Latest on MJJC

Murray Trial - October 11th - Day 10 - Discussion

When Walgren was showing Chistopher Rodgers the pill bottles and one still had pills in it and one was empty was the point he was trying to make that MJ had never taken that many pills before?
 
ilmjj said:
When Walgren was showing Chistopher Rodgers the pill bottles and one still had pills in it and one was empty was the point he was trying to make that MJ had never taken that many pills before?
Click to expand...

He was showing that Michael had two bottles of 30 pills worth of lopz in the passed three months before he died. Now, if Michael was addicted or even depended on this drug to the point that you could believe that he could eat 8 at once without thinking and show no signs of being sick, why was there 9 lopz pills left?

From what I understand the bottle say take 2 pills before bed or as needed. So, if Michael took 2 lopz pills every day that 60 supply should had only lasted two mouths. That if he took the min. But, there was still 9 left, which shows that Michael wasn't overly that interested in the lopz so why would he suddenly take 8 on a whim?
 
sugarcookies said:
Well hopefully after the trial is over that someone ask the prosecutor why he decide to put the pic up...
Click to expand...

because Michael is larger than life and with all his music , TII and Cirque etc going on it's a hard thing to a common citizen to realize that he's dead. as we always say his legacy is very much alive.

I believe prosecution is showing these pictures to humanize Michael and get the point across that he's dead and lost.
 
HEY! I missed the end of the trial today.

So did they just show ONE Autopsy photo or 2 today? (I know it was reported originally that Pastor would allow 2 autopsy photos to be shown in court). Is that it for the pictures or will there be another? I just want to be warned so I can avoid such pics.

I know there was the first one, the one of him on the gurney wearing the hospital gown shown early in the trial, now apparently an autopsy pic today..........is there still another one we'll see?
 
ivy said:
because Michael is larger than life and with all his music , TII and Cirque etc going on it's a hard thing to a common citizen to realize that he's dead. as we always say his legacy is very much alive.

I believe prosecution is showing these pictures to humanize Michael and get the point across that he's dead and lost.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is understandable, in that sense. But yet, we KNOW he is dead, and the trauma to his children, who will inevitably SEE this, and the trauma to at least some fans, is VAST.

The POINT is, it's not the common citizen who will make this judgment, but the JURY. I hold firm in the idea that the jury--- those people who MATTER in this trial -- and the jury, alone, should have seen these photos.

In the meantime, the photos have gone, predictably, viral. It's such a VIOLATION of Michael's privacy, even in death, that it's not really understandable. At least to me, someone who loved him, it is NOT.

Michael, I am SO sorry. . ..
 
ivy said:
because Michael is larger than life and with all his music , TII and Cirque etc going on it's a hard thing to a common citizen to realize that he's dead. as we always say his legacy is very much alive. I believe prosecution is showing these pictures to humanize Michael and get the point across that he's dead and lost.
Click to expand...
You have a point here. A few days ago, my mom (she likes Michael, but doesn't follow the trial) told me she feels Michael is still alive (she's not a beLIEver. She's not delusional.) I asked her why. She said she sees footage of him on TV all the time. She hears his music all the time. Yes, with the film, the Cirque show and the overall legacy going on so strongly, Michael is indeed larger than life and is immortal. I believe the prosecutor is trying to show that despite the larger than life persona, Michael Jackson was real flesh and blood. The jury needs to see a human life is lost. I know the photo is upsetting. But, in the long run, people will always remember Michael at his brightest. I'm just very disappointed that the family didn't not try to have the autopsy photos sealed.
 
lemon662 said:
HEY! I missed the end of the trial today.

So did they just show ONE Autopsy photo or 2 today? (I know it was reported originally that Pastor would allow 2 autopsy photos to be shown in court). Is that it for the pictures or will there be another? I just want to be warned so I can avoid such pics.

