Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 3

Autumn II · Oct 16, 2011

I'm going to choose to believe that the jury will have common sense! In that respect, the prosecution medical experts were devastating to the defense! If -- IF -- Michael managed to self-medicate, that doesn't negate the risks of what Murray was doing in the first place, or the fact that in a hospital or clinic, those medications would be under lock-and-key. If Murray was using "conscious sedation," well. . he WASN'T. The goal was for Michael to sleep, right? Not to remain conscious but sedated? None of the defense implcations so far can negate the six points of gross-negligence on the part of Murray.

Lack of "reasonable doubt" about Murray's guilt will come from the fact that Murray should have not been doing this in the first-place!!! It's not "has every fact been proven," but the overarching, "Were Murray's actions likely to cause Michael's death?" THAT is the question, not minutia about propofol found or not found in tubing, amount of benzoes, etc. Michael DIED, and Murray's negligence was the cause. Plus, the defense has been SO abrasive and combative with likable witnesses, I think that will not play well with the jury.

The most effective prosecution witness? MURRAY, himself, with the police interview. In that interview you SEE his failure to call 911. You can SEE how ineffective his CPR was! He SAYS he was "giving propofol for two months." Can we BELIEVE that? Doesn't matter. It's what he SAID, and to do that is totally outrageous. Doubtful that they will put Prince on the stand, but if they do? Then the jury will see that Murray lied about "comforting the children," too.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 16, 2011

Yeah u are totally right. i guess u just worry and start thinking about every little thing. a big issue will be the judges instructions on the law at the end. for eg if even if u think mj could have self injected that doesnt mean u cant find him guiltyyeah let murray say he gave it every night for two months. even if hair tox said the opposite let the defence use it to impeach their own witness. murray saying i gave it for two months is far more incriminating like when steinberg had flanagan repeating it

Autumn II · Oct 16, 2011

elusive moonwalker said:
Yeah u are totally right. i guess u just worry and start thinking about every little thing. a big issue will be the judges instructions on the law at the end. for eg if even if u think mj could have self injected that doesnt mean u cant find him guiltyyeah let murray say he gave it every night for two months. even if hair tox said the opposite let the defence use it to impeach their own witness. murray saying i gave it for two months is far more incriminating like when steinberg had flanagan repeating it

Right. And I think it was absolutely brilliant, for Steinberg to ONLY use Murray's own words. In that sense, it doesn't MATTER if Murray was lying, or not, or what the tox reports say? Murray was his OWN worst witness, for his defense. Now, the defense will probably come back and say, "Murray didn't really MEAN IT when he said he was only gone for two minutes," or, "He wasn't REALLY giving propofol for two months?" Will those lies make Murray look MORE credible, or less? The answer to that is obvious.

Yeah, the judge's instructions to the jury will be important. So far, Pastor seems reasonable, and fair.

bouee · Oct 16, 2011

Wrong thread sorry

smoothlugar · Oct 16, 2011

elusive moonwalker said:
Re rogers testimony. smooth u mention walgren had to mention it was the other expert that said it would be homicide more was that expert shaffer?

No, I meant the anesthesiology consultation signed by Dr. Selma Calme. That report "helped" Dr. Rogers to interpret better the toxicology findings and to rule out the self-administration scenario.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 16, 2011

ok thanks

Soundmind · Oct 16, 2011

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-CA</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>AR-SA</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

What was the jury told so far?

First point : It's crazy to use propofol to treat insomnia (because of the study in China, it's no longer that crazy!!)

Second point : Propofol should not be at all used in a home setting with no monitoring equipment because per experts testimony there is very fine margin window between procedural sedation and general anasethia , without equipment you could never tell the difference and the degree of sedation, even if infusion pump was used propofol still very dangerous for the reasons above .

