Conrad Murray trial -Day fifteen

[EPfan]

While that is true, I doubt doctors who are on medical boards cite those doctors with so many gross deviations from the standard of care as is seen in this case. Dr. Shafer states in his opinion it is 17 deviations. I highly doubt other doctors are so wantonly negligent and reckless as Murray.

But if there are doctors out there that grossly deviate as much as Murray did and are not being held accountable in a criminal trial then IMO that needs to change. No doctor should be held up to be above the law. That is like giving them a license to kill at will no matter how criminal their acts are.

I don't believe that. Right now over 200 doctors in California have been charged criminally for their own wrongdoings. So it is not just because it is Michael Jackson. It is not just about Michael but others who are losing their lives due to the gross recklessness and neglect.

Respectfully, I find that to be an old tired stand by dismissive argument as if because it is Michael Jackson he shouldn't receive justice for what was criminally done to him because he was known internationally. I don't care who the person happened to be and society shouldn't care about the status of the victim's fame either. Are some saying because he is THE Michael Jackson then he should receive no justice??? When did that become a threshold in our justice system?

This doctor should be held accountable for his own wrongdoings that resulted in a human being losing their life, period, no matter if their name is Joe Schmoe or someone famous. We are a country built on the solid foundation of "Justice for ALL" and that includes MJ.

And the deviations from the standard of care weren't 'mistakes.' Each thing Murray did and failed to do that day were done with cognitive thinking and choices he made under his own free will.

So this isn't like accidentally leaving a sponge inside of someone during surgery. These were willfully done and a man lost his life because of Murray and for no other reason.

IMO

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you because I don't believe that Dr. Murray willfully killed MJ. He wasn't charged with that crime.
From what I am gathering is MJ was given this milk often to be put to sleep, and he lived through this up until this last night. I still have to see the defense present their case before complete convict him. What I think is one thing but the evidence is what the sentence of guilty or not guilty should be based on.
We all have fun here on this site and I'm sure I have said things that maybe I shouldn't have. (so I might have been a hypocrite but I don't mean to.) When it comes down to it I take this judicial process seriously because there are plenty of people convicted that are innocent, and it all boils down to a prosecution theory and a no good defense team.

 

[borndem]

While that is true, I doubt doctors who are on medical boards cite those doctors with so many gross deviations from the standard of care as is seen in this case. Dr. Shafer states in his opinion it is 17 deviations. I highly doubt other doctors are so wantonly negligent and reckless as Murray.

But if there are doctors out there that grossly deviate as much as Murray did and are not being held accountable in a criminal trial then IMO that needs to change. No doctor should be held up to be above the law. That is like giving them a license to kill at will no matter how criminal their acts are.

I don't believe that. Right now over 200 doctors in California have been charged criminally for their own wrongdoings. So it is not just because it is Michael Jackson. It is not just about Michael but others who are losing their lives due to the gross recklessness and neglect.

Respectfully, I find that to be an old tired stand by dismissive argument as if because it is Michael Jackson he shouldn't receive justice for what was criminally done to him because he was known internationally. I don't care who the person happened to be and society shouldn't care about the status of the victim's fame either. Are some saying because he is THE Michael Jackson then he should receive no justice??? When did that become a threshold in our justice system?

This doctor should be held accountable for his own wrongdoings that resulted in a human being losing their life, period, no matter if their name is Joe Schmoe or someone famous. We are a country built on the solid foundation of "Justice for ALL" and that includes MJ.

And the deviations from the standard of care weren't 'mistakes.' Each thing Murray did and failed to do that day were done with cognitive thinking and choices he made under his own free will.

So this isn't like accidentally leaving a sponge inside of someone during surgery. These were willfully done and a man lost his life because of Murray and for no other reason.

IMO

:goodpost: : :justice:

 

[katydid23]

katydid, come sit next to me because I too see a mirrored image of Dr. Klein when I see a pic of Prince. An amazing resemblence between the two. I too have heard the story of Klein supposingly being the bio father of the oldest child.

And yet, the other two children don't resemble Prince the oldest child nor each other. I'm not about to say anything more since knocking MJ in this thread can bring on wrath.

