Latest on MJJC

Murray Trial- Day 15 -October 21st

I have been thinkin abt something.. If the drip was still going while mj was dead/dying, then when exactly did muarry leave the room??

N how was he supposedly on the phone all this time and mj was awake and talking? Wouldn't the people on the phone say something about hearing him in the backround?
 
Autumn II said:
Well, now, THAT certainly is ugly. An alcoholic anethesiologist sounds quite risky?
Click to expand...
I guess testifying for Murray is not helping DrWhite's popularity among the anesthesiologists community ...
 
chanel05 said:
I have been thinkin abt something.. If the drip was still going while mj was dead/dying, then when exactly did muarry leave the room??

N how was he supposedly on the phone all this time and mj was awake and talking? Wouldn't the people on the phone say something about hearing him in the backround?
Click to expand...

mj was on the drip so he was asleep. murray sits there making all his calls never leaves the room imo, and he doesnt even notice theres a problem until 12.when theres no chance
 
elusive moonwalker said:
from the ruling the judge made white cant discuss what murray told him and his opinion based on that unless murray himself testifyes first. so i presume white will just talk about that whole concentration issues.unless of course murray testifyes



which is crazy in itself as flanagan in one cross said what if he left the room for 20 min or 40 mins. .now if u go to the toliet for 2 mins you know it took two mins. you cant mix up leaving the room for 2 mins when infact you were gone for 20 mins. even if you dont have a watch! everyone has a sense of timing interms of been gone somewhere two mins or 40.

all i can think of is the defence will say ok murray lied in his poilice interview by not mentioning the t.phonecalls. (although they will say he didnt lie he just didnt think they were important or relvent enough to mention to the police) they will now say as implied in the cross. murray watched for 10 minutes and then he thought mj was alseep naturally (so no need to monitor or need the equipment cause it was conscience sedation) so he left the room to make those phonecalls ontop of going to the toliet and when he came back at 12 he found mj.then they say murray didnt find a pulse even though he claimed he looked at the pulse oxy so its not like he can even say i just physcally felt a pulse when there wasnt one. and u have him tell the medics and drs he found one aswell. then white will address the concentration levels and say mj could have got those from self injection could have died instantly eyes open could mean instant death etc. so thats the excuse for not calling 911 etc etc. (yes im scrapping the barrell here) see how ridiculous this looks

the defence are basically going to have to impeach all of murrays police statement even though the interview was clearly scripted and planned by chernoff. it is an impossible defence because of that police interview.
Click to expand...





But why lie to the cops? Especially with your lawyer sitting right there? You both are going to look like big ass liars
 
elusive moonwalker said:
mj was on the drip so he was asleep. murray sits there making all his calls never leaves the room imo, and he doesnt even notice theres a problem until 12.when theres no chance
Click to expand...

Later, to the police, he mentioned the pulse oximeter marking 122 which would indicate to doctors he was under a respiratory depression, but it's just only his word. The pulse oximeter model did not have memory, so no way to check that data for prosecutors.

Later on, her girlfriend at the phone would testify she heard commotion, and some noise like coughing, which Dr. Shaffer said that "noise" made in the throat, which he produced in the courtroom, would be associated with the airway obstruction...

Murray may have thought in the interview with the police, the respiratory arrest scenario would be more beneficial to him and gave the data to support such scene. (the 122 pulse and the 2 min to bathroom).
 
But why lie to the cops? Especially with your lawyer sitting right there? You both are going to look like big ass liars
Click to expand...
you think murray told chernoff about those calls? or the truth about anything?

Murray may have thought in the interview with the police, the respiratory arrest scenario would be more beneficial to him and gave the data to support such scene. (the 122 pulse and the 2 min to bathroom).
Click to expand...

its certainly the lesser of two evils rather than admit the phonecalls etc etc
 
@ elusive
that's very likely.. Didn't dr.shafer say that watching the diaphram isn't good because it's suppressed. N hopefully the truth will come out about the situation.

@justthefacts
I think muarry lied to the lawyers also.. Cause if he had told them the truth.. I highly doubt they would let him speak
 
Justthefacts said:
But why lie to the cops? Especially with your lawyer sitting right there? You both are going to look like big ass liars
Click to expand...

Maybe he thought that scenario was better for him at the time.

He also lied with the time when he said he found him not breathing at 11am. His attorneys said: "well, people make mistakes".