On the other hand they heard a case from real life not textbooks where the patient was given propofol with no infusion pump, with no monitoring equipment, with nothing but a doctor who liked his phones a lot and the patient actually survived. He survived ten hours of daily propofol for two months, during which Murray knew exactly when to slow the drip , when to run it faster with no equipment whatsoever, MJ never ever went from procedural sedation to general anaesthesia throughout almost the 500 HOURS he was being sedated with propofol !!! Wow!!!! I bet that’s a world record you will never hear that anywhere else!!!!!! IF TRUE (were the jurors ever told that was not true?) TWO MUCH FOR IT BEING AS DANGEROUS AS THE EXPERTS R MAKING IT OUT TO BE!!!! not only that they heard from Murray (again the prosecutors did not refute) that he was probably receiving it "on daily basis" (Smith’ word) before Murray was hired by Nurse Lee under the same circumstances, and before Lee there was Adams who gave it to him with not so many equipment in Vegas and AGAIN he survived!!!!! Before Adams there were doctors in Germany, doctors on tours!!! (Did anyone inform the jurors about the circumstances under which propofol was given if any in those cases? No, why should they Walgren want the case to remain ‘simple’? )

It’s reasonable to assume the jurors might be thinking based on what the experts said that MJ was one hell of a LUCKY man, OR maybe ‘procedural’ propofol is not as dangerous as the experts claimed? !!! Pick your choice and be sure EACH juror will!!!! 12 jurors , can the prosecutors afford one juror buying the second option ?!!!

Propofol on tours, propofol In Germany, Propofol by Adams, propofol by Lee, propofol for two months by Murray and everything was always perfectly OK, no complications whatsoever!!!!! (Did the jury hear any explanation or challenge to this statement?)

Look at the MASSIVE contradictions between real life and experts statements!!! does Chernoff even need to put experts to push that point? the jurors can see it for themselves !!!

Third point : If the above was true , and MJ was receiving propofol by all those people and Murray is on trial for using propofol in the first place under those circumstances not really because he killed mj as Walgren always says , isn’t it reasonable to assume some on that jury r asking themselves if this case is really about the negligence factor and not who actually pushed the last dose why the others were not charged? obviously from what they heard so far there were many people who did what Murray did but no one is prosecuting them? Is he on trial because he’s the last standing one in a long line of doctors and medical specialists?!!!! (How could they know the others did not give him anything or the circumstances were different?)

Fourth point : Is it reasonable to assume the jurors’ r probably wondering if that was happening for THAT LONG AND EVERYTHING WAS GREAT what was really different that particular day? Which is what Chernoff wanted them to ask from the very beginning to come to this conclusion “there was something different that day”?” “Could it have been Jackson himself “!!!!? " why did he reach this point of desperation?" They will move to who actually did it Jackson or Murray, if Murray why that day was different? If Jackson why that day was different? Withdrawal? Yea the withdrawals claim that so far Walgren has not bothered to refute!!!

You think Walgren is doing a great job, your opinion I respect it, but I see The coroner, the LAPD and the DA's office as very incompetent people who did not do a thorough investigation,never ever thought of conducting a thorough investigation, took a statement built a case around it, left many variables un eliminated because they thought why even bother figure out what happened the statement was enough to convict him anyway. Look at Walgren now does not know what the defence r going to say, actually complaining they r not telling him how they r going to defend Murray , if he properly investigated this case he would not be in this situation now , all his case is built on what Murray said or might say!!! very risky!

I'm listing all that, not to play the devil advocate . Walgren could have very easily refuted all the above if he wanted . You can tell me don't think for the jurors, how do you know how the jurors r thinking ? of course I don't but remember it takes one juror for Murray to walk.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 16, 2011

China trial was in 2010 as stated many times. i guess murray could see into the future eh?Why would they refute the two month story. its highly incriminating.yeah taking dip isnt potentially dangetous hence why hospitals dont monitor etc either! if the jurrors are going to ignore such expert testimoby by three ppl and think nah it aint that dangerous then we might aswell go home now of course flanagan will use that defence he brought it up with steinberg. and as steinberg said i have no idea if murray had any run ins as murray of course kept no notes. no i dont think the jury are that thick.if adams and lee are called then the pros can question them.if not. they are irrelevent in the big picture doesnt take one jurror for him to walk. that causes a hung jury and a retrial no doubt.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 16, 2011

