Status hearings discussion thread / all threads merged

[Justthefacts]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

But this guy is saying Michael did not die from Propofol

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

Murray still wasn't watching him I don't care how psychologically dependent he was on it. Murray knew propofol isn't for sleep anyway so he had no business giving it to him to heal the so called psychological addiction.

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

But this guy is saying Michael did not die from Propofol

yep, but don't forget he hasn't read any reports or even the autopsy obviously

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

In terms of the defense asking about the security tapes, I assume they want to suggest someone sneaked out of the house or someone sneaked in to kill Michael. The tapes could show how alert Michael was when he arrived home, which would be good for the Proc. It would be great if the tape showed Murray leaving the house and coming back.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

But this guy is saying Michael did not die from Propofol

no, the defence said they have three experts Dr.White an anaesthesiologist, Dr.Haraszti (the media whore) a psychiatric. and Dr.Jones ( no info)

White for propofol and Haraszit to explain the lack of evidence to support physical dependency or what the defence will refer to as "psychological dependency".

As for White, Falagn said that white told them MJ was a demerol addict and on June 25 he suffered from withdrawal symptoms because he last received demerol on 22 June and that's why he could not sleep ( notice that on 23 , 24 he slept like a baby according to Murray himself lol)

He said that he will also say that Murray did not cause MJ's death. First, no professional allows himself/herself to say that , at least he/she does not use such wording , unless there is a solid proof Murray was not even in that room when MJ died how could anyone say Murray did not cause MJ's death ? So I will give White the benefit of the doubt and my guess he told them that MJ could have done it thus Murray could not have done it.

Second, the photographs they have of the syringes and the IV system according to Falagan were of low quality and "our expert could not tell the head from the tail" , Dr.Calmes said that because of the configuration of the IV catheter MJ could not have injected the bolus injection that caused his death, so if the expert could not tell the head from the tail he would not have been able to rule out the possibility that MJ did it himself .

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

I understand that. But how could this anesthesiology person say such things without proof of addiction? If Klein was given Michael demerol while Michael was under his care that is not addiction.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

And Murray's lawyers are going to have to prove Michael was addicted to demerol.

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

Murray was giving MJ a whole lot more than 25mg.. Murray ordered 291 bottles of propofol. He claims he had started giving MJ propofol 6 weeks prior.. where are all the bottles? if he was trying to wean MJ off as he claimed then where are the bottles?

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

I understand that. But how could this anesthesiology person say such things without proof of addiction? If Klein was given Michael demerol while Michael was under his care that is not addiction.

We don't know why he said that . but we don't need an expert to tell us that a demerol addict does not take demerol every six days . So again we will give this expert the benefit of the doubt and we will assume he was misinformed or Flagan misquoted him . That's why the prosecutors need his opinion on paper , to know what led him to believe in such nonsense.

Murray was giving MJ a whole lot more than 25mg.. Murray ordered 291 bottles of propofol. He claims he had started giving MJ propofol 6 weeks prior.. where are all the bottles? if he was trying to wean MJ off as he claimed then where are the bottles?

Please, the thought that Murray used propofol to maintain sleep under those circumstances is so ridiculous. If you know anything about how propofol works MJ would have died the very first day Murray hooked him to an IV drip .

And Murray's lawyers are going to have to prove Michael was addicted to demerol.

among many other things. good luck lol

the defece at this point has revealed their entire strategy, they are like an open book .

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

And Murray's lawyers are going to have to prove Michael was addicted to demerol.

how are they going to do that? He had none in his system or in his bedroom. I doubt shady ass Arnie Klein will admit to anything. He's broke now and just filed for bankruptcy protection I don't think he wants to jeapordize his practice anymore than he already has. His main patient who he was robbing blind is now dead and I doubt Klein is getting a lot of business considering his actions after MJ was killed.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

I think we won't learn much more until there is new information?

A lot of what the defense seems to be planning are red-herrings.

