Murray Trial - October 11th - Day 10 - Discussion

Kingofpop4ever3000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,533
Points
0
Yes i agree he seemed to undermine his own results interms been quick to disregard his own findings on whether it was a homicide or not. didnt give me much confidence. if u say its homicide based on someone else giving the benzos fore eg u dont turn around and then agree with flanagan. u stick to your guns.


I agree. It's things like this that make me have serious doubts about the possibility of a "guilty" verdict for Murray.
 
Last edited:

Memefan

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
5,382
Points
0
I'm watching the video stream on tmz, they forgot to turn off the audio at the end.

I find it appalling that fans continue supporting tmz... Such a shame. The hypocrisy never cease to amaze me.
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,445
Points
83
I still cant belive they showed the autopsy photos and im thankful i havent seen the pics at all on tv.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
You get from 1/40 to 9 tabs by changing the time he (hypothetically) took the pills. And hopefully the some of the other issues can be cleared up by a pharmaeceutical (sp?)expert.
Thanks. this is another thing that pees me off.from the very begining u have had the defence changing their story in order to to fit it around the info that is available.how many theories can u have? the truth only has one story.how can u defend against something when the other side just throws out new theories everytime u provide evidence to rebute the previous theory
 

Justthefacts

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,072
Points
0
Here is what I am not understanding. The questions were a bunch of what if questions. Asked in a way were the only answer was going to be yes. If he would have answered no he would have looked biased. As someone stated it is clear now that they given up on self injection or drinking. But remember propofol is the cause of death. And no amount of what ifs is going to change that
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
But how does the defence go about defending the fact there were no capsuels. surely they take a long time to disolve? longer than any timeline the defence have given?
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Here is what I am not understanding. The questions were a bunch of what if questions. Asked in a way were the only answer was going to be yes. If he would have answered no he would have looked biased. As someone stated it is clear now that they given up on self injection or drinking. But remember propofol is the cause of death. And no amount of what ifs is going to change that
yes all hypothetical and what ifs. i dont see how that is allowed in a court. yet only on a few occasions were objections substained based on speculation
 

Kingofpop4ever3000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,533
Points
0
Thanks. this is another thing that pees me off.from the very begining u have had the defence changing their story in order to to fit it around the info that is available.how many theories can u have? the truth only has one story.how can u defend against something when the other side just throws out new theories everytime u provide evidence to rebute the previous theory


I think that the judge has been fair so far. But nevertheless, I am wondering why he hasn't told the defense to stop this nonsense of constantly changing their story. It is not fair to the jury. This is all just my opinion.
 

larry141094

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
437
Points
18
Location
A Place With No Name, Australia
For now, the only guilty verdict i can see is Criminal Negligence. With the evidence i dont believe Murray killed Michael. I honestly believe he did not deliver the fatal dose. Murray's reaction to the situation was evidence imo of his true panic and horror as to the events of that day.
I think Murray knew something, maybe Murray's life's in danger and he is taking the blame to save his own life.

LaToya is right for once, this is very big. The mystery finger prints, the missing tape footage. Even Murray's attempt to wean Michael off Propofol are indicators that perhaps Murray thought Michael's life was in danger. Almost all the testimony backs up my theory. Many of the people around Michael and even his kids stated that Conrad cared and was helping. He had no reason to kill Michael, in fact, logic and common sense would dictate that he would want him to live so he could have the contract signed for his payments etc.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
I agree. It's things like this that make me have serious doubts about the possibility of a "guilty" verdict for Murray.
If he walks it will because of the loraz factor. thats why the defence are ramming it down the jurrors throats. and calling it a homicide cause that theory is more believable than mj doing it himself is hardly smoking gun evidence. its for the jury to decide whats more believabke and if they think theres a chsnce he took the loraz they will think theres a chance he took the diprivan.which is exactky what the defence are pushing and trying to make the jury forget about the negligence factor in the case
 

larry141094

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
437
Points
18
Location
A Place With No Name, Australia
If he walks it will because of the loraz factor. thats why the defence are ramming it down the jurrors throats. and calling it a homicide cause that theory is more believable than mj doing it himself is hardly smoking gun evidence. its for the jury to decide whats more believabke and if they think theres a chsnce he took the loraz they will think theres a chance he took the diprivan.which is exactky what the defence are pushing and trying to make the jury forget about the negligence factor in the case

Look even if they cant prove IM without reasonable doubt, they can still call him guilty for Criminal Negligence, and he would lose his licence.
 

