Latest on MJJC

Murray Trial Day 21, October 31st - Discussion

Love his double standard on animal studies. What's up with all the cherry pickings?
 
Now Walgreen is getting somewhere! He got me a little worried there :)
 
u gave us a paper with computer code on? yes

0.3 % is an over estimate according to the report authors its variable says white and makes no difference to the huge differences. are u aware it was stated the 0.3 could be an over estimate.? no i didnt know i didnt have time to read it. (walgren lets white talk to much going on about the urine amounts not matching )

another report walgren brings up elimination of diprivain in the urine about animals being tested. white says i didnt rely on it cause it was on animals. and they vary diff to humans.

no unchanged compound was found in the urine according to an old report. white says but it was in rats ect not humans. is there a reason u didnt consider this study b4 u testifyed? i rely on human studies rather than animal studies as they arent the same theres great differences.

article from 99 did u see this article where there was no free diprivan found in the urine. objection substained as white doesnt know the article.

in your research did u search for articles.. white says i didnt research this i just asked a question.. the answer was based on one outdated hardly know article?

another article walgren wants to show but it gets objected to.

direct is over
 
You can see where Walgren is going with all this. He is likely to call back Shafer to testify about the articles he is referring to to further discredit Dr White.
 
For an expert, his researching skills sucks. To be honest, this make White look foolish since he's testifying to charts that he admits to know nothing about.
 
That was a lot of sustains before no more questions :-/ But that was a good shift by Walgren!
 
this question has nothing to do wit Propofol expertise...so WHY would Flannigan ask him this question??? Stupidity.
 
So according to Flannagans logic we better hope President Obama never has an arrest at the White House
 
Is Flanagan seriously trying to further justify Murray not calling 911 but running down to the cook to say "get help, get security, get Prince"?
 
911 not being called for 20 mins. remember that hypothetical question u see the paitent eyes open mouth open what would you do? onjection sustained. flanagan re asks it. we are on the upper floor of a big house the entire premieter of the house is fenced theres a gate u cant get into unless security lets you in. (this is murray interview with white shouldnt be brought it) theres someone in the kitchen that can get security. with that in mind would u ask that person to get security to ring 911? objection substained. where the guards at the gate asks white? how fars the kitchen from the bedroom? ( this is ridiculous. why cant he ring 911 hes has a fecking cell phone on him.its irrelvent if theres a fence. u ring 911 first then sort that out.) flanagan says theres no landline so is it normal to ask someone else to ring 911? more objections and flanagan asks the question again.
 
thrillerchild said:
That was a lot of sustains before no more questions :-/ But that was a good shift by Walgren!
Click to expand...

They had to sustain because White apparently read nothing. Even the article he testified to he claimed it was the other doctor who did it. Which makes you wonder why White testify to charts that he had no idea how they were even made or what they were really based on.

I'm still upset the DA didn't ask about how Michael was functioning with such high levels of Lopz without Murray noticing and why Michael chose to wheel an IV instead of calling Murray if he was just in the hallway according to White.
 
Ramona122003 said:
For an expert, his researching skills sucks. To be honest, this make White look foolish since he's testifying to charts that he admits to know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Why would he do that? You would think he would want to know exactly what he is talking about.
 
Someone refresh my memory, I hope...has the lack of michael's fingerprints anywhere been mentioned with this man and his "self administration' theory?
 
Ramona122003 said:
The question is how did he feel his own pulse on an oximeter if it was put on Michael's finger? It isn't like Murray was holding the device himself in his hand. Murray also said that Michael still had color and he was warm, so it happened recently. If Murray called for help when he was suppose to, there wouldn't be all this uncertainty.
Click to expand...

Remember, the fire place was on in that bedroom.
 
marebear said:
Why would he do that? You would think he would want to know exactly what he is talking about.
Click to expand...

You would think, but he played the 'I don't know card' all the way through. How can you take chart seriously if the expert doesn't even know what it was even based on? He also give the impression that the defense just gave him the charts out of the blue and told him to testify?

Who the heck is he trying to fool here?
 
Isn't Flannagan confirming that Murray was lying by saying Michael dead 20-30 minutes when EMT arrived?
 
Court resumes


Walgren resumes his cross by asking White about his interest in the urine levels, White says yes that's the reason why he (white) asked Dr. Ornelle's to do the simulations.
Walgren asks about the data int he simulation, asks if it indicates. 0.3 per cent, asks if White was responsible in accumilating data in the analysis. White says he didn't direct Ornille, nor did he ask her specifically about it.
Walgren wants to know if he tested the model prior to testifying the model was accurate, White doesn't know what Walgren's asking says they used the same computer code as Shafer. Walgren asks if he made sure the 0.3 was accurate as he was the one testifying under oath. White says he is sure it is, but
says it can vary.


