Skip to content

Conrad Murray trial week 6. ANYTHING FOR MONEY

October 31, 2011

Week 6 will become the week of learning the truth about the way Michael Jackson died. The truth will be told by Dr. Shafer. If it hadn’t been for this thorough researcher and modest,  honorable man we would have never learned the truth. Because Dr. White, the direct antipode of Dr. Shafer, would have easily fooled us.  This part will start with the testimony of this liar.

Day 21. Monday, October 31

It is totally amazing how some people are ready to ruin their reputation for money.

We are now listening to Dr. Paul White and I hope the jury is getting the difference between the true and selfless scientist like Dr. Shafer and Dr. White who is ready to do whatever they ask of him for money.

Dr. White has had a tremendous difficulty to say what total sum he is expecting from his involvement in this case. He says he usually charges $3500 per day. However  for today only he has received $11,200 and considering that he has already spent 12 days sitting in the courtroom the total should come to quite a sum ($132,000 to be precise)  plus reimbursement of all his expenses.

To be fair to Dr. White he said he wouldn’t expect to be paid $11,000 or even $3500 for every day.

All this talk about money made me once again recall that Conrad Murray is able to afford to pay this much money to one of his experts but could not afford to buy a pulse oxymeter for some  $750- $1200, and monitored Michael with a device which costs $275.  He economized on the necessary piece of monitoring equipment which could have saved Michael Jackson’s life.

Dr. White had a very had time trying to avoid an answer about the need for such equipment. At a third or fourth attempt from David Walgren he finally agreed that using a pulse oxymeter without an alarm when the doctor is out of the room is a pointless thing to do.

His answers about a call to 911 were incredible for a doctor – he went as far as saying that calling 911 in that setting was difficult as there was a gate with security outside and the telephone was not working! Another  five or six attempts from Walgren and he finally agrees that making a 911 call from a cell phone is a quicker thing to do than sending a voice mail to Michael Jackson’s assistant  Michael Amir Williams.

In his two-page thunderous review of the case he solemnly proclaimed, “It is my opinion that Michael Jackson self-administered propofol either intravenously or orally”. However now he says he based his opinion on no scientific research or data whatsoever and admits that that the only thing he did was looking up “oral propofol” in the Internet!  He didn’t find any information there but nevertheless stated it as “his opinion”!

Now he calls his paper “his preliminary thoughts” and says he just wanted to list all “possibilities”. When Walgren asked him if he ever looked into the possibility of Michael Jackson not administering any drug himself, Dr. White started on his usual routine of running away from an answer. But Walgren reworded it again and again each time making it even worse for Dr. White:

  • So you considered only two options – you blame Michael Jackson for the possibility of oral ingestion or you blame Michael Jackson for the possibility of intravenous self-injection?
  • Did you have any theory other than Michael Jackson did it himself?
  • Have you come up with any theories other than attributing Michael Jackson’s death to self-injecting himself?

Dr. White finally had to admit, “No, I don’t believe so”.

Well, at the moment (I keep my fingers crossed) the artillery fire from Walgren is deafening. I wonder how much of any remaining reputation Dr. White will be able to scrape off the ground after being so totally demolished.

However he LIED and LIED FOR MONEY and fully deserves this.

*  *  *  *  *

Here is a more detailed account of Dr. White’s testimony.

Dr. Paul White retired in September last year (2010) from his academic and clinical position at the University of Texas. Good for him that after all this shame he will not have to face students any more.

In the opening part of cross-examination Dr. White agreed that Murray had violated the standard of care and that administering propofol in a bedroom setting without proper equipment was dangerous.

However having said that he immediately started twisting his own answer, so that Walgren had to extract definitive replies from him piece by piece (in a courtroom it is preferable to give a definitive yes or no answer to make it totally clear to the jury).

Walgren: “Do you agree that Dr. Murray deviated from the standard of care on multiple instances?”

(White asked for “a more specific question” regarding the word multiple)

Walgren: Do you agree that there are instances when Dr.Murray deviated from the standard of care in his treatment of Michael Jackson on June 25, 2009?”

White: “Yes, I would”.

Walgren: “Would you agree that Dr. Murray deviated from the standard of care in the preceding two months as related in Dr. Murray’s statement to the police?”

White: “Yes, I would”.

Dr. White wanted to be a spokesman for Dr. Murray whose every word he says he believes (despite his several slips of the tongue about Michael Jackson’s death being the “crime scene”).

Trying to speak for Conrad Murray he referred to two extensive conversations with him. But since this would be equivalent to telling Murray’s story unchallenged by a cross-examination, the judge sustained Walgren’s objections to any references to those conversations.

(If Conrad Murray wants to tell us his lies, let him go on the witness stand and subject himself to questions from the prosecution).

However Dr. White kept referring to those conversations and at some point Dr. White’s disregard for the court reached such a note that the judge had to ask the jury to leave them for a moment (while he restrained Dr. White).

