Status hearings discussion thread / all threads merged

[Soundmind]

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

Ruffalo was only answering to the defence hypothesis when he said that could have happened

true he answered hypothesis presented by the defence , but he clearly said that propofol nor lorazepam (regardless of the latter very high concentration) could have caused MJ's death if it was given alone. What does that mean ? Is not the 10cc syringe at the center of this case? did not find a syringe with its plunger completely depressed injected into the port of the short IV tubing ? no propofol in the long tubing , forget about the juice , what do you think happened based on the above?

One was labeled as "empty" by Elissa. (It must be the same that it was in the IV bag described by Alberto, with some little white substance in the bottom of the bag).

I'm not sure on this one, I believe she meant the saline bag which covered it was empty , not the propofol vial. But if true would you please post what Fleak said about it ? still it would not change the very low concentration.

Not necessarily. (For certain urinary tests, patients are made to drink 2 or even more litres before their urine is tested and usually in a short scope of time).
Murray was administering MJ intravenous fluids

true, what was his plan to give those vials after 12 pm ?

0.15 ug/ml exactly.

In the preliminary this was not referred to by any expert as an estimation of the amount of propofol given to MJ.

No mention of the urine in the scene either in the prel

beside agreeing that the amount was not lethal , true Rafelo did not give an estimation of the amount found in MJ's body.

PS: I don't know what caused the "ruin" of threads commented above, but I saw some very negative ways of self-defending; fortunately it's there... Sometimes the misunderstandings in written communication are unavoidable, but many other times the wrong attitude doesn't help...

I know , and I understand what you mean and I apologize( you know what I mean)

As for others my blood boils when conspiracy advocates try to dismiss everything done using 'clever' cliches .

Threads were ruined because they did not believe Adams , Lee , Metzeger , lorazepam , and lately demerol were of any significance to the case and such discussions should be stopped and we should move on. The same tactic is used always , ALWAYS and the same words, we don't know, let's move on, you are working for the defence, you think you know everything ...etc why? this is not personal stuff, we are this close to the trial and it's now very apparent the above are significant to this case and will be addressed either in relevance motions or before a jury . Still they did not learn and they hurry to condemn and post smilies .

 

[Soundmind]

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

But I guess the discussion was also that in comparison to concentration elsewhere it could be said that propofol injection was rapid and that Michael died shortly after being injected, as the body did not have time to metabolise it. I am also not an expert, but can it be that the concentration in urine as such could not reflect the amount of propofol administered to Michael, as the sooner Michael died after the administration of propofol, the less propofol got into his urine? (I know it is not that simple, but just trying to figure this out).

it has no bearing whatsoever on the dose he received immediately before his death because as you said in order to reach the urine , the survival time (after the injection) should have been at least ten minutes .but 4.1 ug/ml blood concentration indicated a rapid death .

urine is for previous use within the hours or even minutes ( above ten) that preceded the death , urine is the only method to determine how much propofol he received within the timeframe above, nothing but urine could be used to determine that .

blood concentration indicates the survival time , low means minutes , high means very rapid death .

high blood concentration + a 10 cc syringe with a completely depressed plunger injected into the port of the short tubing + propofon in the syringe , propofol in the short tubing+ no propofol in the long tubing = based on the above they concluded the amount and the way his life was ended beside the lorazepam factor of course.




Rafelo ( or the coroner )was asked what did he believe the onset of sedation or in other words how much time was needed for propofol concentration to reach that level after an injection and he agreed "within one minute"
the fact that the concentration did no decrease rapidly and remained that hight is an indication the heart stopped at that level ( a level that is reached within one minute of injection) , no circulation of blood , the concentration remained high . We discussed it many times here and Rafelo confirmed all those FACTS in his testimony , things some here blindy ignore .

Falgan said that those concentrations were very high ( compared to what Murray admitted to) and they indicated that MJ received 150mg of propofol , thus why they believe Murray did not do it.

