Latest on MJJC

Murray Trial- Day 16 - October 24 - Discussion

I watched Lee's testimony. and she didn't strike me as very nervous... sure, she didn't remember all the dates, but apart from that all her answers were clear and to the point... I actually liked her. and did you notice the way she looked at Murray at the end of her testimony? if only looks could kill....
 
rita.gibson said:
I was getting wound up by Lee...( spoilt by the speed of the other 5 witness's) "They were so fast I actually thought we might get a verdict tomorrow" Up to now Lee has shown she takes note's, and regarding the Red Bull she was able to show that Michael will follow medical advise and wanted to be healthy.When it comes up that MJ asked her for/about propofol If I'm right she should also say (the doctor said it was safe). Even if no doc name was given it's pretty obvious who that was. If none of that happens then at least Lee will give Chernoff a taste of his own medicine.
Click to expand...
i think lee talking about mjs comment re his dr said it would be ok would be classed as hearsay. but maybe she will get it out so the jury can hear it even if theres an objection
 
So how many of the 15(?) defence witnesses were called?
I haven't read everything, but they seem to be getting through them quite quickly. Seems Janet may have been right to cancel her Australia shows and fly back to the US. She said she had spoken to the family and decided to reschedule the shows so she could be with them at this difficult time. I wonder whether the prosecution told the family to expect a very quick finish? The verdict could come quicker than I ever expected, and at this rate it could be before the end of the week!
 
If lee is lieing about being asked for diprivan is metzger lieing aswell? she went on t.v cause she said everyone was going on about addiction and she knew from the blood tests that he wasnt. she didnt know murray gave an interview to the police and had brought up diprivan.dont really get what the issue is the defence so far is just to connect mj to diprivan. show he knew what it was and that he was asking for it.that he wasnt innocent in what happened and knew it was dangerous but was prepared to take the risk. thats what they are doing.although it does nothing to defend murray against the actual charges. its just been done to blame mj aswell for what happenedre walgren not doing much cross. there was nothing for him to cross over the first few witnesses.
 
Last edited:
OK guys, I just posted this in another thread but I have to post it here to because I am devo. I just watched a video news recording where one of the reporters speaking outside the courtroom said that even if Murray is found guilty he will get NO JAIL TIME because of some law that has been passed. Have you guys heard this? I am totally ****** devo if it's true.
 
bobmoo79 said:
So how many of the 15(?) defence witnesses were called?I haven't read everything, but they seem to be getting through them quite quickly. Seems Janet may have been right to cancel her Australia shows and fly back to the US. She said she had spoken to the family and decided to reschedule the shows so she could be with them at this difficult time. I wonder whether the prosecution told the family to expect a very quick finish? The verdict could come quicker than I ever expected, and at this rate it could be before the end of the week!
Click to expand...
we are on the 6th. days ago chernoff said most of witnesses would be quick and he expected to be done within 4 days. the experts will obviously be on the stand longer. but the quickness is of no surprise
 
Defense is to call some 15 - 16 witnesses in total right?

Regarding Murray's prison time, it was reported that due to prison over crowding, if he gets the full 4 year sentence he may only serve 2 years in prison, and the other 2 years under house arrest. It's a possibility, but not confirmed as of now.
 
So i wonder if faye will be nxt as court will start 15 mins later to discuss some legal issue. remember the judge would rule on or make a point of saying she could only testify to what she saw.
 
http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6718/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=OYBDF9q0i take back the bit about faye being the reason for the delay. the defence have filed a motion to show the jury the concert contract showing what mj would lose if he didnt do the shows.i guess the judge will rule on that first thing. judge had said no to financial issues before so hopefully he says no now .faye and philips are expected todayalso closing statements will be monday as the judge had given them the weekend to plan their statements and jury instructions.so the jury could be out late monday
 
so Karen might testify today? dont know why but im a bit nervou about that...
 
Karen better not say anything that supports the defense, intentionally or not.

She will harp on things like Michael's visible weight loss, and other health related concerns. However, that's her subjective opinion, whereas the Coroner has already testified that Michael's overall health was better than the average person's.
 
she's on twitter, I feel like telling her to not screw up...
 
jaydom7 said:
What I don't understand is how MJ, the most famous man in the world wasn't referred to the best sleep specialist in the world? All of these doctors, nurses etc knew he had sleep problems but not one of them referred him to a specialist in sleep/anxiety???:beee:
Click to expand...

Exactly! If Conrad Murray cared more about his patient and not his bank account, he could have said to Michael, "look, this isn't something I'm particularly trained for, I think it'd be better to refer you to a doctor who is a specialist in sleep issues". I know Michael trusted him and all, but Murray obviously didn't know what he was doing, but thought he'd just give it a go anyway and see how it went. A (ahem, so called) Cardiologist dealing with major sleep issues such as Michael's? He would have just been better off referring him to someone else, but no. I can't remember the name off of the top my head, but there was a doctor that testified a little while ago and talked about never just 'dropping' a patient, but instead insisting they are referred to a specialist who could deal with them better if need be. I think that was generally what he said anyway. There are many world-class specialists who could have helped, but Murray seemed determined to deal with it himself, with fatal consequences.
 

@drfriedbergBarry Friedberg MD
Try as they may, the best Conrad Murray's defense can do is put lipstick on a pig & hope one juror fails to see the pig.
 
There defense is that Michael was desperate and that him not getting any sleep was the reason why he self injected. However did there own client not say that Michael had been sleeping fine for six weeks because of the Propofol? And he was asking these people for help with his sleeping because he could not sleep was all before Murray came along am I right?
 