Here is an analogy. Suppose a man gets very drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car, and crashes and kills someone. His blood alcohol level reads several times higher than the legal limit. He is accused of I.M. His defense brings in some folks to testify what a good driver he's been in the past? Won't matter. Drunk is drunk, and dead is dead. Maybe the psychological makeup of the person he killed will be dissected? Doesn't matter. Dead is dead. Maybe it will be proven that someone else BEGGED him to get behind the wheel of the car? Won't matter a bit. Maybe an expert will be brought in and will testify that the accused took a driving course in the past, and passed with flying colors? Won't matter. And so on.

I think a jury with only average intelligence will be able to recognize the stench of fish when they smell it.

Imagine part of the prosecution's closing argument? Michael's body was in a room that looked basically like a hospital operating room, but lacked the essential equipment and staff of an operating room. There was an I.V. pole, syringes, bottles of propofol, catheters, and a lot more. What was LACKING were the NECESSARY rescue equipment and personnel. That is so far below even a minimal standard of care, that it's appalling. No amount of experts brought in, or character witnesses, can change that basic fact. No amount of dissection of Michael's personality can change that basic fact. There is no possible explanation that could help Murray in that he seemed to lack even the most basic knowledge of CPR, OR, that he delayed calling 911 until there was no possible hope for Michael, OR that he lied, initially, by saying "no phones were working," and, "I didn't know the address," AND that he tried to conceal the evidence, instead of helping Michael, and that he fled from the hospital and hid for two days. And so much more. . .

Here are some tactics it's likely the defense will try to pull:

Michael had been taking Demerol -- doesn't matter. The AR trumps any records from Klein, any past history of Michael's, and it's obvious an "a-word" cannot go six days between "fixes." That's NOT an. . ."a-word."

Michael was in "withdrawal from Demerol," and Murray somehow didn't know that. (see above) Easily refuted by TII footage, timing of access to Demerol (Klein?), and lack of basic care of a primary physician. Withdrawal symptoms are severe -- too severe for Murray not to have noticed. Besides, even a minimum standard of care would require Murray to have ALL of Michael's medical records and know what other treatments he was having, if for no other reason than to avoid the synergistic effects of various medications.

Michael was weak and sickly (but Murray didn't know it), and his poor little body coudn't withstand the propofol and the benzos. Nope. TII footage and AR trump that tactic. Plus, IF "Michael was weak and sickly," Murray was his DOCTOR, and if anyone would know that, Murray would.

Michael "begged" for propofol. I doubt it. And what if he did? A patient might "demand" to have a foot amputated, but that doesn't mean the doctor has to DO it. But just suppose for the sake of argument that Murray was financially distressed, and Michael begged for the propofol, and Murray was afraid he'd be replaced if he didn't give in? Doesn't matter. Murray is a DOCTOR, and giving the propofol in the way and place he did was incredibly dangerous. If anything, if Murray "gave in" to Michael, that only shows him to be weak-willed.

Michael had abused propofol in the past. If he did, it won't matter. (see above) Murray is NOT the victim here.

Michael had a dependency on pain medications in the past. So what? He died of "acute propofol intoxication." No pain-medication was noted in the AR, or found in his house.

Michael had a past history of insomnia. Why didn't Murray take him to a sleep-clinic instead of giving him a general anesthesia that he wasn't qualified to give, with no other personnel there, and no rescue equipment? For God's SAKE! Even the oxygen tank was empty, and the ambu bag was in a closet!

Michael self-injected. Oh, really? Then why was his not ruled an "accidental death" or a "suicide?" It was a homicide. And if he did? Still does not justify why Murray was giving him such a dangerous drug in the first place, without the proper equipment and staffing?

Michael DRANK the propofol. I'd like to see the defense attorneys drink some, and just see what happens? Better have a barf bag handy? Oh, and rescue equipment, too? (And a nurse fully prepared to intubate?)

Why was there x, y, and z found in x, y, and z pieces of tubing, in x, y, and z amounts? Doesn't matter, and the jury will snooze through that one. Red herrings. (see above, about "self-injecting.") It would be an attempt to prove Michael self-injected. The charges are light, and even if Michael "self-injected," that doesn't change the fact Murray was doing something inherently, incredibly, dangerous and reckless. And he said he was in the bathroom for TWO minutes? If he found Michael within two minutes, and had the proper equipment, staffing, and knowledge, he could have saved him. Given the circumstances, Michael's death was going to be almost certain.