Things such as explaining how the loraz got into the stomach is more important imo will shaffer do that i dont know. but im gonna wait for the rebuttal stage before i start saying why didnt they do this even if it is hard waiting

bouee · Oct 16, 2011

I agree that so far the prosecution is focusing maybe too much on Murray's words. In one way it's great, Murray is caught up in his own lies, in another it's sad because we might never get closer to what really happened.

Everyone knows that Murray lied, even his own lawyer almost said so. The jury has certainly understood that he was lying too.

I have a hard time believing Murray gave propofol 8 hours a night too, and I agree it's conflicting with the testimonies we heard. We should wait for Dr Shafer, as an anesthesiologist and pharmacologist, maybe he will clear up this issue, and maybe clear up the lorazepam issue as well.

As for the chinese study, I didn't hear it that way. IMO it doesn't help Murray, because the study was made in 2010, but it explains why Michael wanted it.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 16, 2011

The problem is only murray is here to tell the tale. the pros have to concentrate on his words and his lies in order to show how full of it he is. and how his claims of what went on have changed. it apart of showing guilt. only murray knows what happened that night so u have to work around it

bouee · Oct 16, 2011

yes, I agree. Experts will have to make deduction from the tox results. But I don't know how much can be deducted, how far they can analyse what they have. For example, with the hair tox results, will they be able to know if MJ was receiving large amount of propofol every night, or was it rather smaller amounts, will they be able to clear the lorazepam issue ... I hope so, we'll see

elusive moonwalker · Oct 16, 2011

Tbh i lf the hair tox issues show murray didnt give x amount over two months would they bring it up as its incriminating to murray.meaning murray claiming i gave it every night for two months hardly makes him look good it makes him look even more negligent that he was playing russian roulette.and if the results show murray wasnt then if the defence go down soundminds route then the pros have the rebuttal stage to say the hair tox dont support that claim we also dont know how detailed the results are like u say. it may just give an approx amount given over a two month period. its not like a sample will say yes he was given 8 hrs a night for two months

smoothlugar · Oct 16, 2011

bouee said:
.
I have a hard time believing Murray gave propofol 8 hours a night too, and I agree it's conflicting with the testimonies we heard. We should wait for Dr Shafer, as an anesthesiologist and pharmacologist, maybe he will clear up this issue, and maybe clear up the lorazepam issue as well.

I also find it hard to understand: every night for 2 months, without monitoring and rescue equipment. (Nothing to do with the other doctors, BTW, that one in Germany, though only a rumour not confirmed, at least he had infusion pump, monitoring and rescue equipment, as reported by Gupta in CNN, according to "unknown" witnesses, besides being an anesthesiologist...).

But maybe this will become clearer after Dr. Shafer's testimony.

Justthefacts · Oct 16, 2011

Using Murray's words forces Murray's lawyers either put Murray on the stand or admit his words were a lie. Why would you lie to the police if you did nothing wrong and why would your lawyers let you lie? Not just lie about how long you were out of the room but you would have to admit the stuff say you did was a lie. It is brilliant IMO to use his words because they show he is a liar

serendipity · Oct 16, 2011

I think the jury will not take everything Murray said as the gospel. They already know he lied a lot, even his own lawyers pretty much admitted it, so it's not certain they will necessarily believe the "propofol for two months" claim.

Autumn II · Oct 17, 2011

elusive moonwalker said:
Tbh i lf the hair tox issues show murray didnt give x amount over two months would they bring it up as its incriminating to murray.meaning murray claiming i gave it every night for two months hardly makes him look good it makes him look even more negligent that he was playing russian roulette.and if the results show murray wasnt then if the defence go down soundminds route then the pros have the rebuttal stage to say the hair tox dont support that claim we also dont know how detailed the results are like u say. it may just give an approx amount given over a two month period. its not like a sample will say yes he was given 8 hrs a night for two months

Did they even DO a hair-tox analysis? Maybe not. . .