So on that particular night, I would agree. But this is it and the rest is not known for sure. Hair tox results would show about the long term use of propofol.

that's what I'm waiting for,the hair toxicology.

Now, Murray had two days to rethink what to say to the police and therefore he told the story about small amount of propofol. But he also told the story about 6 weeks of propofol. Why did he tell that knowing (??) that hair test results would (probably) show that he is a liar?

exactly, that's the same approach I use when I come to my conclusions , he probably was using a larger dose not only 50 mg, maybe like the one used that last day two 10cc injections ( an assumption by me). He can bring an expert who will argue with the prosecution's expert over whether the usual dose was 50 or100 or even 150 mg based on the hair toxicology ,each of them could use a method...etc and he could successfully raise reasonable doubt over figures close to 50mg if the prosecutors expert testifies to higher than 50mg dose regularly . But if he was administering one or two 1000mg regularly how did he plan to explain that? or if indeed he gave MJ that 1000mg vial that day and he only left for two minutes how did he plan to explain that figure ? logically speaking ?

if indeed the prosecutors believe he used that vial , how come no one brought up that very very incriminating piece of evidence with Rafelo?

he can argue a 50 or 100mg gap in the experts findings but not 400 , 700 , 2000 mg . That's my point.

 

[bouee]

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

Threads were ruined because they did not believe Adams , Lee , Metzeger , lorazepam , and lately demerol were of any significance to the case and such discussions should be stopped and we should move on. .

I agree with that.
Personally, I don't gave any problem with anyone's theory, we are a group of people, with different sensibilities, different abilities, and confronting our point of views and information only helps understand what's going on.

The demerol example is a good one. Some posters did not feel comfortable at first , and then when you try to find out what it's all about, then well, there doesn't seem to be any demerol problem at all.

This trial will be about medical facts, not about anyone's credibility, not about "he said/she said". The defense already has a lot more info than we do, they have the whole police reports, the hair tox result. I don't think we can help them in anyway.

This trial will be about Murray, Michael is the victim here, and I trust Michael.
The defense will trash him, wether we talk about it or not. The defense will fight the prosecutions experts, wether we talk about it or not. They will use their own experts, who know more than we do, and already have more info than we do.
If we believe can bring out information, new lines of thought, if we believe can help the defense, then we can also help the prosecution.

We might also be a source of information for the general public.

I don't think we should refrain from talking about anything, and I don't like it either when other posters ask not to discuss certain things. I understand the reaction though , we are MJ fans, angry with what happened to him and his children, and worried about what is going to be said during the trial.
Avoiding the subject won't make it go away, I think we need to remain as calm as possible and think about the different aspects of the trial together.

 

[xthunderx2]

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

I personally dont have a problem with anyone's theory either..it is when they continue to fight that their THEORY IS FACT...when they always have to be right all the time..when the dont consider anyone's theory but their own...when they argue with people who DO have medical knowledge and not just pull information out of thin air. Then when someone that does HAVE more knowledge tries to correct them...they STILL will fight with that person that they are right...and continue to post their own theories...what happened to Michael IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE..the facts cannot be changed no matter WHO would like them too...the medical professionals already have all the information they need...they are not going to change it just because some folks would like them to. Alot of fights could be avoided if certain folks didn't always have to try and prove that THEIR theory is right above all else.

 

[bouee]

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

xthunder, Soundmind has already apologised for that. I hope we can move on.