And THAT is enough to convict on I.M.

(Or, there will be a wild-card. Someone ELSE sneaked into the room, locked Murray in a bathroom for forty-five minutes, killed Michael with the propofol, and left. And Murray somehow got out of the bathroom then, and Michael was long gone, and the rest was a cover up. But I DOUBT that was the case. . . . and there is absolutely no evidence to support such a tactic.)

 

[Moulin Rouge]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

And Murray's lawyers are going to have to prove Michael was addicted to demerol.

In 1993 but on June 25, 2009 there was no demerol in his system. Murray knows exactly what killed Michael because he gave it to him.

Remember soon after news of Michael's death demerol was already assumed to be the cause of death, was it TMZ who first stated that? It seems they just took the drug Michael went to rehab for 16 years prior and said it killed him. Is there even any proof Michael had taken the drug since then, he knew it was addictive and that he had problems with it and i don't think he's take it again.

Murray is just digging himself a hole which is good because he makes himself look worse but i can see him throwing out irrelevant information about Michael's medical past to make him seem like the good doctor who tried to help the self destructive Michael, he's really grasping for straws.

Murray was giving MJ a whole lot more than 25mg.. Murray ordered 291 bottles of propofol. He claims he had started giving MJ propofol 6 weeks prior.. where are all the bottles? if he was trying to wean MJ off as he claimed then where are the bottles?

Of course he lied. One doctor said Michael had enough propofol in him to kill a baby elephant. Propofol has a quick half life, 25mg isn't enough to overdose and with the other benzos i still don't think it's enough. Michael has propofl in his organs and his eyeballs, I'm guessing propofol was still being administerd either by a drip of Murray himself when Michael had already died.

Here are some tactics it's likely the defense will try to pull:

Michael had been taking Demerol -- doesn't matter. The AR trumps any records from Klein, any past history of Michael's, and it's obvious an "a-word" cannot go six days between "fixes." That's NOT an. . ."a-word."

Michael was in "withdrawal from Demerol," and Murray somehow didn't know that. (see above) Easily refuted by TII footage, timing of access to Demerol (Klein?), and lack of basic care of a primary physician. Withdrawal symptoms are severe -- too severe for Murray not to have noticed. Besides, even a minimum standard of care would require Murray to have ALL of Michael's medical records and know what other treatments he was having, if for no other reason than to avoid the synergistic effects of various medications.

Michael was weak and sickly (but Murray didn't know it), and his poor little body coudn't withstand the propofol and the benzos. Nope. TII footage and AR trump that tactic. Plus, IF "Michael was weak and sickly," Murray was his DOCTOR, and if anyone would know that, Murray would.

Michael "begged" for propofol. I doubt it. And what if he did? A patient might "demand" to have a foot amputated, but that doesn't mean the doctor has to DO it. But just suppose for the sake of argument that Murray was financially distressed, and Michael begged for the propofol, and Murray was afraid he'd be replaced if he didn't give in? Doesn't matter. Murray is a DOCTOR, and giving the propofol in the way and place he did was incredibly dangerous. If anything, if Murray "gave in" to Michael, that only shows him to be weak-willed.

Michael had abused propofol in the past. If he did, it won't matter. (see above) Murray is NOT the victim here.

Michael had a dependency on pain medications in the past. So what? He died of "acute propofol intoxication." No pain-medication was noted in the AR, or found in his house.

Michael had a past history of insomnia. Why didn't Murray take him to a sleep-clinic instead of giving him a general anesthesia that he wasn't qualified to give, with no other personnel there, and no rescue equipment? For God's SAKE! Even the oxygen tank was empty, and the ambu bag was in a closet!