Regardless of whoever is the bio dad or mom, these are Michael's children according to the laws in California. But seeing photos of the children does bring about a lot of questions.
just my O

I agree that Michael was their true father and always will be. They loved him very much and he did a fine job with them. It is heartbreaking to imagine how they had to see such chaos and agony that day in their own home. :rose:

 

[borndem]

He didn't say livelihood.

He has said that so much in other cases that it just rolled over his tongue. I have no doubt he does that continuously in murder cases even though he knows full well there will be an objection since attorneys arent to mention that trying to taint the jury. It just shows how little repect he has for the court and the rules and poor Judge Pastor was getting so aggravated with him yesterday.

But his assertion in this case is ridiculous and done for nothing more than the drama affect to get the jury to feel sorry for his guilty client.

If he wants to talk about life or the loss of life and liberty.......then maybe it would behoove him to really know who's life ended needlessly along with all of his and his family's hopes and dreams.

I chuckle when I see you write 'lifestyle' :floorlaugh: but I bet he does miss that for sure. Now he is more or less stuck with one baby's momma now.

IMO

BBM

Yeah, and about that -- I've been wondering, now that the "shine" is wearing off her no-longer-making-150K/mo-doctor-of-MJ-who-might-be-in-jail-for-a-while roomie, how long she will put up with him. And if she kicks him out, or gets tired of waiting for her jailhouse boyfriend, where will he go from there?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I didn't say Livelihood, I said lifestyle, meaning his life not death, but as a person, doctor, parent, life as he knew it. His life meaning everything in general.
I don't think for one minute this jury is ignorant and didn't get it. They know he isn't on trial with a punishment of death. jmoo
The defense has a job and that is to defend their client, just like the prosecution has a job to convict the person accused, they both are getting paid to do the best they can. I don't have personal hate toward an attorney just because he is a defense attorney and trying to do his job. I don't judge the defense or make jokes or statements about how they are asking questions. If they don't attack the evidence at every angle Dr. Murray could go scot free because he didn't get adequate representation.
Dr. Murray deserves a fair trail just like any person accused of any crime. Even though in your eyes he is 100 percent guilty the law required it to be proven. There is very troubling evidence that has been presented but the defense hasn't presented their side and I do get aggravated with people that think this is a slam dunk case because I don't think it is. I do see negligence but I will still keep an open mind and try to understand the evidence.
I also don't like that there is controversy on the propofol being in the bag or not because if it is the key evidence and the drug that killed MJ then why not a picture. That was a big mistake because there is every reason to believe they had the ability to take that picture. JMOO

I am sorry EP, I was in error (forgive me I am not feeling too well) and it was the 'lifestyle' that you posted that gave me the chuckle. His livelihood would pertain more to him losing his license to practice medicine.

IMO, there are ethical defense attorneys that respect the rulings of the court and there are those that break the rules as a officer of the court. That is why when they pull their shenanigans the objection is sustained as it was when Chernoff did his spiel of 'this man is on trial for his life.":innocent:

Some of the best lawyers I have ever seen were/are defense attorneys. Those who knew their cases and were respectful to both the court and to the witnesses but were extremely skilled cross examiners and walked away with acquittals. Imo, no one likes a bully. Not in a prosecutor nor a defense attorney and the DT in this case comes across as sullen bullies. Will that bode well for the defendant? We will have to wait and see. Since we know the Pinellas 12 exist who really knows these days.

Both the state and the defense deserves a fair trial. Judge Pastor is trying hard to see that happens for both sides.

My opinion of 100% guilty on a MB has nothing to do with a court of law so I am not sure why you are interjecting that. I don't believe you will find one post where I have ever said this case is a slam dunk nor have I ever said it didn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. My entitled opinion has nothing to do with the jury.

The bag with the slit in it at the scene was seen and taken as evidence and photographed. Yes she should have left the bottle inside the bag but unfortunately even death investigators who are human beings make an error in judgment. I really don't see it as that big of an issue though since that particular bottle had only CMs sole fingerprint on it. I think the jury will definitely think she erred in judgment but will not think she lied about it or was in some vast conspiracy with a man she never talked to and never met.

