv been used and u have the testimony of murray hiding other evidence so its certainly believable that murray took the iv line. but u just try to look at all angles cause u can see the defence doing an oj interms of the glove not fitting ie there was no iv line found

Showing that there had to be a spike, because of the tear in the propofol bottle. Then if there was a spike, there was a vented tube. The saline tube was not vented, had no propofol in it. So there was another tube, and it's gone.

The way I understood Chernoff questions yesterday, I think we had a Flanagan moment : he got Dr Shafer to demonstrate that there had to be another tube. Chernoff asked too many questions. He was not as good as Flanagan, Flanagan is a lot clearer when he shoots his own theories, but hopefully Chernoff is getting there ...

 

[Milka]

IV tubing went into one of those big pockets in the Cargo pants Murray was wearing that day, and then into a dumpster behind Baby-Mom's apartment complex?