I know there was the first one, the one of him on the gurney wearing the hospital gown shown early in the trial, now apparently an autopsy pic today..........is there still another one we'll see?
Click to expand...

no. these are the only 2 that judge pastor allowed.

love is magical said:
You have a point here. A few days ago, my mom (she likes Michael, but doesn't follow the trial) told me she feels Michael is still alive (she's not a beLIEver. She's not delusional.) I asked her why. She said she sees footage of him on TV all the time. She hears his music all the time. Yes, with the film, the Cirque show and the overall legacy going on so strongly, Michael is indeed larger than life and is immortal. I believe the prosecutor is trying to show that despite the larger than life persona, Michael Jackson was real flesh and blood. The jury needs to see a human life is lost. I know the photo is upsetting. But, in the long run, people will always remember Michael at his brightest. I'm just very disappointed that the family didn't not try to have the autopsy photos sealed.
Click to expand...

a lot of people feel that way. I know that my family knows that I'm sad about Michael's death and focus my time and energy to this trial and such. I can't tell you how many times I heard from them I shouldn't be sad because it doesn't feel like Michael is dead. That's his legacy and being immortal.

That's why I think it was needed to show it to the jury.

and as for the sealing, there's nothing that can be done know. The cat is out of the hat and there's no turning back. I think everyone should accept his fact regardless of how sad it might be...
 
Well, I watched a couple of hours of the trial (noon lunch time and at home after work from 6pm on) and tried to keep up with the updates here on my breaks. What an emotional day. I'm sorry for everyone here who was traumatized by that photo. No one should be judging you for being upset about it. We all love Michael and want to protect him even now. It's kind of sad that the Jacksons may not have even attempted to have these photos sealed from the public.

Anyway, I'm thinking it was another good day for the prosecution? My head is still spinning from all the information. I do not envy that jury.
 
These pictures of Michael Jackson are also available for viewing on the web.
"And..... still I rise":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiQd4k2wsuQ&feature=fvst
angel3l.gif
Be at Peace.
angel3r.gif
 
Last edited:
Why couldn't the Estate ask for the sealing of the autopsy pix? Is it because they have no legal right to do so?
 
why is the family being blamed because the photo were shown to the pulic?? They didn't/ don't have any say in that. The decision to show the photo is up to the posecution, not the jacksons
 
chanel05 said:
why is the family being blamed because the photo were shown to the pulic?? They didn't/ don't have any say in that. The decision to show the photo is up to the posecution, not the jacksons
Click to expand...

Yes, it WAS. In many murder cases, families work closely with the prosecution. They are the ones who have lost the MOST. Families are also allowed to make statements, at sentencing, too. But, it's DONE now, and can't be taken back.

(edit) yes, it was EXACTLY the family's responsibility, to see that the photo was not shown to the public. Even Osama bin Laden was shown MORE respect . . .
 
Last edited:
okay I understand where you guys are coming from, but people can't have it both ways.
I promise to you that if reports came out that they were fighting the photo being shown and reports were coming ut that it was hurting the case (once it's shown in court it becomes public record. So in order for the picture not to become public record, it can't be shown.... From my understanding). Then fans would be up in arms complaining about how they are helping muarry get off etc.
 
Maybe. Well, it's done & hopefully it will be worth it in helping to send Murray to the slammer (well, for at least a couple years :smilerolleyes:) and most importantly having his license yanked from him so he never harms another person again. We just have to remember that Michael is free now and that was just his shell in that photo. He is in heaven now (or some place better than earth).
 
But what was the stated PURPOSE for this picture being shown? What was it intending to show the jurors that they wouldn't already know? Was it just for shock value? We already know that MJ, sadly, is dead....so I guess without hearing more, I don't understand the context/reason for such a pic to be shown.
 
lemon662 said:
But what was the stated PURPOSE for this picture being shown? What was it intending to show the jurors that they wouldn't already know? Was it just for shock value? We already know that MJ, sadly, is dead....so I guess without hearing more, I don't understand the context/reason for such a pic to be shown.
Click to expand...