IMO, it will boil down to common sense imo. Why would the saline bag be slit in the first place if it wasnt meant to jerry rig the propofol bottle? When Dr. Shafer put the bottle in the bag I think it became clear how easy it was to setup the bottle this way. The bottle did have a hanger hook on it but it was never pulled up and engaged. The hanger apparatus was unused when taken in as evidence and both the defense and the state stipulated to that fact.

IMO

 

[katydid23]

My father was a great defense attorney. And he made it his mission to try and discredit the state's expert witnesses too. But he did not act snarky or contemptuous or rude towards them. He acted more like their friend, just asking them more and more about their expertise, then kindly 'catching them' in their errors or mistakes. " Oh, excuse me, but didn't you say that A was correct, because if I am not mistaken, you are now telling us that B is correct." He was able to allow them to discredit themselves, without being a jerk himself.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

katydid, come sit next to me because I too see a mirrored image of Dr. Klein when I see a pic of Prince. An amazing resemblance between the two. I too have heard the story of Klein supposingly being the bio father of the oldest child.

And yet, the other two children don't resemble Prince the oldest child nor each other. I'm not about to say anything more since knocking MJ in this thread can bring on wrath.

Regardless of whoever is the bio dad or mom, these are Michael's children according to the laws in California. But seeing photos of the children does bring about a lot of questions.
just my O

I don't think so but respect anyone who does not agree with me.

First, Dr. Klein has had very several serious health issues. In fact if I am not mistaken he is bound to a wheelchair now. Seems like he was sitting in one on LKLs show.

Imo, MJ would never want those serious medical issues passed on to his children.

Prince has been seen in public a lot more since the passing of his father and he seems to have the same skin disease as his father. Viliago is often inherited. I don't find it a mere coincidence that he also is showing white patches under one of his arms and on his hands and throat area.

But other than that. MJ was a very healthy man.

IMO

 

[katydid23]

I don't think so but respect anyone who does not agree with me.

First, Dr. Klein has had very several serious health issues. In fact if I am not mistaken he is bound to a wheelchair now. Seems like he was sitting in one on LKLs show.

Imo, MJ would never want those serious medical issues passed on to his children.

Prince has been seen in public a lot more since the passing of his father and he seems to have the same skin disease as his father. Viliago is often inherited. I don't find it a mere coincidence that he also is showing white patches under one of his arms and on his hands and throat area.

But other than that. MJ was a very healthy man.

IMO

But this was 14 or 15 years ago. I don't think Dr Klein seemed to be unhealthy at that time. And I do not think Prince looks ANYTHING like MJ. Not one bit. And I don't take away anything from his being the true father to all 3 of his children. But he is not the bio dad, imo.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Ocean..R U still here??..I just read thru this thread and could see the confusions going on as the testimony and Dr. Shafer's demeanor and Chernoff's questions... I sort of wonder why many are even thinkng about Klein and just what he has to do with MJ's actual death??..Talk about confusions..

Chernoff is upset and trying to shame Shafer for demeaning their expert Dr. White when he said "I was dissappointed"....Ya know..knowing what I know and what has been shown in testimony..I have to think (since the question was asked by Chernoff..NOT just thrown into it by Shafer)..Memories of "YOU cant STAND the Truth" comes to mind...:floorlaugh:

Demo by Shafer appears to be a very accurate rendition of just Murray was doing..thus Murray's physical reactions...IF it was not close to truth..why the heck did Murray lose all colour in his face?? and appear to want to get outa ther??

I would love if someone with the knowhow could setup a vote thread to see just where peeps are viewing this??..

White better come across credibile and clear in whatever he says..Sure hope Chernoff asked proper questions..or else :banghead:

 

[LyndyLoo]

Whoopsey..Just noted alot more have come onto thread..only Ocean was here when I started typings...Howdy ya all :seeya:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

My father was a great defense attorney. And he made it his mission to try and discredit the state's expert witnesses too. But he did not act snarky or contemptuous or rude towards them. He acted more like their friend, just asking them more and more about their expertise, then kindly 'catching them' in their errors or mistakes. " Oh, excuse me, but didn't you say that A was correct, because if I am not mistaken, you are now telling us that B is correct." He was able to allow them to discredit themselves, without being a jerk himself.

