I understand and can follow your train of thought here, but the fact is that Mike's death was ruled a homicide and not due to a lack of monitoring. The coroner clearly states that Mike died to to the medication Propofol and other
Benzodiazepines. Nothing is mentioned about monitoring in the coroner's report. This is only a part of the homicide investigation and has nothing to do with the coroner.
If you base the murder solely on facts taken from the coroner's report, Murray did give Michael what would end up taking Mike's life. You are right when you say "...technically Murray did not give anything lethal to Michael", you are correct in that he didn't give him any
thing (singular), but he did give him
things (plural) that ended up killing Mike. It is more than clear, and much time was taken in determining so, that Michael died "at the hands of another". Every sign points to Dr. Murray being the
hand and it is specifically noted by the coroner that it would have been impossible for Mike to have given himself the drug.
Murray's attorneys better come up with a better story. Then again, when justice is concerned, it has only rarely worked in Mike's favor so I won't be surprised if we see this guy walk. I think he'll end up dead sooner or later, either by a crazed fan or by suicide and he knows in his heart (if he was the one that injected Mike and not someone he is keeping secret) that he killed Michael Jackson. He won't ever rest easy again. He is forever a tortured soul.
Let's also not forget that this guy is a real creep; fathering kids all over, cheating on all the women he's been with, has a history of lying, spends more than he can ever possibly earn, etc. It's going to be hard to paint a bad picture of Mike without the prosecutors countering with the horribly irresponsible and negligent activities of Murray. Hmmm...irresponsible and negligent in his life...and then with Michael's life. Makes sense to me. I am still so angry.
thank you for taking the time to answer. I think we basically agree . I am not as pessimistic as you, I'll try to explain why :
I take my info from the coroner's report and the search warrants. In the search warrants there is a summary of the investigation (so not everything), and the coroner's report has been made only partially public. Si it's clear that there might be things that we might not know, or that I might not see or understand properly, but still...
Yes the coroner says homicide, based on :
- acute propofol intoxication (main cause) and benzodiazepine effect (contributing factor)
- propofol and benzodiazepine were administered by another
-the propofol was administered in a non hospital setting, without any appropriate medical indication
- standard of care for adminstering propofol was not met (recommended equipement for monitoring, dosing, and resuscitation was not present)
- the circumstances do not support self administration
I didn't see any further explanation (maybe they did, but that part has not been unsealed ? )
then there is the anaesthosiolgist report : she basically says the same thing, but she is much more precise :
- about the benzodiapepine, she has the tox report, and she mentions one benzodiazepine only (ativan ?), explaining that it has the same potential side effects as propofol (respiratory depression), so mixing both made the risk higher.
- She doesn't say a lethal dose of propofol , she says a dose corresponding to a general anaesthesia, and she says that the difference between a dose corresponding to a mere sedation and a general anaethesia can be very thin (that would allow Murray's defense to talk about a mistake about the dose, which could be understood as a "regular" doctor's mistake )
- about the standard of care : she is very precise, and explains it is important because a mistake can easily be done with the dosage.
- about self injection : again she is precise and says that Michael could not have set up the IV : because of where it was (lower left leg) and because it takes someone with medical knowledge. Then she says anyone could have started the medication or drawn up the IV, after it was set up.
About Michael self injecting, she says it's unlikely, because he would have had to be in a very awkward position. She doesn't say it's impossible. So there is a little difference with the general report conclusion, that I can't explain (again the coroner's report we have is obviously partial, so maybe there is other info that we don't have that could explain this)
now according to the search warrants, Murray admitted to giving ativan and propofol, among other things. There is one thing though, the dose of propofol he admits to giving doesn't seem realistic to some.
So let's say, OK, he gave only some of the propofol, someone else, let's say Michael himself since he can not confirm or deny it, injected the rest.
So, just by logic : Michael was alive and breathing when Murray injected propofol, otherwise Murray would not have injected it. From that point on, and until Michael was completely woken up, he should have been constantly monitored, with NO interruption, not even to go to the bathroom.
According to the search warrants, Murray said he left while Micheal was under (once or twice according to the variety of his lawyers' versions). As far as I know, he didn't say he had finished his job, and was ready to leave. He said he found him unresponsive when he came back from the bathroom. The catheter was still in Michael's leg when he got to the hospital.
According to the coroner's report, there was no dosing equipment at all. The monitoring and ressucitation equipment was partial, and part of it was found in a bag, that was in a closet, in another room.
Did Murray took the time to put it back there, then when since he was with the paramedics, and the catheter in Michael's leg was still in his leg ?
Or did he just not use that equipment at all that night ??
If he had used it, he would have been warned of a respiratory depression before it became too dangerous and irreversible.
Now, with this in mind, I've been thinking, if I am Chernoff, what do I do ??? I don't know how he can explain the lack of monitoring, the absence of dosing equipment, the lack of ressucitation equipment. I don't know either how he can explain mixing two meds that should not have been mixed.
To me, this goes further than a regular medical error, at the minimum, it's a huge negligence.
I think Chernoff is only doing PR, my interpretation : he has no defense at all, or he will come up with something entirely different during the trial.
So, I am aware that we do not know everything, we will have to wait for the hearing and the trial to have more facts. There could be things that we don't know now or that I don't see, that could explain things differently. As it happened in 2005, the trial was a demonstration of Michael's innocence, and it changed some people's minds.
Yet, I keep thinking about this, at this moment, and I really don't know how Murray could walk... I hope that there will be justice, and I think it is possible.
Now, honestly about Murray's conscience and his way of life.... I don't want to judge him, let's say that he would not be my best friend, if you see what I mean... I don't want to focus on him.
To me, now, the most important thing is the trial, to show and say publicly what really happened. It's important for Michael's children, his mother and his family, for Michael and for us.
What happened was not Michael's fault, whatever certain people say, it needs to be cleared. So for this reason, Murray's death would be a disaster.