 

[xthunderx2]

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

xthunder, Soundmind has already apologised for that. I hope we can move on.

sure..I will gladly move on..after all...all I care about is the facts in this case...and about what really happened to Michael...every single person on this forum is entitled to their opinion. and as previously stated..the facts wont change in this case...no matter who tries to change them with their own agenda. and I promise you that WILL happen again..just watch...I know it is sad..but..IT IS fact. :wink:

 

[Soundmind]

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

I apologized to smoothluger for something I said about her months ago and I'm aware I was wrong, I believe this is the second time I do so . I don't apologize to so called people with medical knowledge who were dumb enough to claim MJ was swimming in propofol when he died after they were presented with facts nor I apologize to anyone who keeps ignoring the urine concentration and insist he received a 1000 mg propofol vial . the fact that they have a medical knowledge makes it worse, especially when they say something completely baseless and medically ridiculous . I don't need to name names but when I said MJ's heart must have stopped within one minute and death was very rapid , one poster with medical knowledge made fun of me , what does she think now of Rafelo's testimony?

That's the whole point , base your opinion on what is presented in the autopsy report , you don't know how to read a toxicology report google it, if you still can't don't go after others belittling their efforts . Again I still insist based on similar cases, based on Rafelo's testimony , based on the toxicology report , urine concentration indicates MJ did not receive anything exceeding 200mg of propofol that day. That's not my opinion , that's a medical fact whether a person with some sort of medical knowledge agrees or not . The trial is very close and if you have doubts , wait for the experts they will state this medical fact infront of the jurors.

A person with medical knowledge does not say 4.1 ug/ml means MJ was "swimming in propofol" just to give you an example of how knowledgeable on the subject he/she is .

Klien and Murray are doctors , so ?

Again this is not to say some were right and some were wrong, this is to remind particular posters to refrain from their old patterns ;asking us to stop discussing a subject, stop telling us we don't know because we have no medical expertize like some of them ,they should not expect us to move on from a subject that contradicts what they believe in and like they have the right to challenge a theory that is baseless we have the right to challenge any theory that completely contradicts a figure stated in the autopsy report.

 

[Autumn II]

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

That's a lot of "ifs", but I've always thought that if the prosecution could prove this theory, we would have a murder 2 charge.

Right, and that IS the point. Also, the fact that Murray was giving propofol, at ALL, is extreme negligence, and qualifies for Murder 2? Doesn't really matter "how much," or when, or any of that. It was outrageous that he even had the propofol present, in Michael's house, with no rescue equipment. That has always been my point, and "amounts" of propofol, or where it was found, don't really matter, given that fact? I'm sure the jury will see that.

I.M. will be even easier to prove, than Murder 2. A doctor is charged with preserving life, and to me, it does not matter if "Michael begged for it" (which I do not believe), or what. The core of this case was that he should not have been giving it, at all.

 

[smoothlugar]

Firstly, thanks Soundmind for your apology. I do appreciate it.

but he clearly said that propofol nor lorazepam (regardless of the latter very high concentration) could have caused MJ's death if it was given alone.

It was Christopher Rogers (the forensic pathologist, the Chief Medical Coroner) the one who answered the defence that the lorazepam dose was not enough to kill by itself. But he didn’t say the same in relation to the propofol by itself, though he mentioned the contributing condition of benzoadiazepine effect and said that he would expect the combination to produce more sedation than either of those by itself. In fact he stated that his finding that it was a “homicide” was based (among other reasons given) in that a physician should not use propofol unless indicated and that insomnia is not an indication.

Quote:
One was labeled as "empty" by Elissa. (It must be the same that it was in the IV bag described by Alberto, with some little white substance in the bottom of the bag).

I'm not sure on this one, I believe she meant the saline bag which covered it was empty , not the propofol vial. But if true would you please post what Fleak said about it ? still it would not change the very low concentration.