Justthefacts

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,072
Points
0
I think that the judge has been fair so far. But nevertheless, I am wondering why he hasn't told the defense to stop this nonsense of constantly changing their story. It is not fair to the jury. This is all just my opinion.
He can't tell them to stop changing there story. It is up to the DA to point that out to the jury not the judge
 

xthunderx2

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
9,883
Points
0
the jury seeing that photo was one thing but showing it to the ENTIRE world did NOT have to be. THEY gave Michael NO dignity,,,,WHY would they do this,,,plaster that damn picture EVERYWHERE,,,,DONT they know what they have DONE??? DONT they care??? Isn't him being gone ENOUGH for them?? HELL NO...they had to get to him right down to the last damn minute. I for one,,,,my damn brain is pretty bent right now from that photo. This is just wrong,,,,that photo NEVER should of been made Public!! I'll tell ya I have seen ALOT of death right infront of my face,,,,but THIS,,,,this image is something that my head will NEVER shake.
 

smoothlugar

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
484
Points
0
But how does the defence go about defending the fact there were no capsuels. surely they take a long time to disolve? longer than any timeline the defence have given?

I hope the new prosecution experts can provide good explanation for the lorazepam found in stomach, whether due to "ion-trapping" as initially suggested by the toxicologist Anderson or for other reasons. Same for the difference of lorazepam in both urine samples (scene and autopsy).
 

larry141094

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
437
Points
18
Location
A Place With No Name, Australia
the jury seeing that photo was one thing but showing it to the ENTIRE world did NOT have to be. THEY gave Michael NO dignity,,,,WHY would they do this,,,plaster that damn picture EVERYWHERE,,,,DONT they know what they have DONE??? DONT they care??? Isn't him being gone ENOUGH for them?? HELL NO...they had to get to him right down to the last damn minute. I for one,,,,my damn brain is pretty bent right now from that photo. This is just wrong,,,,that photo NEVER should of been made Public!! I'll tell ya I have seen ALOT of death right infront of my face,,,,but THIS,,,,this image is something that my head will NEVER shake.

Look we all knew it was going to be like this. Of course it was going to be plastered everywhere. But at the same time, you looked at the picture...
 

Kingofpop4ever3000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,533
Points
0
He can't tell them to stop changing there story. It is up to the DA to point that out to the jury not the judge

I hear you. I wish the prosecution would say something then. Because in my opinion, this constant changing of defense theories got ridiculous a long time ago.
 

Justthefacts

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,072
Points
0
And they will say something. Even if Michael took pills the cause of death was propofol not what Michael may or may not have taken. And that is something they can't dispute
 

xthunderx2

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
9,883
Points
0
Look we all knew it was going to be like this. Of course it was going to be plastered everywhere. But at the same time, you looked at the picture...

maybe you should lose the attitude,,,it is NEVER appreciated here, I came in from WORK,,,,turned on the tv and THERE IT WAS,,,not like I went searching for it....IT was there,,,,right in front of my face for the world to see. Maybe you shouldn't have such an UGLY tone when posting,,,,your posts really can be offensive...and this is not the time for that,
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,445
Points
83
Yes alot of my friends saw the pics by accident when they switched on the tv and they couldnt help but see it
 

Just_Smile

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13
Points
0
Those photos could have been SEALED by the court. They always had that option. I simply do not want to HEAR that it was "automatic." It wasn't. Michael deserved more respect that that. For God's SAKE!

Yes, he sure did deserve more respect than what the court gave him plus there was no need to show that photo, at all. It served no purpose in the court at all, as far as I am concerned. If they felt it had to be seen by the jury, they could have taken the jury to a private room at that time, or shown the photo to them either before or after court, Tuesday, without broadcasting it all over the net and tabloids for all to see. It was humiliating for Michael and his family as well plus terribly unfair to us fans.
 