Michael self-injected. Oh, really? Then why was his not ruled an "accidental death" or a "suicide?" It was a homicide. And if he did? Still does not justify why Murray was giving him such a dangerous drug in the first place, without the proper equipment and staffing?

Michael DRANK the propofol. I'd like to see the defense attorneys drink some, and just see what happens? Better have a barf bag handy? Oh, and rescue equipment, too? (And a nurse fully prepared to intubate?)

Why was there x, y, and z found in x, y, and z pieces of tubing, in x, y, and z amounts? Doesn't matter, and the jury will snooze through that one. Red herrings. (see above, about "self-injecting.") It would be an attempt to prove Michael self-injected. The charges are light, and even if Michael "self-injected," that doesn't change the fact Murray was doing something inherently, incredibly, dangerous and reckless. And he said he was in the bathroom for TWO minutes? If he found Michael within two minutes, and had the proper equipment, staffing, and knowledge, he could have saved him. Given the circumstances, Michael's death was going to be almost certain.

And THAT is enough to convict on I.M.

I agree and i hope you are correct.

 

[bouee]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

I understand that. But how could this anesthesiology person say such things without proof of addiction? If Klein was given Michael demerol while Michael was under his care that is not addiction.

That's exactly the point, you are right. We don't know what Dr White said. All we know is what Flanagan said. According to Flanagan :

the docs they have received from the prosecution are bad quality pictures, and reports that they received very late. He was explaining he could not provide his discovery on time because of the prosecution : his experts (dr white) are asking for better quality pictures, and did not have enough time to review the docs.

Flanagan said that it was White's "tentative" opinion.

My translation : he doesn't know what White is going to say. The idea of the demerol addiction is just an idea, White needs more info to confirm this.

We'll see what happens, but I would not be surprised that White turns out to be a "hostile" witness as well (making things worse for Murray) , or at least says things that will not really help Murray.

Remember in the AR, the medication found at Michael's home : Murray was the one who prescribed the strongest benzos (that Michael did not take as prescribed by Murray). According to posters here, there was a huge difference between what Murray prescribed and what Metzger prescribed. Then according to the pharmacist, Murray started to buy injectable lorazepam + a lot of flumazenil in june I think. Why a lot of flumazenil ?

I have read several opinions about it, there could be different reasons to do that, none of these reasons are good for Murray, at all.

I'm no medical expert, but some posters here thought that Murray was trying to get Michael dependant, to make sure he was needed. I think it's a possibility.

I might be over optimistic, but I would love to see an expert on the stand admitting that if there was any kind of physical dependancy, any kind of withdrawal that made Michael's insomnia worse, it was caused by Murray's treatment.

Edit :
Michael was not behaving like an addict (he didn't take his medication as prescribed, no doctor shopping). Murray felt comfortable leaving the pills by the bed, and left the room. Is this negligence on Murray's part again, or , more likely, Murray knew Michael was not behaving like an addict ?

 

[bouee]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

Another thing I noticed is that Murray's lawyers don't seem very well coordinated, there is confusion in Murray's camp :

Flanagan was unable to explain what Chernoff meant about which photos they wanted, remember Low not showing up at the prelim when "his" witness was to testify......and nobody knew where he was...

 

[bouee]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

how can a psychiatrist who has never met or spoken to MJ testify to his mental health?

IF the judge allows it, I guess he would talk about addiction in general , physical and psychological, and the psychological effects of insomnia, stress....
If he has never met MJ, he won't be able to talk about Michael specifically.

And as Soundmind explained, justify the fact that Murray gave propofol.

Then I don't know who is going to justify the way propofol was given (no equipment).