I don't understand that of "very low concentration" (see below what Ruffalo said about the levels - it is complete in team mj com)

Elissa said the bottle of propofol inside the IV bag was open. It surprised me that in the preliminary she didn’t state whether “empty” or not because in the Search Warrant Order, some vials of propofol were labelled as “empty”:
Date of Issuance: June 29. 2009
Date of Service: June 29.2009 ,
and searched the following location(s), vehicle(s), and person(s):
100 N. Carolwood Drive, Los Angeles
and seized the items*
1-empty bottle propofol 200 mg ; ^ j
1 empty I.V. 9% sodium chloride
1 empty vial propofol 1g/100ml
1 vial propofol 200mg
4 vials propofol 200mg/20ml
2- 100ml vials of propofol
2- 200mg vials of propofol (1 full, 1-1/4 full)

-------

beside agreeing that the amount was not lethal , true Rafelo did not give an estimation of the amount found in MJ's body.

Ruffalo said the hospital blood level was equivalent to deep general anesthesia levels and that even half of those levels (hospital blood) would have been enough for deep general anesthesia in some other cases.

He said the levels at the time of death would have been much higher than when the blood was drawn at the hospital because blood was diluted with IV fluids during resuscitative efforts with paramedics and at UCLA (MJ was still having some degree of circulation through manual compressions during CPR, he said) and that blood drawn and put in a plastic test tube degrades even lower.

Quote:
it could be said that propofol injection was rapid and that Michael died shortly after being injected, as the body did not have time to metabolise it.

Does anyone know about the liver? Experts said the concentration levels there were high because it matabolized it...

high blood concentration + a 10 cc syringe with a completely depressed plunger injected into the port of the short tubing + propofon in the syringe , propofol in the short tubing+ no propofol in the long tubing = based on the above they concluded the amount and the way his life was ended beside the lorazepam factor of course.

I have some doubts about their conclusions on the amount given. The defence was asking about an induction dose given by bolus (several times), but the experts didn’t’ say so. In fact, Roger said several times to the defence: “assuming that amount was given by bolus, yes”, “assuming a single injection…”.

The anesthetist nurse KZ explained how Murray could have used the open bottle of propofol inside the IV bag without "the long tubing".
So far, prosecutors have not referred to that evidence Murray hid.
KZ suggestion of the number of punctures in that bottle stopper is important for the prosecutors IMO.

the fact that the concentration did no decrease rapidly and remained that hight is an indication the heart stopped at that level ( a level that is reached within one minute of injection) , no circulation of blood , the concentration remained high . We discussed it many times here and Rafelo confirmed all those FACTS in his testimony

Remember what Ruffalo said about the circulation (that there was some due to CPR- it is in the transcripts of team MJ. Com). He said the antemortem levels should have been higher than the hospital blood concentration levels.



i

f indeed the prosecutors believe he used that vial , how come no one brought up that very very incriminating piece of evidence with Rafelo?

Ruffalo said (if I remember well) he did not read the Anesthesiologist Consultation so as to be more independent in his conclusions. Maybe there was the same reason in relation to the medical evidence collected by the investigator.

he can argue a 50 or 100mg gap in the experts findings but not 400 , 700 , 2000 mg . That's my point.

I wonder too if hair tox findings will reveal larger amounts on that day or not. IMO Murray could not tell the truth and plead not guilty. He has given an “explanation” for the tox results, he could keep saying the same theory.

PS: Sorry if too long. BTW it worries me the "separated" syringe (why was it apart? was part of a plan by Murray?- just me...) and the high ratio of lidocaine mentioned by the defense for his theory.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

BTW it worries me the "separated" syringe (why was it apart? was part of a plan by Murray?- just me

is that the syringe that was broken by murray along with the line when the medic told him to help when they first got there?

read the info on the lidocaine in the evaluating evidence sticky. can u explain the issue with it. and the defence theory

 

[StacyJ]

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

Poor MJ.. I really wish someone had've helped him and cared about him.. Mike was not sick, he just wanted to sleep.. and hearing all this crap that Murray gave him that was totally unncessary just makes me sick

 

[Soundmind]

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


"Ruffalo said the hospital blood level was equivalent to deep general anesthesia levels and that even half of those levels (hospital blood) would have been enough for deep general anesthesia in some other cases.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Three other cases :

 

[StacyJ]

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

I still cannot believe a 20 year cardiologist agreed to give MJ anesthesia as a sleep aid as if it was some over the counter sleep aid medication..

what the hell is wrong with him?