This was probably the only way to make Dr. White agree not to introduce any of Murray’s lies into the courtroom. David Walgren reminded him that only Murray’s statement to the police was regarded as evidence for this trial.

Dr. White’s cross-examination was long, so I will break it up into several parts.

ADMINISTERING PROPOFOL IN A HOME SETTING

On the basis of Murray’s own words Dr. White said that for about two months Murray had been giving to Michael Jackson a bolus of Propofol followed by a drip. His “understanding” was that it was nearly every night and that the initial bolus was 25-50ml mixed with 50ml of lidocaine. Each night the bolus was followed by an infusion (drip).

Based on Murray’s statement to the police Dr. White could not say how Murray would administer Propofol by infusion – he said he didn’t know the exact details. And since he didn’t know them, he agreed with Walgren that the two infusions lines demonstrated by Dr. Shafer the previous week were quite possible.

Walgren: “It could be as two separate IV lines as described by Dr. Shafer?”

White: “That’s possible, yes”.

Walgren: “Would you agree that in these prior two months administering bolus doses of Propofol followed by a drip of Propofol throughout the night in that type of bedroom setting would be extremely dangerous?”

White: “Without careful bedside monitoring it could be dangerous, yes”.

Walgren: “With complications that could result in death, correct?”

White: “…If the infusion was not carefully controlled, … you could achieve an effect that could result in a cardio-respiratory depression, yes”.

Dr. White said that he had administered propofol in different types of setting (but not at home) and claimed that different settings required different type of monitors. Some Dr. White said were “desirable” to have, while others outside hospital setting “might not be available”.

(Of course not everything is available in a field tent, only Murray was not working in a refugee camp!)

The Prosecutor asked him about monitoring equipment for the worst-case scenario. Dr. White pretended he didn’t know what it was, though even we know that this scenario means a stop in breathing and death that follows it:

Walgren: “It is a desirable thing to have if you are concerned about not having the patient die, correct? … As a doctor administering this type of agents you prepare for the worst-case scenario, don’t you?

White: “I don’t know what you mean by the worst-case scenario, but you certainly prepare to treat the complications that are likely. You cannot have every device in an office setting where propofol is administered” .

Since White was flagrantly disputing the very basic anesthesia rules regarding equipment Walgren had to go over the list of monitors required for such cases. Driven into the corner by specific questions Dr. White agreed that a Pulse Oxymeter was a must and for all kind of sedatives too (not only propofol).  The EKG machine “is also pretty standard” and “available pretty much”, he said. Dr. White found Capnography (a device for analyzing exhaled air) useful too.  The blood pressure cuff,  not necessarily automatic, was also needed – in deep sedation the blood pressure is to be measured every 5 minutes, in minimal sedation it is measured every 15 minutes.

In his list David Walgren forgot to mention the Infusion Pump – a device which allows to administer a precise dose of propofol. For propofol it is a complete must. If a single additional drop of propofol is given the patient can easily drift from moderate sedation (when breathing is natural) to general anesthesia (when breathing stops).

And when it comes to propofol a stop in breathing is the only problem – though a totally expected one – that may arise.

The device for measuring blood pressure was not in use

Needless to say,  Murray was lacking all of the above. The only thing he had was the cheapest type of pulse oxymeter which is not suitable for continuous monitoring. Since it doesn’t have an alarm which sets off when the level of oxygen drops, it requires the doctor to sit and watch it without taking his eyes off. This type of a pulse oxymeter is used only for occasional check-ups or by 911 for example.

The other equipment which was available to Murray was the device for measuring blood pressure – but it was not even open and was still wrapped in various boxes and bags.

This device wasn’t fit for the situation anyway as measuring blood pressure manually takes at least a minute – which in critical situations of a stop in breathing is too long. In a hospital setting the cuff is placed on an arm and measuring is done automatically.

After publicly doubting that not all of this totally indispensable equipment was necessary for infusing propofol Dr. White involved himself in an long and tiresome debate with Walgren whether the lack of the equipment and Murray’s failure to keep medical records were or weren’t an egregious and unconscionable violation of care.

This was the way Dr. Shafer called it, but Dr. White said he was “not familiar” with those terms and “could not quantify” the measure of violation – these could be moderate violations or even minor. In his opinion the records are necessary for only treating a patient by several doctors and for the purposes of billing.

As for the other use of medical records – which in Murray’s case were not made for 2 months of infusing Propofol  and which is a totally unheard-of thing for anesthesiologists –  he somewhat shrugged his shoulders.

Walgren: Do you think it is extreme violation of standard of care to fail to maintain any medical records for a period of treatment going at least two months?”

White agreed that it was a deviation but again didn’t know how to quantify the degree of severity in this case. His definition would be that it is between moderate and serious (as if quantifying it this way would change anything!).

Walgren: “Do you maintain medical records in your practice?”

