Conrad Murray trial -Day fifteen

[borndem]

Chernoff is good at misstating facts -- he has done this on every cross

And notice how he phrases the mixture of propofol (2.5cc) and lidocaine (25mgs) -- please excuse the use of the decimal point placement if it is incorrect -- my emphasis is that he repeatedly uses cc's and mgs instead of apples to apples, as it s/be stated, cc's and cc's or mg's and mg's. Shafer corrects him every time. Little pieces of straw. Not bricks. That's all they've got folks. Grains of sand -- and not many of them. Of course they're just getting started.

Settle back for the tedium folks... it's on its way...

 

[borndem]

Is defense then trying to point the finger at another doctor or at MJ for spiking the propofol bottle?

Defense is pointing out to witness that everything is just your opinion, you understand that, don't you. What kind of questions are these? Of course it's his opinion, his expert opinion.

BBM

Exactamundo, Thundar!!!


This man is beginning to pizz me off, but then I think, it could have been Flanagan....

 

[borndem]

What has Chernoff done to his hair?:waitasec:

I think he and Flanagan have missed their last appointments with Donald Trump's hairdresser!!!

 

[borndem]

I tend to agree and I look at Shafer's explanation and basically ruling out any other method to get the blood levels to what it was in the toxicology report as lending credence to Alvarez and Fleak testimony about the seeing the bottle in the bag.

Yep, Talina, you're right. Further, the bottle in the bag set-up was no more or less jack-leg that the rest of CM's "operating room," so what's the big deal here? CM was fairly creative with that one, as we've agreed previously, but this was pretty much his modus operandi and SOP.

 

[borndem]

Perhaps on redirect Walgren should ask Dr. Shafer if, in his opinion, did anything other than Dr. Murray's egregious deviations from standard of care put Dr. Murray "on trial for his life" as Mr. Chenoff so eloquently reminded of us all during his cross?

And in addition to that, Talina, Walgren might well ask who else was on trial for his life on that fateful night? And who lost? And not for only four years.... :maddening:

 

[borndem]

He is good at what he does, I can see why Murray hired him. If I was the defendant I would be glad he was on my side. But I am not the defendant, I am a bystander that is loosing patience with this questioning. I have come to really like this witness and it is making me upset that defense is trying to discredit him. I hope the jury has come to like this witness and is upset with defense too.

I think Shafer is still a jury favorite, IMO. He had kept good eye contact with them from the beginning, and I think they know that he is exceptional and very talented and intelligent. All of that might have been off-putting, but Shafer has patiently explained all that medical and math-y stuff to them as a teacher would to a student, and he has done it a lot, and his manner has been neither arrogant, know-it-all, or impatient. I think he has established a bond with them with his manner and his caring and his impartiality by not accepting payment -- all in the midst of a very sad personal loss. And the jury certainly should notice both Flanagan's and Chernoff's adversarial and aloof manners, and they are bound to not like it and to not be lured by these weird-haired dudes. JMO.

 

[scandi]

<snipped>

At one point, Chernoff became testy with Shafer, snapping, "You do understand the difference between opinion and fact, don't you? You do understand that everything you've said in the last two days is your opinion, don't you?"

Chernoff added, "Would you be at all surprised if other medical experts disagree with you?"

Shafer's testimony also contradicted the earlier account of Dr. Paul White -- the anesthesiologist expert who will testify for the defense and who is a 30-year colleague and friend of Shafer's.

White earlier in the year prepared a report that said Jackson could have died from ingesting propofol, a theory Shafer picked apart on the stand Thursday.

That led to a "heated" discussion between White and attorney Chernoff, according to CNN.

The day ended with Shafer telling defense that there was no measurement of the propofol in Jackson's brain included in his coroner's report -- which should spark a robust discussion when court resumes on Monday.

CNN reports the trial is expected to go to the jury for deliberations next week.

Murray faces up to four years in prison and loss of his medical license if convicted, though a new California law could mean his sentence would be reduced to two years and be served in a county jail.

http://www.thewrap.com/music/column...xamine-dr-steven-shafer-propofol-exp?page=0,1

Hi, Re: your Bolded script, what they didn't say is following this comment Shafer said something like: That doesn't matter, as knowing how much propofol was in another part of the body can give a calculation as to how much was in the brain.

A fascinating afternoon of testimony IMO

 

[katydid23]

I think Shafer is still a jury favorite, IMO. He had kept good eye contact with them from the beginning, and I think they know that he is exceptional and very talented and intelligent. All of that might have been off-putting, but Shafer has patiently explained all that medical and math-y stuff to them as a teacher would to a student, and he has done it a lot, and his manner has been neither arrogant, know-it-all, or impatient. I think he has established a bond with them with his manner and his caring and his impartiality by not accepting payment -- all in the midst of a very sad personal loss. And the jury certainly should notice both Flanagan's and Chernoff's adversarial and aloof manners, and they are bound to not like it and to not be lured by these weird-haired dudes. JMO.

I hope you are right. That is how I feel about it so far, but my faith in juries has been shaken somewhat.

I think the key will be how Dr White does on the stand. If he is able to win over the jury and if he comes off as intelligent and caring and credible, then the prosecution might be in some trouble, imo.

I agree that they have shown 15 major neglectful mistakes. but they still need to prove that MJ died as a direct result of those exact errors.

One of my sons friends said today, " Well if Dr Murray gave him that milk drug for 2 months and nothing bad ever happened, then how negligent can he be?"

 

[borndem]

True but I honestly don't see a big deal with it. He needed a starting point; the main point of his testimony is that multiple injections were given over a period of 4-5 hour or so.

I think he used midnight since it is the simplest way to express time, and to figure elapsed time, as in "five hours after his first dose," etc., and it's easy to realize, "Yeah, 5:00 in the morning."