The purpose of showing it to the jury is to remind them of the stark reality of what happened to Michael under murray's care. Right now the only people who are important are the jury, they didn't show it in order to show the world, that is a result of a televised public trial. If this was in the UK we wouldn't be aware of any details of this case until after the verdict, I'm not sure which is preferable.
 
I'm not all sure, but from what I've heard it's tried to get them sealed, that's why it's only 2 of them. But I'm not sure, hopefully they tried at least. :(
 
I haven't looked at the papers today yet, i don't even read them at all anyway, but please tell me its not on the front page, right? I took a quick look at TMZ yesterday and there it was, right on the front page, both photos. Just ridiculous...i am absolutely baffled why people still post links from that horrible site. A site who has ZERO respect for people, motherfuck TMZ!
 
The pros said the purpose of showing them was to show mj wasnt skin and bone and ill as the defence claimed. i think that was one of the points in the motion.theres also the shock/humanize value. that is why the defence were against them been shown.re yesterdays testimony. i have some concerns i want to talk about. firstly we seem to have issues with the stomach amongst other things not been tested for the wholee loraz issue. which causes the defence to introduce doubt.. we then have the issue with the diprivan bottle in the i.v bag. no pics of it were ever taken scott smith said he never saw it until the bottle was taken out of the bag. we just have alberto and fleeks words and the defence have tried their best to discredit them.we then move onto the iv system. flannagan keeps going on saying the saline bag and iv long tubing had no diprivan in it.which it didnt.the pros have never stated that the bag flanagan keeps goin on about was not the one the diprivan bottle was found in. and the pros have never given an explanation so far as to why there was no diprivan in the long tubing yet they contest murray was using a makeshift drip. as a jurror that wouldnt add up.ontop of the iv bag which had the diprivan bottle in was never tested for diprivan. these things concern me greatly and added up could cause doubts
 
Another issue was rogers contridicting alot of the good work anderson had done. it came to a point where walgren was having to impeach his own witness by getting him to say im not an expert in toxics..he should have said such questions were beyond his expertise instead of trying to answer with limited knowledge that did nothing but hurt the pros case.flanagan took him out of his comfort zone and he willingly went along telling flanagan exactly what he wanted to hear.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Another issue was rogers contridicting alot of the good work anderson had done. it came to a point where walgren was having to impeach his own witness by getting him to say im not an expert in toxics..he should have said such questions were beyond his expertise instead of trying to answer with limited knowledge that did nothing but hurt the pros case.flanagan took him out of his comfort zone and he willingly went along telling flanagan exactly what he wanted to hear.
Click to expand...

I agree. IMO Flanagan was deliberately asking questions outside of Rogers' expertise in order to 'muddy the waters' and cause confusion -
especially over the fact that the lorazepam was in a bag too - but failed to make clear this was THE PACKAGING which the IV bag came in
and not the IV bag itself. He went on for so long about levels of lorazepam in the body, like HE was the expert talking about redistribution
trying to make Rogers sound confused. It annoys me, this, almost disrespect for these professionals, like 'didn't ya?' at the end of a sentence.

Thank God Drs Cooper & Nguyen didn't stand any of this nonsense. Its a pity Dr Rogers most damning comments (that Michael couldn't have injected himself or swallowed extra pills) - and about the inappropriate use of propofol, came at the beginning.
 
I hope the anestology wittness/expert will be good and really point out all the extreme negligence from murray. thats might be what saves us at the end since the defence is scoring some points/confusion regarding the science.
 
Yes Elusive, I have the same concerns. And I would add that even self injection sounded possible when you listened to Dr Rogers. He contradicted many important aspects of his autopsy report, and it made it look like the coroner did a bad job.

I was disappointed that Walgren did not correct the bag issue, did not mention ion trapping, that could have explained a higher concentration of lorazepam in the stomach content.