 

[StacyJ]

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

I am confused.. what is Murray's story? is he saying he gave MJ a bolus or is he claiming MJ was hooked up to an IV..

what is his story?

 

[smoothlugar]

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

Thank you for the explanation.

can you continue to state that the blood concentration means he received 1000mg of propofol? based on his liver and urine can you continue to state there was even a possibility he received 1000mg of propofol ?
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Well, I didn't state anything related to amounts in my last post, but to concentration levels because you had said they were very low concentrations, and according to the experts they were equivalent to those for general anesthesia.

It's clear from the comparisons you have made that the amount given was not what KZ (the nurse in Trials...) suggests. Yet we haven't heard from prosecutors anything related to the bottles open. Maybe Murray used different boluses at different intervals (remember the urine in the scene...). That's for explaining the missing liquid in the bottles.

Whether a bolus or not, I will mention the case of a 24-yr-old in Florida in 2005. Two empty 20ml vials of propofol were found near to garbage cans outside the house. Blood was 4.3ug/ml, "value within the range of blood propofol concentrations after a bolus induction. Initially the medical examiner ruled that it was homicide. After further investigation, a second degree murder warrant was issued and in 2007 the indictment was upgraded to first degree murder.

 

[StacyJ]

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

Thank you for the explanation.

Well, I didn't state anything related to amounts in my last post, but to concentration levels because you had said they were very low concentrations, and according to the experts they were equivalent to those for general anesthesia.

It's clear from the comparisons you have made that the amount given was not what KZ (the nurse in Trials...) suggests. Yet we haven't heard from prosecutors anything related to the bottles open. Maybe Murray used different boluses at different intervals (remember the urine in the scene...). That's for explaining the missing liquid in the bottles.

Whether a bolus or not, I will mention the case of a 24-yr-old in Florida in 2005. Two empty 20ml vials of propofol were found near to garbage cans outside the house. Blood was 4.3ug/ml, "value within the range of blood propofol concentrations after a bolus induction. Initially the medical examiner ruled that it was homicide. After further investigation, a second degree murder warrant was issued and in 2007 the indictment was upgraded to first degree murder.

Murray ordered 220 bottles of the stuff and he only gets an involuntary manslaughter charge? Murray is a doctor, and he knows what propofol can do? he knows it suppresses one's breathing and he wasn't even watching MJ.. He should be charged with murder

 

[Soundmind]

and the high ratio of lidocaine mentioned by the defense for his theory.

Flanagan, does this on the ELMO... converting it to concentation. the math. too funny.

Questions, about the fluid in the stomach. I stop typing. I don’t see how they are important.

Now askng about micrograms vs milligrams of the stomach content...

45x what it is in the hospital blood.
That doesn’t go with your theory.

Yes, I made a mistake.

Now if we have 45x whats in the stomach than what’s in the blood. then we have evidence of oral ingestion.

We may have to check with the coroner, to check with what the numbers mean. Now, it doesn’t make sense unless he ingested it orally.

SO he had to have ingested it orally?

obj misstates evidence.

So, I may have made an assumption, depending on how the coroner reported this.
(So, his calculation over lunch may not be correct.) (me)

So as it stands, you made a mistake. I made an interpretation mistake. I thought it was micrograms and it’s really milligrams.
So, we’re back to it being orally? Well, we’ll have to talk to the coroner.

It’s a big difference isnt’ it? I totally agree.

their whole argument is based on an error made by Ruffelo. He was presented with wrong number and made some calculations came back with a gastric concentration that was 45 times higher than the blood concentration that was already very high. Thus the only conclusion could have been it was orally taken. A mistake that will be easily explained , no need to worry . the orally taken propofol theory is so ridiculous to say the least and without Ruffelo's mistake will not have a leg to stand on during the trial.

as for the lidocaine compared to propofol ratio. I understand what you are trying to say .