I think for the scenario he built, Shafer was simply using his normal way of showing time lines -- a kind of "neutral" start-time. Empirical. Bless his smart, smart heart.

 

[borndem]

Walgren will clear all of this up on re-direct. He always does.

IMO

No doubt he will, ocean. He hasn't missed one in cross yet. I'm biased ( ), but I think Walgren is dayam good.

 

[borndem]

I said it first

:snowball: : :lol: : :thumb:

 

[Crosby87]

Hi, Re: your Bolded script, what they didn't say is following this comment Shafer said something like: That doesn't matter, as knowing how much propofol was in another part of the body can give a calculation as to how much was in the brain.

A fascinating afternoon of testimony IMO

It certainly was. I'm not satisfied with Dr. Shafer's answer.

Dr. Shafer said he omitted the red line from the assimilation on LOR which evaluates a patient's ability to respond to pain so he "wouldn't confuse the jurors" and I disagree with his decision.

 

[Talina]

It certainly was. I'm not satisfied with Dr. Shafer's answer.

Dr. Shafer said he omitted the red line from the assimilation on LOR which evaluates a patient's ability to respond to pain so he "wouldn't confuse the jurors" and I disagree with his decision.

Why? What relevance would that have had to anything? If he was trying to hide something about that line he'd have never even shown it to the prosecution and defense wouldn't have gotten it in discovery.

Looks to me like he did two charts. One with and one without. The one without left out something irrelevant to the issue at hand and that is the one the prosecutor chose to use - for the exact reason Dr. Shafer left out the responding to pain line. It has no relevance so why even show it.

The defense is showing it to give the impression there is some relevance and cast doubt as to why it was left out of the exhibit used by the prosecution. Smoke and mirrors.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The difference is there is negligence all the time with Dr's and nurses, in hospitals and clinics, they lose their license but aren't prosecuted criminally. This is a criminal case. You have to prove criminal negligence. Maybe the prosecution has already done this in the eyes of the jury. We will also have to hear what the instructions are from the judge when the jury deliberates. I have a relative that is a very great attorney and helps me alot. If this case wasn't Michael Jackson we wouldn't be in the court room.

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

 

[Talina]

Regarding the last question Dr. Shafer answered yesterday at the end of the day about the AR with no testing having been done on propofol in the brain.

I don't think at this point any of us should jump to any conclusions as to what that answer means or doesn't mean. Court for the day ended smack dab in he middle of a topic that was not completed with questions and answers. We have no idea where Chernoff was going with that or how Dr. Shafer would respond.

It could very well be something as simple as this sort of test is not ever done so there was no reason to even expect that it would the in the autopsy. Dr. Shafer certainly didn't need it since he'd previously done research to determine brain level based on their EEG readings of the test subjects under the influence of propofol. No reason he'd have needed that from the autopsy. Conversely, the coroner didn't need it based on the actual blood levels he saw in the toxicology reports being as high as they were.

I see a red herring here and more of Chernoff's just trying to throw whatever he can to the wall hoping to make it stick.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

<snipped>

At one point, Chernoff became testy with Shafer, snapping, "You do understand the difference between opinion and fact, don't you? You do understand that everything you've said in the last two days is your opinion, don't you?"

Chernoff added, "Would you be at all surprised if other medical experts disagree with you?"

Shafer's testimony also contradicted the earlier account of Dr. Paul White -- the anesthesiologist expert who will testify for the defense and who is a 30-year colleague and friend of Shafer's.

White earlier in the year prepared a report that said Jackson could have died from ingesting propofol, a theory Shafer picked apart on the stand Thursday.

That led to a "heated" discussion between White and attorney Chernoff, according to CNN.

The day ended with Shafer telling defense that there was no measurement of the propofol in Jackson's brain included in his coroner's report -- which should spark a robust discussion when court resumes on Monday.

CNN reports the trial is expected to go to the jury for deliberations next week.

Murray faces up to four years in prison and loss of his medical license if convicted, though a new California law could mean his sentence would be reduced to two years and be served in a county jail.

http://www.thewrap.com/music/column...xamine-dr-steven-shafer-propofol-exp?page=0,1

Right, if one has read the AR they would know propofol was not tested for in the brain by the coroner.

That is why Dr. Shafer looked it up to be sure.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Regarding the last question Dr. Shafer answered yesterday at the end of the day about the AR with no testing having been done on propofol in the brain.

I don't think at this point any of us should jump to any conclusions as to what that answer means or doesn't mean. Court for the day ended smack dab in he middle of a topic that was not completed with questions and answers. We have no idea where Chernoff was going with that or how Dr. Shafer would respond.

It could very well be something as simple as this sort of test is not ever done so there was no reason to even expect that it would the in the autopsy. Dr. Shafer certainly didn't need it since he'd previously done research to determine brain level based on their EEG readings of the test subjects under the influence of propofol. No reason he'd have needed that from the autopsy. Conversely, the coroner didn't need it based on the actual blood levels he saw in the toxicology reports being as high as they were.

I see a red herring here and more of Chernoff's just trying to throw whatever he can to the wall hoping to make it stick.

IMO

Oh he is going to try to bash the coroner for not testing the brain for propofol. Even Dr. Shafer said it was not needed and one of his models can show the amount in the brain based on the amount found elsewhere.

You are right another smoke and mirrors red herring.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That's what I think he meant, like not his life literally but his lifestyle and that sort of life, job, reputation, etc.

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

 

[EPfan]

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

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

 

[azwriter]

Every time I see a picture of Dr Klein I see a major resemblence between Prince and the doctor. And it reminds me of an article in the Enquirer, in which the children's bio mother, a nurse in Dr Klein's office, stated that they used sperm from Dr Klein when she was given IVF to get pregnant.

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