Last Friday, Chernoff again said to Dr. Shaffer when he wrote down about AA, "the blue bag", instead of "the blue bottle": "you made a mistake. Well, people make mistakes" (or something similar).

Also, the interview with police was not "testimony", not under oath, as the judge has reminded several times...
 
@ elusive
that's very likely.. Didn't dr.shafer say that watching the diaphram isn't good because it's suppressed. N hopefully the truth will come out about the situation.
Click to expand...

yes he did say that. and thats what murray says he watched.
 
I'm sure Murray lied to his attorneys, too. They took the material he gave them and helped him construct a story, apparently. But now they're stuck with that audio tape, and to say Murray was lying is impeaching their own client. But, what else can they say? So far the best they seem to be able to do is bluster around with incredulous-sounding voices, badgering witnesses, misquoting witnesses and trying to trip them up, and so on.

I actually think Murray thought he'd get away with this? The police hadn't even looked for the bag in the closet yet, had they? And Murray assumed they'd already found it? Well, oops?

I really do NOT know how Murray could have thought his lies wouldn't be discovered? He said he had "no watch," when in photos of him at the hospital, clearly, he IS wearing a watch. He said he "comforted the children." Did he REALLY think that lie would not be discovered? He said "there were no working phones," but yet there are phone records of his calls. And on, and on. . . .
 
elusive moonwalker said:
yes he did say that. and thats what murray says he watched.
Click to expand...

okay... I thought so.
what also striked me as odd is that muarry said that he knew mj was in a deep sleep because he would snore.. But under propofol you don't snore??
also wasn't there supposedly more loraz in mj than what muarry claimed he gave him?? (the pill fragment in mj stomach didn't support it)
I haven't been following the trial this week, but is dr.shafer still on the stand?
 
Autumn II said:
I'm sure Murray lied to his attorneys, too. They took the material he gave them and helped him construct a story, apparently. But now they're stuck with that audio tape, and to say Murray was lying is impeaching their own client. But, what else can they say? So far the best they seem to be able to do is bluster around with incredulous-sounding voices, badgering witnesses, misquoting witnesses and trying to trip them up, and so on.

I actually think Murray thought he'd get away with this? The police hadn't even looked for the bag in the closet yet, had they? And Murray assumed they'd already found it? Well, oops?

I really do NOT know how Murray could have thought his lies wouldn't be discovered? He said he had "no watch," when in photos of him at the hospital, clearly, he IS wearing a watch. He said he "comforted the children." Did he REALLY think that lie would not be discovered? He said "there were no working phones," but yet there are phone records of his calls. And on, and on. . . .
Click to expand...

agree...they have changed that defense so many times...that even his own lawyers dont know that truth. I agree..I dont think he ever told them the truth either, At this point...would Murray HIMSELF even recognize what the truth really IS. I dont hold any hope of ever finding out what REALLY happened in that room...all we get to go on is what the pros can prove. I am sure that there is till some we dont or will ever know. Last night when I was laying in bed thinking bout this,,,,all I could think of there was Michael a man loved and adored by MILLIONS of people....and he died alone. That breaks my heart so much,,,,he deserved so much more. It is so sad,
 
elusive moonwalker said:
mj was on the drip so he was asleep. murray sits there making all his calls never leaves the room imo, and he doesnt even notice theres a problem until 12.when theres no chance
Click to expand...

This would answer one of my questions: if Michael was asleep from the drugs, why bother to leave the room to make the phone calls? The propofol will keep him sleeping. I think this is the simplest scenario that covers all the info we have. Anding said she heard a cough and commotion, that would mean he was in the same room as Michael. If he was there for her call, why not all of them?
 
I think Murray's attorney's are about to fight among themselves, if they haven't yet. Now Flanagan is a lot of things, but I've noticed that when certain witnesses talk about what might have happened, and all the deviations from standard of care (such as Shafer did) he occassionally throws dirty looks to Murray, while sitting besides him (although he throws more into Walgren's direction than Murrays.). I believe Murray lied to them all, and now they've realized it. I think Chernoff is fed up of Flanagan and vice versa, Chernoff probably thinks Flanagan crosses don't lead anywhere, and Flan most likely blames Chernoff for the mess they are into right now (the scripted interview).
I'd love to see them fight in court among themselves.
 
Last edited:
I'm lost with all the lies of the defence.

I'm sure that Murray lied to his lawyers, so how come these lawyers can stay with him ? They gonna look so stupid in 2 weeks when the trial will be finish.