White: “When I am in a hospital setting, absolutely” (implying that when he is not in the hospital setting he is not?!)

In short Dr. White gave all sorts of pretexts for Murray’s hugely substandard treatment to Michael Jackson and even implied that when administering drugs to patients at home doctors can be… you know… lax in their work (they can go without medical records and the necessary equipment, confining themselves to “what was available to them”, as if what Murray purchased didn’t depend on Murray himself!).

The totally impossible and inexplicable Dr. White’s leniency towards Murray was later in the day dealt by David Walgren by quoting Dr. White’s own papers and making his own words testify against him.

This blow to Dr. White came as a series of articles and chapters in textbooks where Dr. White was teaching others that under no circumstances the standard of care could be violated. The same care is to be provided independent on whether it is mild sedation or general anesthesia and no matter where the drug is being administered.

By “drug” Dr. White means not only Propofol but benzodiazepines too (like Lorazepman and Midazolam given to Michael that night) as even Midazolam could produce long sedation if given in sufficient doses and would require monitoring.

When Dr. White realized what Walgren was driving at he tried his usual tactic of avoiding direct replies. You can see his skill in evasion techniques by numerous questions Walgren had to ask to extract a definitive answer from him:

    • Walgren: “Are you saying that if propofol is provided in the absence of a procedure then it needs less care?” (…..)
  • Walgren: “You are not stating that lesser care is acceptable just because a procedure is not taking place?” (Dr. White asks for the quotation not to be taken out of context).
  • Walgren: “Are you saying that lesser care is required if propofol is given absent the procedure?” (Dr. White refers to the context again).

Dr. White is checking up his quotations

Dr. White even checked on several occasions whether his own articles were quoted correctly. They were.

He hoped that the context from which the quotations were taken would change their damaging effect on the jury. No, the context didn’t change it – on the contrary, the more quotations were read the worse it was getting for Dr. White.

Walgren mentioned “off-label” usage of Propofol. “Off-label” is using propofol for maintaining sleep – it is possible in an experimental study, but is far from being accepted as a standard, so it is not the “on-label” usage. As usual Dr. White mostly avoided direct answers:

Walgren: “You are not saying that if Propol were used in an off-label manner that the level of care is lesser, are you?”

White: “I am not commenting on that at all”.

Walgren: “Would you agree that using Propofol whether off-label or for therapeutic reason would still require the same level of care?”

White: “Absolutely”

Walgren: “Are the standards for basic monitoring during MAC (monitored anesthesia care) the same as for general anesthesia?”

White: “Yes”.

Walgren: “One of your articles said that MAC requirements would apply even if no anesthesia was applied at all?”

White:  The article referred to an anesthesia care-giver monitoring the patient.

(This means that even before or after applying anesthesia the care-giver should still monitor the patient. By the way the care-giver cannot find it satisfactory that the patient is still sleeping after being administered anesthesia. This is something Dr. White will dispute later, though the matter is totally indisputable – each patient should by all means return to a conscious state after anesthesia).

Smashed by his own words

Walgren focused on the need for constant monitoring and quoted Dr. White:

  • “Vigilant monitoring is required because patients may rapidly progress from a “light” level of sedation to “deep” sedation (or unconsciousness) and thus may be at risk for airway obstruction, oxygen desaturation, and even aspiration”

(Aspiration is when the stomach content gets into the airway which may be fatal for the lungs).

White was smashed by his own words.

Walgren asked him about the rules of administering anesthesia in office organizations. White said he “was not familiar” with those guidelines because he didn’t practice in the office-based setting.

Walgren again quoted Dr. White’s article:

Walgren: “You wrote about them in your article, right?”

White: “It is possible, yes”.

Naturally those guidelines said that an appropriate personnel and equipment were needed, complete documentation was to be provided and even that “safety standards could not be jeopardized for patient convenience or cost saving”.

Dr. White tried to take the conversation elsewhere but Walgren made him stick to the point and asked him to read all ten guidelines from his own article one after another.

Listening to Dr. White reading out loud his own recommendations after he had just interpreted them so loosely was unforgettable experience.

Walgren: “Would you agree that these requirements would apply equally if Propofol was administered in a private bedroom?”

White: “….Ah… I would not administer it in a bedroom as I said earlier. When you administer propofol for a surgical or diagnostic procedure it may be a different scenario than administering propofol for an off-label use.”

Walgren: “Is it your testimony that if you are administering propofol for an off-label use you should use less safety precautions than when you are using it for appropriate use?”

White: “I didn’t say that”.

I’m embarrassed to listen to the way Dr. White is disputing things which are obvious even to non-specialists.

David Walgren used Dr. White’s own publications against him

Walgren asked for “yes” or “no” answers but since Dr. White was still playing a hide and seek game, Walgren asked him to go over each of the points one by one again.