To me it looks like there IS no defense.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

great thread guys. this is what makes this board so great.

just want to add to something i posted earlier aobut lee saying mj has told her diprivan was ok to take if monitored.and a dr had told mj that. (ie murray) tbh i cant see that been admissable as doesnt it come under hearsay. lee never heard murray say that to mj so its a secondary source. like in 03-05 remember devlin told one of the ranch staff (the guy she was kinda going out with) that janet had told her she had a plan that was set up ie the accusations and devlin didnt want to be involved. thats wasnt allowed as it was calssed as hearsay as the ranch staff member didnt hear janet say it but got the info through devlin. same thing with lee

 

[Mechi]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

The defense is not going to prove anything... what they will tell is all about what is not to prove... like psychological addiction. It in fact is not to prove and that's probably what the psychiatrist is called for, to say exactly that.
However there are symptoms which could lead to the belief there was a psychological addiction and I guess the defense will try to call whitnesses who saw Michael doing this or that... or Michael was acting like this or that. They will come up with Michaels former 'addiction' problems and will try to make it look like a certain pattern of conduct.

The defense doesn't need to prove... they only need to sew reasonable doubt. I am a 100% sure they will try for a hung jury.

I hope the proscecution is well prepared for that. Because it's them who do need to prove.
However even I can find on the internet that there is not even a psychological addictive potential in Propofol or Diprivan really proven yet by research... all only tendencies and lots of speculation... however they should have their experts ready to testify on that and explain with easy words what statistical calculation can sometimes cloudy and seem to result to... not even psychological addiction is confidentially ALWAYS the case by some constant or more often use of propofol. So it's all speculation about Michael. (Family members calling him a drug addict is not really helpful here of cuz it could cloud the jurors opinion)

And we all know... no addiction in this world (physical or psychological) could justify what Murray actively did and not did on the 25th June... but that is what the proscecution has to prove!

 

[Memefan]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

All court documents but NOT transcripts are available here

PEOPLE V. CORNRAD MURRAY







.

 

[Milka]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

(Or, there will be a wild-card. Someone ELSE sneaked into the room, locked Murray in a bathroom for forty-five minutes, killed Michael with the propofol, and left. And Murray somehow got out of the bathroom then, and Michael was long gone, and the rest was a cover up. But I DOUBT that was the case. . . . and there is absolutely no evidence to support such a tactic.)

The defense might be silly enough to try that, you never know with them ... the intruder locked him into the bathroom and Murray happened to have his 2 cell phones with him, but he couldn't call the police, because he didn't know the address, so instead he decided to just wait it out and call all kinds of people and one of his girlfriends without telling them that he needs help?

 

[Sue1]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

Another thing I noticed is that Murray's lawyers don't seem very well coordinated, there is confusion in Murray's camp :

Flanagan was unable to explain what Chernoff meant about which photos they wanted, remember Low not showing up at the prelim when "his" witness was to testify......and nobody knew where he was...

Sounds promising and let's hope so!

 

[rita.gibson]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

Jurors will be looking for 'Hard' evidence to enable them to come to a verdict, anything in between is irrelevent, just as it was in 05.

Psycology expert: :doh: ' Lieberman ' thought she knew it all too. It's irrelevent though because Michael arrived home that night in good spirits, he was laughing, happy and looking forward to going to London.

Character witnesses: for Murray are irrelevent because Michael liked him and trusted him too, after all, he took an oath to preserve life (didn't he?)

Demerol: won't Fly, it's irrelevent too.

Let's see, what else have they got ................:scratch:.................:scratch:.............Errm...........:scratch:, Anyone ?

 

[xthunderx2]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

Jurors will be looking for 'Hard' evidence to enable them to come to a verdict, anything in between is irrelevent, just as it was in 05.

Psycology expert: :doh: ' Lieberman ' thought she knew it all too. It's irrelevent though because Michael arrived home that night in good spirits, he was laughing, happy and looking forward to going to London.

Character witnesses: for Murray are irrelevent because Michael liked him and trusted him too, after all, he took an oath to preserve life (didn't he?)

Demerol: won't Fly, it's irrelevent too.

Let's see, what else have they got ................:scratch:.................:scratch:.............Errm...........:scratch:, Anyone ?

They got nothin!!!

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

If this doctor White gets on the stand and defends Murray's use of propofol as a sleeping aid and defends the way Murray gave it and the fact that he wasn't watching Michael and didn't have monitoring or rescue equipment, then Dr White might find himself up on some charges or at least a malpractice investigation. Murray did nothing right and no sound and right minded doctor will defend him.

