The Defense Strategy

[Ramona122003]

Yes, that is my point. I'm sure that the jury is as weary as we are of the nano-evidence of tox-report, AR, precise measurements of blood-levels versus stomach contents or urine. Was the dose large and sudden, small and insidious, or whatever?

In the end that is not the POINT of something Murray should not have been doing in the first-place! To me, the "nano-evidence" is sounding a whole lot like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic, now. The ship is STILL going down.

We can't guess how a jury may or may not think. Some may look at these little details, some may not.

However, the vast majority about what happened comes from Murray and he has been proven time and time again to be a liar. Even if the defense has a point about there being allot of lopz in Michael's system, the problem is that Murray can't be trusted on what amount he gave anything. You also have to ask yourself if he was only given so much propfol(sp) everyday, why he did he buy such vast amount of of it. At the rate he was going a two small 25ml lasted him a night.

Also, look at Murray's demeanor. He looked like he wanted to sink into his chair when the tox was read.

 

[Autumn II]

Yeah i agree. interms of yesterday and andersons testimony if im on the jury what mattered was the toxis results. showing there was nothing in mj bar what murray gave. everything else is just a side issue and would prob go over you head as inscheme of the case it isnt a major factor

Agree. The point that I've been trying to make, is that there is "nano-evidence" (incredibly SMALL, i.e. "side-issue") and the overarching pattern of negligence. I would not discount the common-sense of the jury! Plus, there is the behavior of the defense to consider. I highly doubt that the obvious badgering of prosecution witnesses is going over very well?