However this time they got stuck on the very first point concerning trained personnel. For some reason the need for a specially trained physician to administer anesthesia which is obvious to us laymen, is not obvious to Dr. White.

Walgren asked Dr. White if he thought that administering propofol in an office setting required a higher standard of care than when you are doing it in a bedroom in someone’s private residence.

White said he had a problem with the words “higher or lower” .

Walgren: “Are you disputing the need for a properly trained and credentialed anesthesia personnel if you are administering Propofol in a bedroom?”

White: “I am not disputing it. I am just saying that this section of my chapter refers to an office-based anesthesia”.

Walgren: “And I am referring to a  bedroom in a private residence because this is what this case involves. So I am asking you if you think that the same standard of care should apply in a bedroom in a private residence? Or in a bedroom it is not necessary?”

White:” That’s not what I said”.

Walgren: “So how would you revise No.1 to apply to a bedroom standard of care?”

White: “Well, the analogy would be a home or hospice standard of care. Hopefully there physicians there who are trained in safe administration of the drug in conscious sedation.”

Walgren: “Would you at least agree that administering propofol in a home should entail minimum safety requirements involved in administering propofol in an office-based setting?”

White: “Yes, I would”.

Walgren: “Okay. Thank you”.

The noon break saved Dr. White from further embarrassment and us from his all too obvious desire to stretch the truth.

After the break Walgren cited three more articles.  Dr. White debated with him as usual and said that now Propofol had a wider use and that many anesthesiologists, surgeons, etc. were using propofol in intensive care units for sleep.

Let me exclaim once again here – why do some people find Michael to blame for what is commonly provided to intensive care unit patients? Michael was a sleep invalid and also needed help! The only difference is that it shouldn’t have been done in a home setting or was to be done by a proper person and with all the requirements fully adhered to!

Since the core of the matter is not even propofol itself, but the same standard of care independent of the place where it is administered, Walgren returned to the matter again.

He showed Dr. White guidelines worked out by the American Society of Anesthesiologists for non-anesthesiologists and asked him if he thought it was “a good idea to observe all those regulations in a home setting”?

White: “If I were using an infusion of Propofol, absolutely. These are excellent recommendations for infusing Propofol in any environment. These are the highest possible standards. In practice … it won’t be a bad idea to have those in a home setting. You wouldn’t want to compromise the patient’s care.”

Walgren: “So it would be a good idea to have all the recommendations in place if you are administering even bolus doses in a home setting?”

White: “In an ideal situation, absolutely. Right”.

Let me ask another question here. What prevented Dr. Murray from creating an ideal setting for “off-label” administering propofol in Michael’s situation? Was he in a desert attending to a poor peasant or what? He was hired for an extremely high salary to help his patient to sleep with an understanding that he would provide the best possible care.  And all he gave in return was the worst ever care possible.

One would think that with all those makeshift IV stands and total lack of equipment Conrad Murray was working in a refugee camp and not in the home of the best entertainer in the world and was not paid $150,000 a month for his invaluable work….

BASIC STANDARDS OF CARE and CALLING 911

Murray “provided a service” to Michael Jackson and “did no harm to him”

David Walgren asked Dr. White how he understood a doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. White said it involved having a responsibility for a patient, having an understanding for him and his diseases, showing compassion for the patient and doing his best to take care of their health care needs.  He agrees that the doctor gives a solemn obligation to do no harm to a patient.

As regards Murray-Michael Jackson’s relationship Dr. White said a very strange thing – he said that THERE WAS NO HARM. Yes, you got it right – Michael Jackson died in the hands of Dr. Murray and still there was no harm!

He said he was just “providing him a service” which Michael requested.

It seems that Dr. White doesn’t know that doctors don’t provide services. Doctors have a duty to provide medical care and have to adhere to a strict code of medical ethics in doing so!

White: “Dr. Murray provided a service to Michael Jackson which he has requested”.

Walgren: “Provided a service?”

White: “I said he provided… medical care… let’s choose a better word than a service. It is a more appropriate choice of word”

Walgren: “He was offered money to provide Propofol on a nightly basis, correct? Based on Conrad Murray’s own interview with the police”.

White: “It is my understanding that he wasn’t paid any money”

Walgren: I didn’t ask you that, did I?

By the way why did AEG Live indeed fail to pay Murray and delay making a contract with him for about two months? I remember Murray filing a suit against AEG for that. Isn’t it interesting that he didn’t even try to approach the Estate with the same claim? So Murray does know who he was working for?

Walgren asked Dr. White,  “Who is the final decision-maker when it comes to making medical judgments – the patient or the doctor”? Dr. White said it was a shared responsibility. Walgren asked who the final decision maker was in case of a conflict – when the doctor is requested to do something which is harmful for a patient. White answered that the physician always has the option to walk away from the patient. He himself would never administer what he considers inappropriate medical care to the patient.