I still don't think it matters if he was giving propofol "every night for two months," or not? ONE night was enough? And that's the night/morning in question. It would be hard to explain the vast quantities of propofol ordered, anyway. But, the "two months" statement wasn't even part of the "six points of extreme negligence." I'm not worried about "the two months," either way. There is a lot of other damning evidence.

elusive moonwalker · Oct 17, 2011

Justthefacts said:
Using Murray's words forces Murray's lawyers either put Murray on the stand or admit his words were a lie. Why would you lie to the police if you did nothing wrong and why would your lawyers let you lie? Not just lie about how long you were out of the room but you would have to admit the stuff say you did was a lie. It is brilliant IMO to use his words because they show he is a liar

exactly

bouee · Oct 17, 2011

I have just re watched the prosecution opening statements. Very intersting thing to do at almost the end of their presentation. To me, the prosecutors think MJ was on a drip, and they expect Dr Shafer to say that MJ received more than 25mg that night.

Bonnie Blue · Oct 17, 2011

I agree with autumn regarding the 2 months on propofol claim not weighing too heavily on the jury. The case so far seems very narrowly focussed on the events of 25 june - it wasn't a build up of propofol that killed mj as it seems to disappear quickly from the system, but just what was admininistered in the hours before he died.

Soundmind - i think you're being pessimistic about the jury going down the road of thinking that if mj survived 2 months of propofol, why didn't he survived on 25 june. Every health professional (not just the handpicked 'experts' but just the random doctors who were at their jobs on 25/6 june) so far has emphasised the need for constant monitoring and reviving equipment for this drug. One hospital dr said that as a doctor you have got to be aware of and prepared for the worst case scenario happening. I think Steinberg's example of the baby being left on the kitchen counter was v powerful for the jury. Ok, maybe 9times out of 10 nothing bad happens, but if you take that type of risk you are being grossly negligent.

Soundmind · Oct 17, 2011

To me, the prosecutors think MJ was on a drip, and they expect Dr Shafer to say that MJ received more than 25mg that night.

of course he did , no one is sticking to the 25mg propofol . Not the defense , nor the prosecution . The defense r claiming Murray only gave 25mg and blame MJ for the rest of propofol found in his body , the prosecutors r saying all the propofol was given by Murray.

HumanNature2210 · Oct 19, 2011

I believe Michael is on a drip too. I strongly believe some of Murray's claim in the tape statement is true and some made up to make himself look good and self-serving. My believe is Murray did give a bolus (not sure how much, probably more than 25mg) and then follow up with a drip.

This happen sometime at 10.40am (as claimed by Murray) and this is supported by the telephone record. There is a window period of 34mins before he called his office. After 11.18am, there is no gap between his phonecalls. He must have put Michael on propofol then and dripped him and watched for a while before he went out and make his strings of phonecalls, from 11.18am all the way till sometime 12pm when his was on call with Sade Anding and realised something is wrong.

Also, I believe Murray put Michael on propofol drip almost everyday for 2 months and this is outrageous! Basically, Murray is playing roulette with Michael's life. Just so happen nothing happen during the 2 months (perhaps just propofol alone) and on 25th June, the combination possibly with Lorazepam and other benzo just aggravate the situation. Just my opinion.

HumanNature2210 · Oct 19, 2011

Also, is it correct that only California pulled Murray's medical licence? Meaning he still has his licence in Texas and Nevada? This is outrageous! How can the medical board still allows it now that they have heard of the 6 or more "gross and severe negligent" by Murray!

PaceMioDolceCuore · Oct 23, 2011

AristotlequoteforMurraytrialwithtextandrodofasclepiusfinalversion-1.jpg

Winners and Losers : Your evaluation of the trial elements : Week 3

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

elusive moonwalker

Guests

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member