Just_Smile

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13
Points
0
The POINT about the autopsy photo, was that ONLY the jury should have seen it, as evidence. There was a choice to be made about whether or not this photo would be sealed. It was not sealed, and now the entire world can see Michael, naked (except for privates), and dead. If anyone does not think this is WRONG. . .well, I just think that is bad. SO bad. Sorry, but I do.

They also could have kept the cameras off the photo or screen it was shown on, too, if they felt they HAD to show it. Yes, it was wrong. WAY wrong and I am pretty sure they knew it. Just think, in the Casey Anthony case, when they showed Caylee's skull, they did not turn the cameras toward the screen and did not broadcast those photos, even though they were shown to the court and jury.
 

Just_Smile

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13
Points
0
exactly, I want these records to be presented .
QUOTE]

I agree. I hope they show those records also. I'm no fan of Kline. But nevertheless. I don't think it's fair that the defense are trying to drag him into this mess. From what I heard, he was investigated by the authorities and he would have been legally charged if they had found anything. And another thing. If none of Kliens treatments were found in Michael's system when he died, then why do they keep coming back to Klien and implying that he had something to do with Michael's death? They have to know by now what was and what was not in Michael's system when he died. This is all just my opinion.

I think they are trying to do anything they possibly can to throw the blame onto someone other than Murray. Klein is an obvious target, here. If they can convince someone in the jury that Klein contributed to Michael's death, then they may be able to sway the entire jury. I seriously don't think that's going to work because the evidence is so overwhelming against Murray in the first place.
 

Just_Smile

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13
Points
0
They fed this craziness when it suited them , I believe The jacksons wanted that pic to surface because they consider that an evidence against AEG , that would help them in the court of public opinion , to pressure AEG to settle with them. Watch them send their friends and lawyers to comment on tv about how sick and thin MJ appeared and how AEG did not care and sucked his blood and forced him to rehearse.

his next of kin is his mother , where has she been ? It's been ages since she came to the courtroom!!!! The Jacksons don't care .

Oh I do think they care. I don't know if you realize it but the court has only reserved 8 seats for the family so they can't all be inside the courtroom at once. Perhaps the family members who can handle what is being said and shown are more able to go in and view the court in person while the others remain outside the room. As I understood from the beginning of court, they are all there but quite a few can't come inside the room at the same time. Plus someone has to be taking care of the children and protecting them, as best they can, from this horror. :(
 

Ramona122003

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,447
Points
0
I think that the judge has been fair so far. But nevertheless, I am wondering why he hasn't told the defense to stop this nonsense of constantly changing their story. It is not fair to the jury. This is all just my opinion.

I personally see them changing their story is a good thing and here's why.

The defense in the opening made a big show of Michael drinking/self-injecting the propofol on top of eating 8 pills. They clearly said that the science will show that Michael ate enough lopz pills to put most of the jury asleep. Although we haven't gotten to the defense's side of the case, you noticed that they changed their story in the middle of the trial. They didn't really asked the corona about propofol, but about lopz and could Michael have taken them sooner so the pills would show up in his stomach.

The defense clearly said from the start that Michael took all these drugs within a short period and died instantly. Now, they were asking what if Michael took the pills several hours before death. If Murray only left the room once, when did Michael take all those lopz and why didn't Murray witness their efforts? So you see, the defense is took out their own theory and are instead fishing using all these what ifs, which I think the jury will recognize as something they're doing because they can't win on the actual science of their theory.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
I hope the new prosecution experts can provide good explanation for the lorazepam found in stomach, whether due to "ion-trapping" as initially suggested by the toxicologist Anderson or for other reasons. Same for the difference of lorazepam in both urine samples (scene and autopsy).
Yeah the difference in the loraz urine samples is another example of the defence creating a story around. they say it showd mj took some himsrlf cause murray gave his loraz at 5am and mj went to the toliet around 7.this is where the pros have to ram down the throat of the jury the different claims murray made about not knowing what he gave and when yet all of a sudden he has a written timeline and blames mj for taking an amount when in his own words before he didnt know what he gave and whenthis must be the first case where there is so much evidence against a defendent that we worry if the pros will remember to point out all the lies
 

xthunderx2

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
9,883
Points
0
I personally see them changing their story is a good thing and here's why.