Walgren asked why there is a need for continuous observation of patients when they are sedated by propofol.  White said the major reason is because it is very easy to go from one level of sedation to another one (to deeper sedation or lighter one which is no good either as the patient might wake up).

Walgren asked him, if 25ml of propofol were given, would it be okay to walk out of the room and leave the person alone without any monitoring equipment? Dr. White lied that it would, if after 20-30 minutes of observation the situation was stable.

Walgren asked Dr. White about the patient continuing to sleep after that, but didn’t stress the point that before going anywhere at all the physician was to first make sure that his patient woke up.

This point did not receive the attention it should have – however this rule is top important for anesthesiologists.

Propofol is effective only while it is still in the system and it wears off very quickly (after a 25ml dose a patient will be expected to wake up in some 4-7 minutes) so if the patient is not waking up it is a sign of a grave distress and a very big trouble. This factor was stressed by several doctors who gave their testimonies before Dr. White.

However for Murray’s case Dr. White is ready to break even the most basic rules. He says:

White:  “This was an unusual case. The doctor was trying to achieve a sleep state. Once the patient was resting apparently comfortably and had been observed by a period of time it is not unreasonable to leave the patient”.

But this is basically wrong… If a patient does not wake up after an anesthetic no matter how the doctor feels about it it is his duty to make sure that the patient has “returned back” from it. For example, if you are given propofol while having your tooth pulled out, the dentist is obliged to make sure that you do not keep sleeping after that. If you do, he knows that something went wrong and you are in trouble.

Walgren did not argue with a doctor who is breaking the very basic law of anesthesia and focused on the necessary monitoring equipment instead. He wondered what would be the value of a pulse oxymeter if it had no alarm. It would mean absolutely nothing, would Dr. White agree?

But Dr. White was not inclined to agree even to the most obvious things. It took him several more questions from Walgren to finally admit that without an alarm that device was totally useless.

Walgren: “What value does it serve in your absence?”

White: ” In your absence it probably has little… if any value”

Walgren: “None?”

White: “Well… that’s true”.

Walgren reminded Dr. White of Murray lying to the police that “the patient liked pushing the propofol himself”. If a patient was really like that wasn’t it dangerous to leave him alone with propofol beside him?

Walgren: “Will that change your willingness to simply walk out of the room and leave the patient alone with no monitoring?”

White: “It would certainly … make me careful about …eh…allowing access to drugs”

Walgren: “Would you walk out of the room in that situation? Yes or No”.

White: “I would.. no.. I would not leave the room”.

Walgren: “Thank you”

Walgren asked Dr. White if he could justify Conrad Murray’s failure to call 911 and waiting for 20 minutes to call it.

Dr. White said, “No, I cannot”.

Dr. White is amazed to hear from the Prosecutor that high skills of Conrad Murray are “not evidence”

However even a simple answer like that did not go without a long debate. I’ve put it down almost in full so that no precious grain of it is lost:

Walgren: “That’s an extreme deviation of care from the standard, would you agree?

White: “Again this classification is not familiar with me. I would say that given the fact that Dr.Murray is a cardiologist who is certified in advanced cardio-pulmonary life support…”

Walgren: “Objection… not evidence” (It is clear that to Walgren these words are no evidence that Murray is a certified cardiologist, or doctor at all. Overruled)

Walgren: “Did he act like someone who was well-skilled in advanced cardiac life support? Did he act like that?

White: “I was not present to make that assessment, sir”.

Walgren: “You’ve taken all his statements as true in your assessments, correct?”

White: “N….no”

Walgren: “What would you have done?”

White: “I would have called for help. Though I understand it was an isolated area”

Walgren: “Isolated area?

White: “Yes, I understand it was a special suite…”

Walgren: “It was a bedroom in a house. Upstairs. ….Okay, so what would you have done?”

White: “I would have called for help, assessed the patient and initiated cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, immediately”

Walgren: “…Would you call 911?”

White: “Yes, I would call 911, but my understanding that this was an unusual situation, because this was a house that had a secure perimeter and had no phone lines”

Walgren: “But Conrad Murray had a cell phone in his hand by his own statement and used it to call Michael Amir Williams. Are you saying he was not capable of pushing 9 -1 -1 ? And putting your phone down and continuing with your cardio-pulmonary resuscitation?”

The gate did not allow Murray to call 911? They are almost laughing

Dr. White said something about not knowing the address and a gate blocking access to the house. Walgren nearly laughed:

Walgren: “Are you saying that because there was a gate around the house that excuses Conrad Murray not calling 911? Is that your testimony? Because you’ve mentioned this gate a couple of times now”.

White: “No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t at all”

Walgren: “Okay. So we can set aside the gate. It has no bearing on Conrad Murray’s need to call 911 as soon as possible, correct?”

White: “I think it is the reason to call the security individual, Michael Amir to inform him that he needed emergency medical assistance”.