Flagan told him that propofol to lidocaine ratio in all organs favored propofol over lidocaine 4 to 1, 8 to 1, 12 to 1 ...etc except the gastric contents lidocaine was higher than propofol . and he asked him why ?

the guy tried to explain and obviously the one who wrote the transcripts did not understand much of the conversation .

Flagan offered a theory : MJ drunk 150mg of propofol , he felt a burning sensation and then drunk lidocaine. That's why " lidocaine was favored over propofol in the stomach" lol obviously he is an idiot when it comes to medical concepts .

propofol and lidocaine have different half-lives, different peak concentrations, different distribution ...etc , thus it is really stupid on Flangan's part to try to explain it that way.

conclusion: according to both experts the CONCENTRATION was very small compared to the high concentrations detected in the blood and liver. And orally taken propofol theory is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.



They will go back to the broken syringe and eventually to someone else did it. probably at this point they are busy reading the conspiracy section.

 

[sophie]

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

the lidocaine concentration in stomach was higher than lidocaine blood concentrations (up to 45 times higher).

but the same was not true for propofol. propofol concentration found in stomach was LOWER than propofol concentrations in blood samples and liver.

flanagan used the high lidocaine concentration in stomach to confuse ruffalo.

i wrote something about this in the understanding & evaluating testimony thread. s. here my post about lidocaine and propofol gastric concentrations:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3293662&postcount=33

 

[StacyJ]

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

does anyone know if Ruffalo is going to testify during the trial?

 

[moodyblue97]

I´m just reading in here and I´m so amazed about the work you guys do. I bow to you.

Now, have anyone smelled propofol? I´m pretty sure that there is no way he drank it. The smell is horrible really. You can´t drink it, the smell prevent you from taking it close to your face.

 

[StacyJ]

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

Michael didn't drink that stuff and they know it. If he had've drunk it would've been in his mouth, tongue and down his throat. Besides where was Murray when his patient allegedly woke up and started drinking it?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

their whole argument is based on an error made by Ruffelo. He was presented with wrong number and made some calculations came back with a gastric concentration that was 45 times higher than the blood concentration that was already very high. Thus the only conclusion could have been it was orally taken. A mistake that will be easily explained , no need to worry . the orally taken propofol theory is so ridiculous to say the least and without Ruffelo's mistake will not have a leg to stand on during the trial.

as for the lidocaine compared to propofol ratio. I understand what you are trying to say .

Flagan told him that propofol to lidocaine ratio in all organs favored propofol over lidocaine 4 to 1, 8 to 1, 12 to 1 ...etc except the gastric contents lidocaine was higher than propofol . and he asked him why ?

the guy tried to explain and obviously the one who wrote the transcripts did not understand much of the conversation .

Flagan offered a theory : MJ drunk 150mg of propofol , he felt a burning sensation and then drunk lidocaine. That's why " lidocaine was favored over propofol in the stomach" lol obviously he is an idiot when it comes to medical concepts .

propofol and lidocaine have different half-lives, different peak concentrations, different distribution ...etc , thus it is really stupid on Flangan's part to try to explain it that way.

conclusion: according to both experts the CONCENTRATION was very small compared to the high concentrations detected in the blood and liver. And orally taken propofol theory is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.



They will go back to the broken syringe and eventually to someone else did it. probably at this point they are busy reading the conspiracy section.

thanks

 

[Soundmind]

welcome @ elusive


thank you sophie , I missed that great post of you , indeed they meant by 45x the lidocaine concentrations compared to other places which was still very small and as you said made no difference really.

what I meant by propofol to lidocaine ratio came from Falngan cross of Dr.Rogers not Ruffelo.

Asks about the proportions of propofol and lidocaine.
And then asks about the hospital blood.