Walgren asks again after objecting if the 0.3 percent was accurate or not, asks him if he'd done research to find out if the figure was accurate or not, White says he did, but he couldn't research every paper, says he was confident
Walgren brings in another article from 1988, wants it marked by the judge as ppl's 249, asks if White recognizes the article asks if White bases his testimony on that article, White says that's the article Dr. Ornille's based her analysis, Walgren reasks if he bases his testimony on it as well, White agrees, hesistantly, but ssays Dr. ORnille's is the one who based her analysis on it,
Says the number picked by Dr. Onalisse's was a conservative numebr as there were even higher numbers mentioned in different articles/papers but can't say exactly which paper he is referring to when Walgren asks for the name/title of the paper he is referring to.
Walgren asks him if it's right that the exact number could be lower than 0.3 per cent, says the paper says it can't be higher than that, but lower, says that their analysis doesn't say the same as the paper does, White says yes. Walgren asks if based on the article actual amount could have been less than 0.3 or even 0, White the fuckhole doesn't agree with it, says that's not what I believe, Walgren reasks white Says it could even be more like 1 per cent, according to the other paper he doesn't remember the name though
flan objects judge sustain on the grounds of asked and answered


Walgren asks if Propofol is meassured by chromotography? White says that's how they are meassured,/analysed, Walgren shows him a paper that says it's not analysed chromotographically, White says he can't say what the paper refers to.




White says he can't comment on something that's beyond his field of expertize, Walgren says how come u testified last week and had no problems at all giving ur opinion on stuff u don't know, White says he got them the eve before he testified and he provided the prosecution of copies, of everything, which is more than what they provided him with, says they are only showing graphs without providing extra info.
Walgren says you only provided us with a computer code.


Walgren wants to know if he is aware that the authors of the article do indicate that the estimation of 0.3 percent alone could be an over estimate. White says no,
Walgren brings in antoher article from 1991, ttile is ''species differences in blood profile..'', Walgren wants to know if he was aware of the article, White says no, says the article had nothing to do with humans
Walgren wants to know why he didn't choose to rely on the article white says because there is a difference between human and animal studies
Walgren tries to bring in various articles flan objects to them and judge refuses to mark them, one particular article walgren asks about the witness can't identify.
Walgren asks him if he'd done any research whatsoever. on the article Ornelle and him basing their analyses upon, White again states and says he didn't research anything he simply asked Ornille to help with the different levels.




Walgren tries to ask him about articles but judge doesn't allow it as flanagan objects.


cross over nothing further


flanagan on redirect now


wants whtie to assume facts, that the bedroom was int he upper part of the house, says assume the house had a gate that could not open without security opening it for you what would you do in an emergancy situation,
asks if it's ok for a person to go to the kitchen and ask someone for help, white wants to clarify if there were people outside the gates/near the gates, flan says no persons.
flangan goes on about the house, and the property being guarded, says assume it's a large house, no entrance to the house unless security approves it, says there's no landlines (wth u senile bastard ur murdering client had TWO cell phones) wants to know if it's appropiate for to ask the person in the kitchen
instead of asking someone else as the person in the kitchen is closer to the security trailer,
white the rat says yes, that would be reasonable instead of leaving the person alone for a long period of time,
flangan wants to know how much time white would spend on a person with eyes and mouth open before getting other means of help, white says probably around 3 or 4 mins, says I'd do it for that period of time, doing cpr, says with as cardiologist it can be assumed that such a person is capable of doing proper cpr,
white says as a single person, first aid could be cpr, and mouth to mouth, says an ambu bag could be recommendable if available.
Flan asks again what he'd do, White says he'd do cpr, but would think the patient is already gone as eyes opened and mouth open does indicate this.
flanagan asks if anything could have been done for a patient who was dead for almost 20 mins or 3o mins. already, white says no it's unlikely
flan watns to know if meds giving the prior night/evening would be reversable when emts arrive around 12.26, asks if propofol would have to do anything witht he death, if it was given around 10.40, white wants to answer but walgren objects judge sustains.
flan asks again if propofol of 3 to 5 min caused anything related to death, given so slowly Whtie says no i wouldn't expect it had anything to do with cause of death.
 
I've been out all evening, just got back and put sky news on, and Walgren was just finishing cross! :( How did he do? I'll catch up either later on in the week or at the weekend, but I'll read back through this thread later on after court's finished for the day. Thanks for the updates, it's much appreciated!
 
One of the pros. doctors, can't remember which one, when asked about the emts and whether michael had been dead for a period of time said something about not relying on that information as to when death occurred....I believe.
 
i would first try to resusitate the paitent b4 anything else white doesnt really answer the question. would u expect a cardiologist to have an expertise in doing this? yes i would.would you expect them to help the paitent first? yes . how long for a prelim assesment.? b4 asking for help? and assesment doesnt take long says white. u should do cpr for 3-4 mins first b4 calling for help. why cause you might have just found them so you could bring them back straight away.

what cpr would u provide to someone with mouth and eyes open and a thready pulse. mouth to mouth compressions or a ambu bag if available. with all the above could u make a diagnosis. eyes open etc. white says that sounds alot like death. brings up the medics testimony at 1226 and medic says the paitent was dead for 20 mins does that support your belief? yes it would. anything that could be done if help comes 5 mins later? unlikely.. saying having a medical chart would make no difference if the paitent was already dead.

giving a blous injection at 10-40 -1050 does it have an affect on what happened at 12? murray stays with mj for 20 mins and was sleeping with no issues would u assume theres no problems. yes there should be no problems as the bolus was given long b4. if there were any issues you would see it b4 10 mins. after 10 mins the dip would have worn off? yes so once that time passes would u have any reason to believe dip was involved in this case. no i wouldnt.

the medics asked to call it. u think taking over and going to the hos would help? no says white

u think in the event the medics or the drs at the hos had known about dip that would change the treatment of mj? no change the outcome? no .

only treatment for diprivan is time? theres no reserve agent so yes time. if theres an dip OD u can tell straight away? yes cause you are there when u are giving it and thats when it normally happens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top