(Michael Amir Williams was Michael Jackson’s personal assistant and when Murray left an voice mail for him he was downtown).

Walgren: “You realize that when he called Michael Amir Williams he didn’t tell Michael Amir to summon medical emergency assistance, you do realize that, don’t you?”

White: “If that’s what you say, yes”.

Walgren: “Would you agree that it is much quicker to call 911 than to call someone’s personal cell phone number, have it ring through the voice mail and then leave a message on that voice mail?”

White: ” Well, you can call people on speed dial and even faster than 911. Certainly 911 is easier to dial, you are absolutely right”

It is totally unbelievable that answering a simple question about calling 911 is taking so long!

Walgren: “….How long would it take you to decide in that setting that you needed to call 911?”

White: “Are you saying if I felt a pulse?”

Walgren: “Well, Conrad Murray said he felt a pulse”.

White: “He said he felt a thready pulse”.

Walgren: “He checked the pulse oxymeter and it read 122 and then he felt the femoral pulse and he felt a thready pulse. Correct. How long would it take you to decide that you should call 911?”

White: “…I would immediately start resuscitating the patient and call 911 shortly thereafter.”

Walgren: “What shortly thereafter?”

White: “You know… 3 to 5 minutes I would guess”.

While putting down that crazy half-an-hour conversation I realized one important point. Dr. White is having a difficulty with this elementary question for a reason. Later in his testimony he will present some highly distorted charts based on the false concept that Michael Jackson died instantly, due to a cardiac arrest (and not breathing arrest as Dr. Shafer proved to us). And if the death was immediate and registered by a doctor there was no need to call 911.

Dr. White needs Michael Jackson to have died immediately and from a heart attack, because only in this case he will be able to claim that the 25ml of propofol (supposedly left by Murray for Michael Jackson in a syringe nearby!) were allegedly pushed in too quickly by Michael Jackson himself.

Only in this case this small doze of propofol would probably reach a high level in blood just for a second which would be enough to bring about Michael’s death.

Dr. White’s scenario is that the bolus of 25ml of Propofol pushed quickly reaches a high level in blood – Michael Jackson dies of a heart attack – his heart stops beating immediately – propofol metabolism stops – so it remains in the blood at the level which it initially reached.

This is the only way they can explain why Michael had a huge dose of propofol in his blood and this is the only reason why Dr. White claims Michael had a heart attack. And even Murray’s own story that he felt a thready pulse when he returned to Michael Jackson and that the pulse oxymeter was registering 122 beats is not standing in the way of Dr. White’s fantasies.  Dr. White will simply disregard all that.

And you were wondering why 911 was not an easy question for Dr. White…

*  *  *  *  *

Day 24.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Despite the stream channel not working for me on the day when Prosecution and Defense made their closing statements some fragments did show David Walgren calling Dr. White science junk and garbage.

Frankly it is the first time I hear the truth being told in such a bold and straight manner . We are not used to it and the feeling of it is unforgettable. Scientists are polite people and the most they usually say is that “the opponent’s ideas are not substantiated enough” –  but Walgren’s profession is different and I am happy to hear him call a spade a spade.

Junk science can be presented in a pompous way

Dr. White’s whole testimony was nothing but junk science. Outwardly it looked more or less okay as all his junk was wrapped in a scientific vocabulary – but the essence of it was complete garbage.

A true scientist will never voice an opinion on any subject if he hasn’t done at least some research of it – while Dr. Paul White has absolutely no problem in saying things which he does not have the slightest idea of.

He did a perfunctory word-search for “oral propofol” in the Internet which brought him no result, but it didn’t stop him from sending to the defense a written report that Michael Jackson was responsible for his own death by taking propofol orally.

The media immediately picked up this novel idea from this self-proclaimed father of propofol and chewed it up until the defence team publicly withdrew it at the trial.

By the way, Dr. E. Glenn [the spelling requires correction], the real father of propofol, who developed it from the first molecule to its clinical use, later informed his colleague that even his studies made in the 80s showed that oral propofol was not effective. But it didn’t teach Dr. White any lesson and he went on popularizing the same junk ideas.

He has already publicly doubted the standards of care which are a complete must for all anesthesiologists the worldwide and taught us that it is not necessary to call 911 if you see a person in trouble.

Now he is presenting some charts which were made by another person, of whose studies (and standards) he knows nothing and whom he met only last week. Okay, this Gabriela Ornales may know something on pharmacokinetics as she is working now for a Master’s degree in this science,  but Dr. White also relied on her to collect all the data for making her charts and never even checked whether she was using the correct figures and reliable sources.

In fact some of her figures were incorrect and the data she based her model on were taken from an outdated article, which even said that the data required further correction – but when she provided Dr. White with this article he didn’t even properly read it because in court he could not answer a single question about it and didn’t even know that the data was not final!