Karen Faye is testifying today. There is a story about Faye in today's LA times and Philips. They want Phillips to go over the contract and the things Michael would have lost if the shows did not go off without. And if Michael continue to miss rehearsals things would be bad. Karen Faye told the cops that Michael was paranoid and seemed to be under the influence she thought he was going to die. But why was she on face book saying everything was great and Michael was great? No one told her to do it she was doing it on her own and now that he died he was this and that?
 
Moving forward . . . and looking toward the END of this mess?

Here's a lil reality check, re defense case/witnesses?

The prosecutions' three expert witnesses were incredibly good. They detailed, and demonstrated, multiple instances of "egregious failures of standard of care." So far, the defense has presented nothing and has no theories that would negate or cast doubt on any of those "failures." It was brilliant of the prosecution to focus on Murray's own words to impeach him. Sure, they know he was lying, but that police interview is as close as they are going to come to Murray's taking the stand.

Instead the defense seem to be trying:

1. IF Michael's contract indicates that he would lose a lot if he failed to perform/cancel, THEN the implication is that he put a lot of pressure on Murray to give him propofol. That does nothing to negate the fact that Murray had a choice, to medicate Michael under entirely unsafe conditions, or to say "no." As Metzger did, say "no." Metzger further said there was "no amount of money" that he could have been paid that would have allowed him to do such a life-threatening thing to Michael.

2. IF Karen Faye testifies that "Michael was not well," THEN that still does not address Murray's multiple failures of standard of care. Nobody is saying that Michael died of "an illness," but from an overdose of propofol, with benzo effect. If K.F. tries to say Michael was "not well," it means that -- why didn't Murray, as Michael's doctor, KNOW that?

3. Klein is not going to testify, but if he did? As Metzger testified, it was not difficult to discover the other doctors who were treating Michael, and even work WITH them. Murray had a responsibility to do just that. It was no SECRET that Michael was seeing Klein! There are paparazzi photos that prove it. So as the primary care physician, it was exactly Murray's responsibility to have a total picture of Michael's health and treatment. Instead, Murray kept no medical records, at ALL. So, IF Michael was seeing Klein (and he was), THEN that does nothing to address the "egregious failures of standard of care," by Murray.

IF Michael was "doctor shopping, THEN that still is no defense for Murray.

IF Michael was "not well," THEN that is still no defense for Murray.

IF Michael was "under pressure to perform," for financial reasons, THEN that is still no defense for Murray.

And, IF Michael somehow managed to self medicate -- THEN that is still no defense for Murray. It just highlights the need for medications to be kept under lock-and-key, in a HOSPITAL!

I have no idea what the defense can possibly DO, now?
 
I just wanted to share this but I woke up this morning and they were talking about yesterday's testimony on a radio show (Tom Joyner) and for the first time I heard compassion, sympathy and empathy for Michael and his sleeping problems. Knowing how long Michael had been battling insomnia and looking for a solution really brought it home to the announcers and prolly to others out there who were either clueless or had been misled by the likes of Oxman and Chopra about what happened here. I cried.

And they were convinced Murray was in the wrong and that EVEN if he thought he was doing MJ a favor by giving him the propofol he didn't fulfill his duties properly (standard of care, shoddy resusitation efforts, etc.) "Yeah, I'll watch you sleep, Michael. I'm telling you the TROOT. I gotcha!" Grossly negligent piece of crap.

28 months later....better late than never, I guess.


ETA: It's 11:23 am EST. Is anyone going to start a new thread for today's testimony? I'd do it but I don't want to overstep or anything.
 
Last edited:
I have noticed defence brought up the question why urine samples were not tested for propofol metabolites to estimate the amount of propofol administered in the hours before death.

This online reference says propofol glucoronide accounts for about 50% of the dose:
http://toxwiki.wikispaces.com/Propofol

A discussion on propofol metabolites:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12067002

Propofol death case where hydrolized urine was used to estimate the amount of propofol administered:
http://www.drjunge.de/pdf/propofol_03.eng_web.pdf


I was afraid defence would bring this up.

I hope it will not put the prosecution's case into jeopardy that propofol was not tested for in hair samples to establish a trend of propofol use, and that urine samples were not tested for propofol metabolites.
 
Going on what I now know about Murray I would say it's possible that Murray told Michael to ask Lee if she could get it for him, (of course knowing full well that Lee would say no) Then Murray say's well I could get it but at a 'PRICE', after all Murrays interest was money and not Michael. That tape could well have been to blackmail him at some point.
Murray had stock piled all those drugs that could harm/kill Michael and after all this trouble learned he wasn't going to London (perhaps he would use the tape to ensure he went) we'll never know but one thing we do know is that Michael ended up dead. Just my opinion with my Sherlock head on.
 
Just heard Katherine may not be there because she has an event in England related to something about Michael, so that is why Janet may show up. This is what the woman on In Session with the dark hair and small eyes and mouth said. I do not know her name. What is the name of the woman on In Session with the blond hair parted in the middle?
 
good post autumn!!!

And i missed 5 witness in one day?! damn :( Luckely we have ivy who makes wonderfull summarys! Thx for that ivy. PS its not clear if im out of the woods yet.. Wait and see

I was nerveus for metzer but i read it went well?? And a hostile witness is a good thing thus what i read from ivys explanation??

Why would michael want to replace CM? For me that doesnt make sence because he agruged big time over at aeg for murray.

Also the timeline, im confused also... April nurse lee was helping michael, with what?? If he had a doc why ask for a nurse??
 
Petrarose said:
Just heard Katherine may not be there because she has an event in England related to something about Michael, so that is why Janet may show up. This is what the woman on In Session with the dark hair and small eyes and mouth said. I do not know her name. What is the name of the woman on In Session with the blond hair parted in the middle?
Click to expand...

she going to david guests documentry premier in london
 
Oh thanks Elusive. I will not comment further so that we stay within the parameters of the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top