Conrad Murray Trial - Day Ten

Back in session.

clarifying that the date on the photo is correct, just angled bad so the 6 looked like an 8.

Coroner agrees he had a chance to look at it during the recess.
 
Prosecution asking coroner to further describe what he means by spiking the rubber in the propofol bottle.

Pros showed an illustration similar to what we see in the video posted above.
Coroner says yes, that is what he is referring to.

Pros showing a LAPD item
Coroner says it is an IV catheter with needle still present
Pros used or unused
Coroner it appears unused

Pros showing LAPD different item LAPD item 142 syringe from nightstand
did this appear to fit the other catheter
Coroner i did look at the item and it did not appear to fit

Pros passes witness to Def (flanagan to cross)
 
Flanagan has asked for a number of exhibits and they are being pulled now.
 
Going to be touch and go what I can type from testimony - cooking supper right now
 
Yes. I understood the question, though, to be how the propofol was used to spike the saline solution as in spiking a drink, so to speak. I just tried to clarify that is not what the coroner meant by using the word spike.

That spike that is used to go thru the Flask opening of fluid is rather long..and "Ill bet Conrad slit the bag..and pushed the propofol rubber stopper down onto the spike"..thus fluid would then drain thru tubing downward thru tubing to patient by gravity..since NO PUMP was used... No way MJ could do that little task..it takes some elbow grease to do that..
 
Defense about propofol, we can't be sure who gave it. Witness, correct. What was the defense expecting with that question? Other than doubt that Murray did it?
 
Coroner isn't going to buy Flanagan's 'studies'.
 
I like the coroner, and worked with a Dr. like him - personality like a wet cardboard box.
 
This testimony is painful. And hard to follow. Defense is asking all the same things he asked the coroner investigator. Witness keeps checking his notes and figuring doses out on scrap paper. Painful is an understatement.
 
I don't know if the defence is scoring any points as he is jumping from point to point and I have no idea what they are talking about,

I don't think the focusing on the science will have a huge effect on the juries verdict, things like the use of propofol as a sleeping drug outside of hospital setting, his not calling 911, his not mentioning propfol to paramedics or to Drs at the hospital, his getting propofol delivered to his home, trying to sell the idea that MJ self administered things like this will weigh more in the juries deliberations I think
 
Okay, here we go again with 8 pills. Where or how has the defense come up with the number 8 for the pills they say MJ took outside the presence of Dr. M?
 
Defense is doing hypotheticals without calling them that, this time it's let's say about ten o'clock.

Talking about doses and times, then asked if that causes you to take a second look? Witness did not understand question. He is not alone, I am waving my hand in the air too.
 
Okay, here we go again with 8 pills. Where or how has the defense come up with the number 8 for the pills they say MJ took outside the presence of Dr. M?

My opinion, defense got some Dr. to explain to them that 8 of those pills taken by mouth by MJ at 10 am would lead to cardiac arrest or to stop breathing. Now if they can just get one of these doctors to agree they have it made.
 
Maybe the judge will throw flanagan out! Looks like he is getting ticked.
 
IMO over the course of this trial so far, the defense has had some good moments with their cross examining. For the most part, though, they are so all over the board and jumping around here and there, that they lose me a lot of the time with what they are trying to accomplish. It's like their goal at cross is lost in the process because they skip around from topic to topic. (at least that is my opinion - I find myself saying a lot "okay, so what does that have to do with anything and how does that help you?" before that is answered, they are off onto something else totally different and then hop back to something else before they finish the new topic. It's very disjointed to me.
 
Was the concentration of lorazepam in the gastric fluid in micrograms??
 
I think Flanagan is moving his decimal point the wrong way. Just a suspicion.
 
LOL! this judge looks like he is losing patience fast with Flanagan. He just frowned and almost rolled his eyes when he told him he was using hypotheticals assuming facts not in evidence.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
4,483
Total visitors
4,676

Forum statistics

Threads
592,434
Messages
17,968,883
Members
228,768
Latest member
clancehan
Back
Top