 

[rita.gibson]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

If this doctor White gets on the stand and defends Murray's use of propofol as a sleeping aid and defends the way Murray gave it and the fact that he wasn't watching Michael and didn't have monitoring or rescue equipment, then Dr White might find himself up on some charges or at least a malpractice investigation. Murray did nothing right and no sound and right minded doctor will defend him.

You're right StacyJ, I have a feeling Dr White is going to reconsider his testimony, well at least he will if he knows whats good for him. I don't really see what he could say that would benefit Murray without incriminating himself.

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

You're right StacyJ, I have a feeling Dr White is going to reconsider his testimony, well at least he will if he knows whats good for him. I don't really see what he could say that would benefit Murray without incriminating himself.

me either... that is why Flanagan said that he had not seen the official reports yet he was basing his opinion on what Flanagan & Chernoff told him. If Dr. White even paid attention to the preliminary hearing he knows he should not be defending Murray. Murray gave his patient anesthesia at home in the bed like it was some over the counter sleeping pill in addition to a boatload of other benzos when interacted suppresses a person's breathing tremendously. Murray knows what anesthesia and benzos can do, yet he wasn't even watching or monitoring MJ. How can an anesthesiologist defend him?

If Murray felt he couldn't handle MJ's insomnia issues, he should've quit and took MJ to a sleep clinic or found someone who specialized in sleep disorders. Murray was not obligated to keep working for Mike.

 

[CherubimII]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

The more I read about the details of what was done to
Michael Jackson on the night he left us the more I am convinced that
Michael Jackson was deliberately murdered.

Nevertheless, all that can possibly happen to Conrad Murray on Earth is about 2 years of confinement (minus time off for his continued "good behavior". )
I guess that is why there is a Hell in the Afterlife for people like Murray and any of the other people involved in the murder of
Michael Jackson.

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

The more I read about the details of what was done to
Michael Jackson on the night he left us the more I am convinced that
Michael Jackson was deliberately murdered.

Nevertheless, all that can possibly happen to Conrad Murray on Earth is about 2 years of confinement (minus time off for his continued "good behavior". )
I guess that is why there is a Hell in the Afterlife for people like Murray and any of the other people involved in the murder of
Michael Jackson.

It does seem so odd that this professional doctor of 22 years would be so careless and reckless with Michael Jackson, of all people, doesn't it? You would think Murray would've been extra extra careful since he was 'MJ's personal physician. If he was willing to take on the task of giving MJ anesthesia at home he should've had every piece of equipment known to man to save his life. He should've had a nursing anesthesist watching MJ if he couldn't do the job. His standard of care was reckless and he doesn't seem to give a damn.

I am starting to think that Murray was a hired killer myself. No doctor of 22 years makes that many agregious mistakes.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

You're right StacyJ, I have a feeling Dr White is going to reconsider his testimony, well at least he will if he knows whats good for him. I don't really see what he could say that would benefit Murray without incriminating himself.

Agree.

You know, this is starting to sound a whole lot like the material the Arvizos introduced as "evidence" in the trial? All these "theories" about Michael, the "a-word," his mental state, and all the rest of it (to say nothing of the media shredding to come), have little or nothing to do with the issue at hand -- Murray's deplorable behavior as a doctor. (see my long post, above)

In Michael's trial, we heard about hot-air balloons, kidnappings, trips to Brazil, pornography (which turned out to be Playboy magazines), searches overseas for other "victims" (of course, there were none), and we heard in detail about Michael's finances, as though they had ANYTHING to do with the Arvizos' accusations. There were also the daily media shreddings of Michael, and Sneddon's massive PR machine, and so much more. It got to the point where it was outrageous, but my point is, the JURY didn't buy it. And if those jurors have a grain of common sense among them, they'll say, "But WHAT do these testimonies have to do with giving a dangerous drug at that place and time?" I'm counting on this -- the hopefully underlying common sense of most human-beings? I'm counting on the jury to recognize a "road apple" when they see one, and ask themselves, "WHY are they telling us this?"