To all Walgren’s questions about the charts he said he could not be responsible for them as he wasn’t the one who had made them. But if you can’t prove what you are testifying about why come to the courtroom at all?  The euphemisms he used to shift the responsibility for any inaccuracy to Gabriela Ornales will hopefully not be lost on the jury:

  • “I prefer to give credit to the person who actually did the model”.
  • “I believe in the expertise of those who prepared this chart”.
  • “I didn’t make those graphs”. “I became aware of them the night before my testimony”, etc.

Some professors practice this method of research – their students, working for various degrees, do all the job for them and are only happy when their professor puts his name to the resulting paper giving more ‘weight’ to their findings, while the professor’s list of writings is growing by a dozen without any effort on his part. However when such a professor puts his name to their paper he at least gives himself the trouble to check up the results – to save himself  from the embarrassment if the results turn out to be untrue.

But over here it was not needed so he didn’t even read or check it up.

When Flanagan of the Defense ordered a study of the effect of oral propofol on beagles with a veterinarian he knew, Dr. White didn’t even ask what, where and how the negative result was obtained.

If those beagles were given liters of propofol he could not care less. He just took the ready answer provided by Flanagan and presented it as his opinion in court. And this despite the fact that he had a full opportunity to oversee the experiment and learn all the details as he was staying in Flanagan’s house.

David Walgren said that this doctor displayed total lack of responsibility and integrity, “academic rigor and seeking for the truth”. Most probably Dr. White expected the prosecutor to let him get away with all his sloppiness or otherwise I cannot explain why he risked his reputation so much.

Why he thought his lies would go unnoticed is probably due to the habit of thinking – formed by many years of Michael’s media harassment – that when it comes to Michael Jackson one will get away with just anything. Dr. White simply didn’t notice that the wind had changed and it is no longer possible to bash and slander Michael Jackson without eventually having to answer for it.

And after Tom Sneddon’s example in the 2005 case Dr. White also never expected a prosecutor to seek truth for Michael Jackson.

However prosecutor David Walgren and his chief scientific consultant Dr. Shafer, who is the embodiment of integrity and professionalism in science, are the first signs of this big change. New people have come to stand by Michael Jackson and this is a big difference from what we had only several years ago.

There is no doubt that if Michael had died earlier and a similar trial had taken place in Tom Sneddon’s time Dr. White’s speculations would have never been disputed because the prosecutor would have been too ready to believe the junk science of Dr. White. Dr. White would have been applauded to and praised and would have received more regalia and fame for adding just one more big lie to his career.

The total demolition of Dr. White’s reputation now should serve as a good warning to all those who are choosing to ignore this wind of change.

Under the fire of David Walgren’s cross-examination Dr. White used a whole range of various excuses – all of which are totally inexcusable for a true scientist.

He did read the documents but long ago and now doesn’t remember obvious things. He didn’t conduct his own research, relied on others and now it is their responsibility and not his. He says it isn’t his expertise but nevertheless testifies about what he doesn’t have any idea of. He cannot explain why he is using other people’s models without knowing what data stands behind it. He lies that he got familiar with numerous studies while he actually didn’t. He says he believes Murray but disregards Murray’s own words in order to prove his false theory. He doesn’t know why the equipment he uses  to demonstrate his ideas was meddled with. He offers all sorts of excuses for Murray’s behavior but says that he himself would absolutely never allow any of it ….

In short his cross-examination was a complete marvel and for those who missed it I am offering the continuation of my notes about Day 21.

Day 21. Monday, October 31

NOT MENTIONING PROPOFOL “IS A DETAIL”

Dr. White called Conrad Murray’s failure to mention propofol to paramedics and emergency room doctors a detail he just overlooked.

Walgren asked Dr. White if a doctor has a moral and ethical obligation to reveal all medicines to the paramedics who arrive at the scene.  Dr .White said that in that kind of a situation it is often difficult to recall all details.

Walgren: Is it your testimony that the failure to mention Propofol to paramedics is inability to recall details, Dr. White?

White: Well, I’m just saying details can be overlooked. I don’t think it was done in a devious fashion.

Walgren: I want to make it clear. So you think it was just a detail that was overlooked when Conrad Murray failed to advise the paramedics of administering Propofol, is that your testimony? A detail that was overlooked?

White: I don’t think I used those words. …I think it was something he overlooked.

Walgren: Was it still another detail at the UCLA when the emergency room doctors specifically asked him what had taken place? Is that your testimony that it was again a detail that was overlooked?

White: It was obviously overlooked. He didn’t…

Walgren: Well, not obviously. It could also be a lie, correct? That’s another option?

White: Eh, if you say so, I guess. Yes, it’s an option.

Walgren: Thank you.

DR. WHITE KEEPS VIOLATING THE JUDGE’S ORDERS

Judge Michael Pastor. The stern face of justice

From the very start of the cross-examination it was made clear to Dr. White that he could base his testimony only on the official statement Conrad Murray gave to the police. No other conversations and lies from Murray could be allowed:

Walgren: Who is responsible for bringing propofol into Michael Jackson’s home in your opinion?