Asks him to explain the differences in 4 to 1 and 8 to 1 ratio.
Explains that one of the things that propol does is go.....? Not understanding. Sorry.

During resusitation and during post motem period, there is time for the propofol to move from circulation into the tissues.

Questions I miss.

But in the event that propofol were taken orally, that’s one way it could appear in the stomach? Yes, that’s a way it could appear in the stomach.

When popfol is taken in the vein, it causes a burning sensation, it’s very uncomforatable isn’t it? Yes.

So, usually it’s usually mixed with some lidocaine, or lidocaine is put in ahead of it isn’t it? Yes.

But, if propofol was taken orally, it would have caused pain in the esophogus or stomach? I don’t know.

Miss question.

So, if like if propofol 4.5 to 1 , 8 to 1 and 3 to 1 and the rest of the body favored propofol over lidocaine, if the gastric contents came from the blood system, it would most likely favor propofol over the ????

I don’t know....( long explanation) Lidocaine could possibly be distributed in a different (indication?) than propofol.

 

[Soundmind]

does anyone know if Ruffalo is going to testify during the trial?

I pray to God that something happens and they call someone else.

Ruffelo -direct :

Various benzodiazpines. Specifically, did you review the,
can you tell us generally, what observations conclusions you made as it relaes?

The most important was the lll know as adavan. clearly those levels are subject to a very small degree of difusion, it doesn’t have as much redistrobution. So it’s a little less susceptable to that. (more explanation)

So, it tiells us there was a significat amount of ?lorazapam in the blood. Significant degree of sedation.

So these levels of moraz, in the heart blood, are they ? ?

They were not being broken down like the propofol.....

He has such a low tone voice, it’s hard to follow him.

They are still 5 to 30 percent lower than what they would have been antimortem.

The readings on people’s 69 consistent with 4 milligrams given via IV. ? They are really high.... there is a lot. It’s about reflective of much higher (doses given).

So, he thinks the numbers of the benzodiazapams from the heart blood, he thinks reflect an injection/ingestion of a HIGHER dose than what Dr. Murray states he gave.

If you combine administ. of propofol with benzodiazipones, does that require a hightened level of monitoring? It just means you have to know more of the blood interaction? The difficulty of drug interaction would be increased? (Yes?)

If you are giving a single dose of propofol, and you’re not going to continue, you may not need an expidoroxide monitoring.....because you might not need that monitoring, but when you’re giving it with other drugs...you need the extensive monitoring when you’re using long acting drugs

Dr.Rogers

Cross by Flanagan.

You conclusion as to this being a homicide, assumes the admnistration of propofol by another? Yes.

You’ve made several findings in your conclusion of you is it a fact, you indicated that certain that benzo was administered by another. yes.
and that propofol was administered outside a hospital setting? Yes.
Miss next q.


Asks about the razapam in the heart blood. .162 razapam.

That’s a significant amount of razapam isn’t it? Y

It’s what we would call a therapeutic does? Yes.
So, someone who hadn’t built up a tolerance would be sleepy (?Y)
So that would be enough to put someone asleep as a sleeping aid isn’t it? Y

It’s not enough to kill someone is it? No, not by itself.

First ,I want to understand one thing how come Ruffelo kept calling MJ a known addict to make a point when he simply could have refuted the scenario that MJ could have self-injected by repeating what he already testified to, the guy was in deeeeeeeeeeep sedation as indicated by the very high lorazepam concentration ?

Second, you are an expert , you are a professional person and you are asked to give your opinion on a subject and you write a report of 47 pages but you pays no attention to the gastric contents ????? is that even acceptable?

here some fans went nuts when the report was published and started to raise question about it, but this expert did not even bother to address it in his report ? !!! what if there was no preliminary hearing ? very unprofessional

and am I mistaken or Flagan is prepared to claim also MJ built tolerance to lorazepam and thus why those HUGE by all means amount of lorazepam did not keep him sedated ?

and why no one so far brought up his method of weaning off? what doctor in the whole world use intravenous lorazepam and versed to treat insomnia? what was the point of injecting 25mg of propofol or even 100mg after he injected him with all those amounts of benzos ?