I am sure your father was a great defense lawyer. Some of my friends are defense lawyers who excel in their duties.

I really enjoy those who have honed their craft.

They don't have to be bullies or jerks.... they just have to know how to be great cross examiners. Being a juror 5 times myself, I know I listen intently to a defense attorney that comes across as if they were respectfully deligently doing their duties. I do not like a screaming accuser that gets nothing but repeated objections... sustained...sustained...sustained. It grates on ones nerves after awhile.

That is why I think the south has some of the best defense attorneys. They are affable with that southern charm but they are also sly as a fox. Imo if the attorney connects with the jury then will keep their minds open and will be more trusting of what the defense attorneys have to say.

I think it is just a human nature thing. Honey vs. vinegar etc.:crazy:

IMO.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I am sure your father was a great defense lawyer. Some of my friends are defense lawyers who excel in their duties.

I really enjoy those who have honed their craft.

They don't have to be bullies or jerks.... they just have to know how to be great cross examiners. Being a juror 5 times myself, I know I listen intently to a defense attorney that comes across as if they were respectfully deligently doing their duties. I do not like a screaming accuser that gets nothing but repeated objections... sustained...sustained...sustained. It grates on ones nerves after awhile.

That is why I think the south has some of the best defense attorneys. They are affable with that southern charm but they are also sly as a fox. Imo if the attorney connects with the jury then will keep their minds open and will be more trusting of what the defense attorneys have to say.

I think it is just a human nature thing. Honey vs. vinegar etc.:crazy:

IMO.

BBM

I have always loved this phrase and its true...Some think Shafer appears uncomfortable...What I see is a witness trying to listen to questions or scenerio closely and trying very very hard to follow the logic..and gets lost in the garbage within all the words...Who wouldnt look confused or taken aback?? I know i would :waitasec:

 

[katydid23]

I am hoping the attorneys are working with Shafer this weekend so he can be more confident in this last part of the cross examination. He needs to be able to stand up for himself without seeming too defensive or Chernoff will succeed in making it look like he is hiding something, imo.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Ocean..R U still here??..I just read thru this thread and could see the confusions going on as the testimony and Dr. Shafer's demeanor and Chernoff's questions... I sort of wonder why many are even thinkng about Klein and just what he has to do with MJ's actual death??..Talk about confusions..

Chernoff is upset and trying to shame Shafer for demeaning their expert Dr. White when he said "I was dissappointed"....Ya know..knowing what I know and what has been shown in testimony..I have to think (since the question was asked by Chernoff..NOT just thrown into it by Shafer)..Memories of "YOU cant STAND the Truth" comes to mind...:floorlaugh:

Demo by Shafer appears to be a very accurate rendition of just Murray was doing..thus Murray's physical reactions...IF it was not close to truth..why the heck did Murray lose all colour in his face?? and appear to want to get outa ther??

I would love if someone with the knowhow could setup a vote thread to see just where peeps are viewing this??..

White better come across credibile and clear in whatever he says..Sure hope Chernoff asked proper questions..or else :banghead:

Hey Lyndy!

Well I guess Dr. Shafer could have said what he probably was really thinking.:floorlaugh:

'ITS OUTRAGEOUS I TELL YA! JUST OUTRAGEOUS! HE KNOWS BETTER THAN THAT FOOLISHNESS!':floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I know and it didnt take him but a second or two to put that bottle in the saline bag to show just how it would work. Outstanding! Such a great visual!

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am hoping the attorneys are working with Shafer this weekend so he can be more confident in this last part of the cross examination. He needs to be able to stand up for himself without seeming too defensive or Chernoff will succeed in making it look like he is hiding something, imo.

Poor Dr. Shafer it is obvious that he is not a rent-a-hired-gun and has no clue attorneys can be so snarky and downright condescending.

Once ......IF:banghead: the cross examination ever ends I think Walgren will rehabilitate him rather quickly. I have noticed how well he is with his re-directs. He is really masterful imo.

But I hope he does talk with DS this weekend and tells him not to let Cher get under his skin.