And I would like to know the time of death! Nobody spoke about that, and it's important ! The coroner must knows that, why Walgren didn't asked him that?
 
Defense attorneys sometimes have to defend the indefensible. They are STUCK with whoever their client is, and what that client has done. Murray really didn't give them much to work with? And now, he just sits there sullen, and scowling, and put-upon. He is NOT presenting a "likable" persona to the jury, at all.

The jury will evaluate the facts of the case, as best as they are able. But that's not ALL that influences them. The prosecution witnesses, and especially Steinberg and Shafer, have come across as likable, and experts in their fields. The defense lawyers have consistenty badgered them and obviously tried to trip them up (and of course, there was White's unfortunate "scumbag" remark). The jury is receiving facts, and also impressions. The defense team is not coming across very well, at all, in that regard. Nor is Murray. . .
 
Don't forget Dr. Kamenger Authumn II, he did a great job as well, though his personality was quieter than that of Dr. Steinberg's, he didn't let Flanagan put words into his mouth, nor did he stray from his, he held firm.

Personally, I believe the last three doctors starting from Dr. Steinberg, Dr. Kamengar to Dr. Shafer, all of them came across, as competent, likeable and credible witnesses who were truly shocked with what Murray did to Michael [e.g Dr. Steinberg asking Flanagan if he was asking/admitting that Murray was prescribing to someone with depedency problems, when Flanagan threw the addict word around, Steinberg turned it around blamed Murray for prescribing to an addict in the first place instead of putting the blame on Michael (before the judge sustained the prosecution's objection on this), so imo the addict talk backfired on them while Steinberg was the stand].

I think the entire defense team is leaving a very bad impression on the jury their respectless and rude crossing of the witnesses don't help either, same goes for Murray, who most of the times looks like he wants to jump down the witnesses throats for stating whatever they are stating (at times, he looked like he was about to attack Dr. Shafer imo).

He shows no remorse, not emotions, nothing at all, and the fact that he's constantly rolling his eyes doesn't help to portray him as some likeable person at all. I think sometimes Murray forgets that the jury is able to see the faces he makes, he doesn't seem to be too aware of the kind of impressions he leaves.
 
Last edited:
Autumn II said:
Defense attorneys sometimes have to defend the indefensible. They are STUCK with whoever their client is, and what that client has done. Murray really didn't give them much to work with? And now, he just sits there sullen, and scowling, and put-upon. He is NOT presenting a "likable" persona to the jury, at all.

The jury will evaluate the facts of the case, as best as they are able. But that's not ALL that influences them. The prosecution witnesses, and especially Steinberg and Shafer, have come across as likable, and experts in their fields. The defense lawyers have consistenty badgered them and obviously tried to trip them up (and of course, there was White's unfortunate "scumbag" remark). The jury is receiving facts, and also impressions. The defense team is not coming across very well, at all, in that regard. Nor is Murray. . .
Click to expand...

Agree with all except the jury should not have any knowledge of the scumbag remark, if they are adhering to their instructions...but it is wonderful for the rest of us!
Now, is it possible for a lawyer decide during a trial that he/she does not want to continue to defend the client? Just for discussion, what if one of murray's lawyers were to bail out?
And if murray told white one thing but in the interview with police said something different, wouldn't White have to base his opinions on the same info as Dr. S and the rest? Which would mean that initially he might have had one opinion but now has to have a different one. I think it'd be great to see him get up on the stand and be compelled by data to support the prosecution...
 
elusive moonwalker said:
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
Click to expand...

CNN also mentioned this in an article, basically saying that if the pros really cant show HOW MJ died the jury might have a hard time to come to an agreement.Because frankly its important to at least get a picture of how MJ died.
 
Thrill said:
CNN also mentioned this in an article, basically saying that if the pros really cant show HOW MJ died the jury might have a hard time to come to an agreement.Because frankly its important to at least get a picture of how MJ died.
Click to expand...


I agree with your post.The problem is that the defense has thrown out SO MANY theories as to HOW MJ died that THEY dont even know what to present to the jury, As far as the pros goes...they have already imo painted a clear enough picture,,(even with parts missing) of how Michael died. The scene told a story,,,the witness told their stories...and Michael's remains told a story....so I would hope that the jurors are smart enough to put it all together and see that what happened to Michael was atleast worth a 4 year sentence, The pros has presented a very good case...I have seen other jurors have less to work with in other IM cases and get a conviction,
 
can someone break it down to me regarding the tubing's.