Waiting for the trial , they better talk about that , because the above does not make any sense and should be addressed , they act like it was ok to do what he was doing if it was not for propofol . better bring some light to lorazepam and versed instead of keeping all the focus on propofol.

 

[StacyJ]

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

I pray to God that something happens and they call someone else.

Ruffelo -direct :






Dr.Rogers


First ,I want to understand one thing how come Ruffelo kept calling MJ a known addict to make a point when he simply could have refuted the scenario that MJ could have self-injected by repeating what he already testified to, the guy was in deeeeeeeeeeep sedation as indicated by the very high lorazepam concentration ?

Second, you are an expert , you are a professional person and you are asked to give your opinion on a subject and you write a report of 47 pages but you pays no attention to the gastric contents ????? is that even acceptable?

here some fans went nuts when the report was published and started to raise question about it, but this expert did not even bother to address it in his report ? !!! what if there was no preliminary hearing ? very unprofessional

and am I mistaken or Flagan is prepared to claim also MJ built tolerance to lorazepam and thus why those HUGE by all means amount of lorazepam did not keep him sedated ?

and why no one so far brought up his method of weaning off? what doctor in the whole world use intravenous lorazepam and versed to treat insomnia? what was the point of injecting 25mg of propofol or even 100mg after he injected him with all those amounts of benzos ?

Waiting for the trial , they better talk about that , because the above does not make any sense and should be addressed , they act like it was ok to do what he was doing if it was not for propofol . better bring some light to lorazepam and versed instead of keeping all the focus on propofol.

I agree Soundmind.. I haven't heard anyone mentioning the lorazpam and versed at all.. Those sedatives ain't no joke. Mike should've been knocked out from that alone. He was 136lbs all of those sedatives could've taken out an elephant why was the 25 mg of propofol even necessary if he was giving versed and lorazapem? No doctor would wean a patient with those addictive drugs. Murray was trying to get MJ addicted if you ask me.

And if the doses he was giving wasn't working why not just give more? why was the mixing and the cocktail even necessary?

 

[xthunderx2]

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

I agree Soundmind.. I haven't heard anyone mentioning the lorazpam and versed at all.. Those sedatives ain't no joke. Mike should've been knocked out from that alone. He was 136lbs all of those sedatives could've taken out an elephant why was the 25 mg of propofol even necessary if he was giving versed and lorazapem? No doctor would wean a patient with those addictive drugs. Murray was trying to get MJ addicted if you ask me.

And if the doses he was giving wasn't working why not just give more? why was the mixing and the cocktail even necessary?

well if we were taking Murray's word that he was :weaning: Michael off of propofol then that would mean that Murray is stating that Michael was a "A"...which we all know that he WAS NOT..the evidence in this case DOESN"T lie. Murray is the liar...he has lied about everything that he did to Michael that night...EVEN trying to cover up what he did..by hiding the evidence...so by him saying that he only gave Michael 25 mg of propofol...we already know THAT s a lie also..per the evidence from the autopsy report. and I agree with you he was giving Michael some bad things in wrong doses

 

[StacyJ]

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

Didn't Murray believe he was giving MJ way too much stuff at some point. It's obvious all of those meds shouldn't be mixed. Murray can't be that stupid, he's a doctor

 

[smoothlugar]

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

is that the syringe that was broken by murray along with the line when the medic told him to help when they first got there?

Has any logical feasable explanation been given for the "separated" syringe collected by the investigator Elissa?

 

[StacyJ]

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

Has any logical feasable explanation been given for the "separated" syringe collected by the investigator Elissa?

My belief is Murray separated it.. He had no freakin' clue what he was doing