IMO

 

[LyndyLoo]

I am hoping the attorneys are working with Shafer this weekend so he can be more confident in this last part of the cross examination. He needs to be able to stand up for himself without seeming too defensive or Chernoff will succeed in making it look like he is hiding something, imo.

Ohh katy..I dont believe Shafer is trying to hide anything..only trying to answer stupid questions..so the questioner understands..I happen to believe Shafer is so above intellectually ..Its difficult to deal with Attny who goes on and on about something he (Chernof) know nothing about what he is talking about...This all must be very trying for S. Shafer :innocent::twocents:

BTW..IF Shafer had any skeletons in his closet or something to hide..dont ya think Chernoff would have thrown it out there initially??..There's nuttin..IMO

 

[katydid23]

Ohh katy..I dont believe Shafer is trying to hide anything..only trying to answer stupid questions..so the questioner understands..I happen to believe Shafer is so above intellectually ..Its difficult to deal with Attny who goes on and on about something he (Chernof) know nothing about what he is talking about...This all must be very trying for S. Shafer :innocent::twocents:

BTW..IF Shafer had any skeletons in his closet or something to hide..dont ya think Chernoff would have thrown it out there initially??..There's nuttin..IMO

I personally don't think he is trying to hide anything either. But his demeanor is making him look pretty nervous because he is not used to being called out so rudely like this. And i hope the jury does not buy what Chernoff is selling.

Like that one line, when Chernoff is busting Shafers chops for doing that chilean 2 month Propofol study. Chernoff ends it by saying something like " wouldn't ANY first year medical student know that was prepostorous?"

And Dr Schafer answers '"YES." That got the defense some points, imo.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I personally don't think he is trying to hide anything either. But his demeanor is making him look pretty nervous because he is not used to being called out so rudely like this. And i hope the jury does not buy what Chernoff is selling.

Like that one line, when Chernoff is busting Shafers chops for doing that chilean 2 month Propofol study. Chernoff ends it by saying something like " wouldn't ANY first year medical student know that was preposterous?"

And Dr Schafer answers '"YES." That got the defense some points, imo.

But wouldn't that also reflect on White who thought drinking the propofol was a possibility?

imo

 

[Talina]

I think what is being lost here is the main reason Dr. Shafer said this study was done (the oral ingestion of propofol). It was said so quick on direct and then just moved on, that I hope Walgren clears it up on cross.

He said that the FDA was making noises about making propofol a controlled substance and that the medical profession did not want that to happen. It would make it a lot more difficult for doctors to easily get it when they need it to be available quickly. There's more hoops to jump through and procedures to follow it is a controlled substance. The study proved that oral consumption is not dangerous (i.e. instant death as the defense was saying for awhile and the media was running with that as a viable defense theory - it was getting the FDA all up in arms saying why isn't this a controlled substance) which would be the main method of a lay person using it on their own.

So, yes any first year medical student would have known about the liver taking 95% of the drug out first run (or whatever it is called) and so this study would normally be a waste of time and money; however, given the publicity of this trial, no previous studies done on humans, but only done on other mammals, we should probably go through this exercise and prove it is not dangerous to humans to get the FDA off their path of making it a controlled substance. A lot easier to argue with the FDA with that actual study in hand than it is to say "well what are the odds given the other studies of oral consumption done on animals?".

Therein lies the basis for him being disappointed in Dr. White even putting that possibility in his report. He should have known that is not a viable possibility given his expertise in the field and him being primarily a researcher. He knew full well of the other animal oral consumption studies. So now, with the esteemed Dr. White having that in his report to the defense, the media making hayday out of it, the FDA steps up and says oh wait...we should make that a controlled substance. Yes, Dr. Shafer had every reason to be disappointed in someone as well known in the field as Dr. White is to be making that sort of representation in his report. It had other far reaching consequences to their field of medicine than just this trial.

IMO

 

[katydid23]

But wouldn't that also reflect on White who thought drinking the propofol was a possibility?

imo

I would think so. I think it depends upon how White comes across next week. They have that new study they are going to bring out that shows that Pr0pofol was used SUCCESSFULLY for insomnia. That is going to hurt, imo.

And he may have some kind of data that backs up his statement. We do not know yet. But White is a pretty major authority. So he must have some reason to think he can pull this off, imo.