 

[CherubimII]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

It does seem so odd that this professional doctor of 22 years would be so careless and reckless with Michael Jackson, of all people, doesn't it? You would think Murray would've been extra extra careful since he was 'MJ's personal physician. If he was willing to take on the task of giving MJ anesthesia at home he should've had every piece of equipment known to man to save his life. He should've had a nursing anesthesist watching MJ if he couldn't do the job. His standard of care was reckless and he doesn't seem to give a damn.

I am starting to think that Murray was a hired killer myself. No doctor of 22 years makes that many agregious mistakes.

I agree with you. :agree:
I will also tell you this Michael Jackson has some unfinished business on this planet,
and God is going to allow him to finish it.
That is why Michael still feels so ALIVE TO US!!!!!

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Status hearings discussion thread / next hearing Feb 28th

Jurors will be looking for 'Hard' evidence to enable them to come to a verdict, anything in between is irrelevent, just as it was in 05.

Psycology expert: :doh: ' Lieberman ' thought she knew it all too. It's irrelevent though because Michael arrived home that night in good spirits, he was laughing, happy and looking forward to going to London.

Character witnesses: for Murray are irrelevent because Michael liked him and trusted him too, after all, he took an oath to preserve life (didn't he?)

Demerol: won't Fly, it's irrelevent too.

Let's see, what else have they got ................:scratch:.................:scratch:.............Errm...........:scratch:, Anyone ?

Exactly. That's why I tried to debunk as many of the potential defense theories as possible (my long post, above). Most of what I've heard so far is very irrelevant, given the severity of what Murray actually DID. They've got NOTHING.

In terms of character witnesses for Murray? No matter how many people testify, there remain the stark facts of what Murray actually did. There could be "counter" witnesses, too, in terms of character. MANY of them. Murray's initial excuses constituted shooting himself in both feet. It's just as outrageous that he didn't know the address of where he was working (how did he manage to even GET there?), as it was to be unable to remember how to do CPR. Of COURSE he knew where he was! He said "no phones were working," but the phone-records of HIS calls that night/morning debunk that lie.

Murray's behavior surrounding Michael's death was extremely strange. The fireplaces were blazing? Who did that? Murray? To confuse T.O.D.? The fact that the paramedics KNEW that Michael was long dead by the time they got there, but yet Murray refused to call T.O.D. His fleeing from the hospital and being "unavailable" for two days (while he conferred with attorneys). His asking a bodyguard for keys to get back into the house, and the lame excuse that he wanted to "hide some cream." Nobody fell for that one.

There were Murray's attempts to hide evidence, already pointing to a guilty conscience. The timeline, so-called, is impossible. Murray could not have been "in the bathroom" for two minutes, against the evidence of the phone-records!

The ineffective CPR indicates that Murray wasn't even TRYING, because he knew it was already too late. There was his failure to call 911, or alert anyone else in the household to do so. And on, and on, and on. What REALLY happened during that span of time, we may never know. . .

At first, I was afraid that Murray would plea-bargain, and then there would be no trial and we'd never know the truth. My attitude on that has changed, now. I highly doubt that Murray will testify in his own defense, and it's unlikely that the trial will uncover anything approaching the truth. Problem with lying is that it's hard to remember WHICH lie one has told? The truth is easy, in comparison. Now? I think Murray will NOT testify, and the evidence against him is overwhelming. If I were on the jury, I'd soon become disgusted at the amount of hot-air in the courtroom. I'd soon begin to ask myself, "WHY are they telling us this?" There is the overwhelming evidence of Michael's behavior that night at the rehearsal. He was energetic and upbeat. And then he came home, and Murray killed him!

So maybe Murray SHOULD plea-bargain, and spare everyone the shredding of Michael to-come? I'm not really sure about what is best now. I just know that at the trial, Michael's name will be dragged through the mud, yet AGAIN. Maybe the truth will come out eventually, but sideways, and not directly in a court-room? My feelings on this would be different if I thought Murray would actually testify -- but I highly doubt that -- and even if he did, he lies more than he tells the truth.