Latest on MJJC

Murray Trial - October 11th - Day 10 - Discussion

sounds as if the coroner isn't exactly refuting much that flanagan is saying. makes it sound plausible about taking pills
 
It is like Flannagan is throwing spaghetti at the wall and praying something sticks! The Dr is maintaining his cool even though Flannagan is insulting.
 
cinzia said:
sounds as if the coroner isn't exactly refuting much that flanagan is saying. makes it sound plausible about taking pills
Click to expand...

agree. hes rather crap on cross. he doesnt seem to get hes a pros witness and should be refuting these comments rather than just giving a random opinion "of yeah it could be like that" etc when flannagan asks about taking things orally etc.

im hoping most of this crap is going over the jurrors heads or they are thinking whats this gotta do with murrays negligence. cause flannagan and co are desperatly ramming down the jurros throats about mj taking loraz tablets and everything else.. u know the saying if u tell a lie often enough ppl start to believe it
 
I think I understand what the defense is. They can't refute the science, but they can make it so ungodly confusing that the jury won't understand what they're being told. When they go back into their room it won't be about no pills, healthy, and could self-inject. It will be about: iron trapping, the half-life of lopz, some article, ect. The defense is insulting our intelligences.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
agree. hes rather crap on cross. he doesnt seem to get hes a pros witness and should be refuting these comments rather than just giving a random opinion "of yeah it could be like that" etc when flannagan asks about taking things orally etc.
Click to expand...

Actually, he's suppose to be neutral. He's there to argued the science no matter who it benefices because science is supposed to be unchanging. Simply saying something is possible doesn't mean it's likely to happen.
 
Ramona122003 said:
I think I understand what the defense is. They can't refute the science, but they can make it so ungodly confusing that the jury won't understand what they're being told. When they go back into their room it won't be about no pills, healthy, and could self-inject. It will be about: iron trapping, the half-life of lopz, some article, ect. The defense is insulting our intelligences.
Click to expand...

don't know about insulting mine but it sure is confusing the heck out of it!
 
so walgrens gonna redirect after recess? Someone slap flanagan if he opens his senile mouth again for recross I've had enough of him, and so had the judge

I agree elusive, rogers doesnt get he's pro prosecution, also tbh I think he lacks the personality to fight back etc he's someone who's rather pushed around, agrees with everyone
 
I think we're going to have to wait for Walgren to clear up some of the confusion on re-exam or is that re-cross? Then hope Flannagan doesn't confuse us on re-cross
 
elusive moonwalker said:
agree. hes rather crap on cross. he doesnt seem to get hes a pros witness and should be refuting these comments rather than just giving a random opinion "of yeah it could be like that" etc when flannagan asks about taking things orally etc.
Click to expand...
So you want him to kill his creditably by saying things that are possible were impossible? That is why it is called hypothetical not saying it did happen but could it.
 
cinzia said:
don't know about insulting mine but it sure is confusing the heck out of it!
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The more confuse the jury is the better. You noticed when it comes to arguing facts about science the defense seems to go into the twilight zone with stuff that doesn't matter that much, the witness isn't qualified to answer, a bunch of 'what ifs', and repeating the same freaking question fifty different ways.

It's all there to keep the jury from focusing one what is really important in the testimony, which is what I meant when I said they're insulting our intelligences.
 
Ramona122003 said:
Actually, he's suppose to be neutral. He's there to argued the science no matter who it benefices because science is supposed to be unchanging. Simply saying something is possible doesn't mean it's likely to happen.
Click to expand...

yeah of course hes supp to be neutral and talk based on the evidence but he could be abit more helpful! flannagans taking anything he can get. heck look at how hes still going on about tablets. he has a bleeding excuse for everything. he reminds me of sneddon and his 100's of victims that we cant find but we know they are out there comments
 
my assessment of the defense strategy: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
W. C. Fields
 
Justthefacts said:
So you want him to kill his creditably by saying things that are possible were impossible? That is why it is called hypothetical not saying it did happen but could it.
Click to expand...

id prefer him to be like anderson
 
elusive moonwalker said:
id prefer him to be like anderson
Click to expand...

Every person is different. Just because he says such and such is possible doesn't mean it happened that way. The defense is grasping, which is why the keep asking these freaking what ifs that actually goes against their own opening statement. They can't prove Michael somehow took 8 pills so they're throwing this crude into the mix to confuse people. But no matter what they say they can't explain where those pills disappear to.

Really, are they going to say that Michael somehow just gobbled eight pills when Murray wasn't looking for a moment and still couldn't sleep or even look drowsy? Do you know how long it takes for pills to fully dissolve to the point that it leave the stomach? I'll tell you, it's more than 2 hours.
 
Is Flannagan trying to make us believe Michael got up out odf bed and went to the bathroom and took those pills? Isn't that where the empty bottle was from? I am so lost right now:(
 
ilmjj said:
Is Flannagan trying to make us believe Michael got up out odf bed and went to the bathroom and took those pills? Isn't that where the empty bottle was from? I am so lost right now:(
Click to expand...

there was a bottle on the nightstand

courts back cross again *sigh*
 
Page 11

Opinion:
Toxicology studies show a high blood concentration of propofol, as well as the presence of benzodiazepines as listed in the toxicology report. The autopsy did not show any trauma or natural disease which would cause death.

The cause of death is acute propofol intoxication. A contributing factor in the death is benzodiazepine effect.
The manner o death is homicide, based on the following:

1. Circumstances indicate that propofol and the benzodiazepines were administered by another.

2. The propofol was administered in a non-hospital setting without any appropriate medical indication.

3. The standard of care for administering propofol was not met (see anaesthesiologist consultation). Recommended equipment for patient monitoring, precision dosing, and resuscitation was not present.
4. The circumstances do not support self-administration of propofol.

Dr. Christopher Rogers. 8/19/2009.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons it was called homicide was the assumption by Dr.Rogers all benzodiazepines were not taken by MJ, when Dr.Roger agrees he had no idea whether MJ took pills or not that day he is refuting his own statement in the autopsy report .
 
ilmjj said:
Is Flannagan trying to make us believe Michael got up out odf bed and went to the bathroom and took those pills? Isn't that where the empty bottle was from? I am so lost right now:(
Click to expand...

Yes, and that after he did that, they want to make the jury to believe that this man who was hooked to TWO catheters self injected a massive amount of Propofol (that would be TWO syringes), all by himself.
Because Murray you know, was gone to the bathroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top