The defense in the opening made a big show of Michael drinking/self-injecting the propofol on top of eating 8 pills. They clearly said that the science will show that Michael ate enough lopz pills to put most of the jury asleep. Although we haven't gotten to the defense's side of the case, you noticed that they changed their story in the middle of the trial. They didn't really asked the corona about propofol, but about lopz and could Michael have taken them sooner so the pills would show up in his stomach.

The defense clearly said from the start that Michael took all these drugs within a short period and died instantly. Now, they were asking what if Michael took the pills several hours before death. If Murray only left the room once, when did Michael take all those lopz and why didn't Murray witness their efforts? So you see, the defense is took out their own theory and are instead fishing using all these what ifs, which I think the jury will recognize as something they're doing because they can't win on the actual science of their theory.

I really truly hope that the jury GETS this. There are some smart folks on that jury I am sure, Hopefully they will see how Murray's defense keeps changing..
 

Ramona122003

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,447
Points
0
I really truly hope that the jury GETS this. There are some smart folks on that jury I am sure, Hopefully they will see how Murray's defense keeps changing..

I'm sure they noticed something is very off because even a lay person knows that 8 pills just don't disappear from the stomach in a couple of hours. Add to the fact that the tox guy clearly said that the lopz were within the high therapeutic range, which 8 pill are definitely not, and you're left to wonder what happened to all the lopz pills that the defense has been pushing.

Here's my theory. I think the defense went in without an actually working theory. I mean just days before the trial they tried to get the March confidence in to show Michael was 'ill' and force to do all these shows when he only wanted to do 10. This is after they were certain that the uncut TII footage would show a ill Michael and they didn't find crap. I think they made that 8 pill and drinking/self-injecting theory as a place holder until they could fish all the DA's witnesses to come up with a new theory. How else would that explain all the what ifs. If the science supported their original theory, why would they have to ask what if?

Keep in mind also that the DA took the giant what if card and turned it against the defense in the end. The DA clearly asked the corona that even if all of defense's theory were true, given the facts of the case, would he still call what happened homicide? The man gave clear yes, showing the jury from a professional point-of-view that even if Michael gave himself any of the fatal drugs, it was still ultimately Murray's fault for creating the situation to begin with.
 

Autumn II

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
9,210
Points
0
Location
Appalachians in the U.S.
They also could have kept the cameras off the photo or screen it was shown on, too, if they felt they HAD to show it. Yes, it was wrong. WAY wrong and I am pretty sure they knew it. Just think, in the Casey Anthony case, when they showed Caylee's skull, they did not turn the cameras toward the screen and did not broadcast those photos, even though they were shown to the court and jury.

Yes, I remember that about the Casey Anthony case. A court actually has a LOT of discretion about what is shown (and heard), and what is not. Most trials are not televised, at ALL. In this trial, even with live-streaming (which is how I've been watching it), the sound is turned off during side-bar discussions. They equally well could have turned cameras away when the photo was shown. (that was not the fault of the media present, but could have been a judge's ruling.)

As far as "choosing" to see the photo is concerned? I did NOT, and many did not. There was little warning. I was in a chat, and chose not to view the courtroom scene at that time. BUT, my cursor accidentally strayed outside the chat-room screen, and there the photo WAS. I sincerely wish I had NOT seen it, but . . . . .there you have it.

It is customary to cover the faces of the deceased. I guess that didn't apply to Michael? Maybe in some sense that photo was "evidence" for the jury (not sure why it was necessary, though), but the world did NOT "have a right" to see it. Court documents are "redacted" all the time, and so should this have been. IMHO. The verdict will be made by the jury, and not the court of public opinion.
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,918
Points
113
Michael Jackson has never been respected. Anyone who could tried to take his dignity away. Now, I don't even slightly expect anyone to show respect to him. Only we will it seems.Which is sad, very sad. Considering he never did wrong. ('93 and 05 I mean)
 
Top