I remember there was an issue with testing the spike during the status hearings. Does anybody know what was found ? Did they mention it yesterday ? I don't remember hearing it, but I might have missed something.

Unless an expert explains the high concentration of lorazepam in the stomach content, the doubt will remain about this particular issue, and I hate that.

The great thing that Walgren did is pointing out the contradictions in the defense theory. He was straight to the point and efficient IMO. But I hope he will go further :

the pills were right next to the bed, within Michael's reach. If Michael took them without Murray's knowledge, then Murray left the room more than once. Why would he leave the room and leave those pills next to his insomniac patient who was desperate to sleep ? That in itself is negligent. During his interview with the police it's clear he is aware that the medication can interact when he says that he thought it was safe to give a small dose of propofol at 10 40, since he had given lorazepam at 5.

He says that Michael didn't share everything about his medical problems with him, yet he was aware that there were other doctors' prescriptions bottles in the same room (he said he had seen the bottles), he said he was told that Michael would see Klein 3 times a week and that he was strange when he came out of Klein's office.

Yet , according to the defense, Murray leaves the room with benzos within Michael's reach, the propofol within Michael's reach, and when he finds Michael unresponsive he says that he doesn't understand and thought of an embolism. To me that's an obvious huge lie or contradiction, easy for the prosecution to point out.

In his police interview, he never said that Michael was so wide awake that he was walking around the second floor, as Chernoff said during his opening statement. He said he made him get up to urinate at 7 30, which implies that Michael was in bed.

Lorazepam is a contributing factor , not the main cause of death. The cause of death is propofol. Even if you think that Michael self injected : how come he was able to do that ? He was not monitored, there was no ressuciation equipment, 911 was called too late. That in itself is a reason to call it a homicide.

So , yes, I didn't like Dr Rogers testimony either, especially the part about lorazepam, but I don't think Murray will walk either.
 
beatbox said:
He went on for so long about levels of lorazepam in the body, like HE was the expert talking about redistribution trying to make Rogers sound confused. It annoys me, this, almost disrespect for these professionals, like 'didn't ya?' at the end of a sentence.
Click to expand...

In my opinion defense are trying to even change the cause of death, from propofol to lorazepam since propofol is subject to post-mortem redistribution and lorazepam it is not according to experts. Lots of questions were asked about bioavailability and absorption which were beyond the expertise knowledge as you mention Walgren pointed out.
The problem is what Elusive says that many times the witness admitted what Flanagan wanted to, like that the concentration levels detected would be consistent with 9 pills of lorazepam taken at 10 am.

Hope other prosecution expert witnesses can provide more reasonable data to interpret the retesting of stomach and urine carried out by defense than that suggested yesterday.
 
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.
 
And how do u get from 1/40 of a tablet was the amount in mjs stomach to it been 9? the defence are totally trying to shift this case to be about loraz rather than dip. blaming mj for taking the loraz that caused the reaction with the dip and trying to have the jury forget about the high levels of dip cause the large amount of loraz caused a reaction with a normal amount of dip.. or just thow
everything in there. so mj took all that loraz and self injected ontop. the pros need to do a better job of clarifying the loraz issue cause if the jury think theres a chance mj took those tablets then they will think mj took the dip aswell and we know what will happen then
 
elusive moonwalker said:
And how do u get from 1/40 of a tablet was the amount in mjs stomach to it been 9? the defence are totally trying to shift this case to be about loraz rather than dip. blaming mj for taking the loraz that caused the reaction with the dip and trying to have the jury forget about the high levels of dip cause the large amount of loraz caused a reaction with a normal amount of dip.. or just thow
everything in there. so mj took all that loraz and self injected ontop. the pros need to do a better job of clarifying the loraz issue cause if the jury think theres a chance mj took those tablets then they will think mj took the dip aswell and we know what will happen then
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top