I thought no tubing was found at all. But Dr Shafer said that a long tubing found at the house didn't test positive for propofol, but the short tubing did.

so the short tubing cant be the murder weapon? or is it really way too short? if that cant be the murder weapon, then for what cause do u use a short tubing? I mean the Y connector also tested positive for propofol... soooo
 
xthunderx2 said:
[/B]

I agree with your post.The problem is that the defense has thrown out SO MANY theories as to HOW MJ died that THEY dont even know what to present to the jury, As far as the pros goes...they have already imo painted a clear enough picture,,(even with parts missing) of how Michael died. The scene told a story,,,the witness told their stories...and Michael's remains told a story....so I would hope that the jurors are smart enough to put it all together and see that what happened to Michael was atleast worth a 4 year sentence, The pros has presented a very good case...I have seen other jurors have less to work with in other IM cases and get a conviction,
Click to expand...

Yes but at least in my country when someone is charged for involuntary manslaughter or homocide its important to get an idea how the victim died. In my country you cant basically say person X died like this but you cant prove exactly how he died... Murray killed Michael but we dont know HOW he killed him (does this make any sense?)

Forget about the fact Murray was a reckless dick who did not call 911 or have proper equipment or lied and all that.. he is not on trial for his reckless behavior, although that HIGHLY contributed to Mjs death... This is what worries me frankly
 
Thrill said:
Yes but at least in my country when someone is charged for involuntary manslaughter or homocide its important to get an idea how the victim died. In my country you cant basically say person X died like this but you cant prove exactly how he died... Murray killed Michael but we dont know HOW he killed him (does this make any sense?)

Forget about the fact Murray was a reckless dick who did not call 911 or
have proper equipment or lied and all that.. he is not on trial for his reckless behavior, although that HIGHLY contributed to Mjs death... This
is what worries me frankly
Click to expand...


Actully, he is on trial for being reckless. Manslaughter is the charge for being negligent which cause the death of a person. So even if Michael self-injected they can still find Murray guilty. The DA even ask when chosen the jury can they convict even if all the questions are not answer.
 
Ramona122003 said:
Actully, he is on trial for being reckless. Manslaughter is the charge for being negligent which cause the death of a person. So even if Michael self-injected they can still find Murray guilty. The DA even ask when chosen the jury can they convict even if all the questions are not answer.
Click to expand...

We had a famous case in my country this year where a doctor was charged with homocide on a baby (giving lethal dose of a drug). The doc got aquitted because they couldnt prove how the baby actually died.

I think im just worried honestly because Murray was reckless all those other nights as well but MJ did survive those nights, but what went wrong on June 25th and thats perhaps its so important for the pros to prove how MJ died on June 25th... ok im gonna stop rambling *sigh*
 
Thrill said:
can someone break it down to me regarding the tubing's.

I thought no tubing was found at all. But Dr Shafer said that a long tubing found at the house didn't test positive for propofol, but the short tubing did.

so the short tubing cant be the murder weapon? or is it really way too short? if that cant be the murder weapon, then for what cause do u use a short tubing? I mean the Y connector also tested positive for propofol... soooo
Click to expand...

There was one set of tubing recovered: from the 1000 ml bag of Normal Saline..."long" tubing. 13 cm from the end was a 'Y' connector, a port, a rubber stopper, if you will, where medicines can be injected and if needed another IV can be inserted. Above this Y connector there was no medicine detected (the 'long' tubing') BUT below the Y connector in the 'short' length of tubing, was where medicine was found. It is all one length of tubing just a long (upper) part and a short (lower) part. Hope this helps. :)
 
cinzia said:
there was one set of tubing recovered: From the 1000 ml bag of normal saline..."long" tubing. 13 cm from the end was a 'y' connector, a port, a rubber stopper, if you will, where medicines can be injected and if needed another iv can be inserted. Above this y connector there was no medicine detected (the 'long' tubing') but below the y connector in the 'short' length of tubing, was where medicine was found. It is all one length of tubing just a long (upper) part and a short (lower) part. Hope this helps. :)
Click to expand...


thanks a lot!, so one final question.. when people say that the tubing is missing, what are they talking about hehe? so one set of tubing was recovered... but there must have been another one too which is now missing?

sorry for asking, im confused
 
Last edited:
So tomorrow this madness continues *sigh* I'll be able to help out with the summaries tomorrow.
Unfortunately this week, I'll only be able to follow the trial until Wendsday and then I'll have to catch up on Saturday most probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top