White: Well, Conrad Murray certainly purchased propofol, but I understand Mr. Jackson had his own supply as well.

Walgren: Really? Where is that in the police interview by Conrad Murray?

White: Well, I’d heard… (objection)

Walgren: Where in Conrad Murray’s report is that reflected?

White: Well, I don’t have the report in front of me. I reviewed it in February and as I indicated I had two conversations… (Walgren: Objection, would the court admonish the witness?)

Judge M.Pastor: May I ask a favour, ladies and gentlemen, if you could just leave us for a moment?

I don’t know whether it happened at that moment or at some other time but Dr. White was even  fined for not observing the court’s rulings:

Conrad Murray Trial; Defense Witness Dr. Paul White Held In Contempt

No. 1, 2011 A key witness in Dr. Conrad Murray’s involuntary manslaughter trial has been held in contempt of court and fined $1,000 (£625) for refusing to heed judge Michael Pastor’s warning not to talk about a conversation he had with the defendant.

As the prosecution and defence teams wrapped up their cases in court on Monday (31Oct11) before turning to jurors for a decision, there was final drama during expert witness Dr. Paul White’s latest day in court, when he repeatedly violated orders to refrain from testifying about private conversations with Murray.

White is the defence team’s final witness.

It’s the second time Pastor has held White in contempt – he used a profanity during a heated exchange with a member of the prosecution team on 21 October (11). The judge recalled White back to court for a hearing on 16 November (11).

On Monday, the courtroom was briefly cleared after Dr. White referred to a conversation he had had with Murray, who is accused of administering the fatal dose of anaesthetic propofol which cost pop star Michael Jackson his life. Judge Pastor told him he could not offer up private responses he’d had from Murray.

Less than two hours later, White upset Pastor further when he testified he had additional information to share with the jury but the judge told him he couldn’t. He was held in contempt and fined. (c) WENN

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212388387.shtml

It was Murray who stored all those vials in his bags in the closet

For those who believe Murray’s lies about Michael keeping a stack of propofol at home, let me bring to their attention that firstly, it was Murray who brought the drug into that home and had its reserve in the bags hidden in the closet and secondly, if La Toya who stayed in the house had found a big store of some unknown substance, she would have been the first to make a big fuss over it, in the same way she did it when finding some ancient rotten marijuana there.

It is surprising that even La Toya’s never-ending desire to do harm Michael’s image can sometimes be a way to debunk other people’s lies.

“I DO NOT KNOW WHY THIS IV TUBING WAS MODIFIED”

It turns out that our good Dr. White used in his Friday Oct. 31st demonstration a modified infusion tubing – a cap of a vent on it was cut off as if by a knife. This cap is important as with it propofol gets stuck in the bottle, while without it it flows freely.

Do you agree that it was modified?

Walgren asked Dr. White if he agreed that it had been modified. Dr. White said he didn’t know how the cap had been removed from the defense exhibit. Here is a small excerpt from their rather long conversation over it:

Walgren: Did you do it?

White: I’ve never seen it before.

Walgren: It wasn’t intended to mislead Dr. Shafer, was it?

White shook all over as if in an electric shock.

Walgren: Would you agree that it is easily concealable?

White: It could be, yes.

Walgren: Can it be slipped into your pocket? It fits into my hand, right?

White: Possibly…

HIS REPORT SENT TO THE PROSECUTION WAS “PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS” ONLY

Walgren asked Dr. White about the conclusions he made on March 8, 2011 concerning Michael Jackson taking propofol orally. Walgren reminded him that the three and a half pages report was the only document Dr. White had provided to the prosecution.

But now Dr. White calls it just a letter to Mr. Flanagan containing some “preliminary thoughts”.

You’ve had seven months now and this is the only paper you provided to us

Walgren: This is the only document you’ve ever provided – this is the letter containing preliminary thoughts?

White:  Correct.

Walgren: You initially speculated that Michael Jackson drank propofol himself, correct?

White: I speculated that oral administration may have played a role.

Walgren: And you now reject that theory, right? As a cause of death?

(let me omit numerous White’s distracting techniques)

White: As a cause of death, yes.

Walgren: But you did at the outset as early as March 2011 attribute a possible cause of death to Michael Jackson himself? … And in your preliminary thoughts you concluded either “self-administered” or “he drank propofol”, correct?

White: Yes, and I based that on some of the other expert testimony that I read in February.

Walgren: Which testimony are you referring to, because there is no report where any expert speculates about any oral consumption of propofol?

White: I thought it was the report by Dr. Ruffalo?

Walgren: Can you show me the reference where he is talking about oral propofol?

White: I didn’t say it was the report. I think it was in the preliminary hearing.

Walgren: When Mr. Flanagan asked him about oral propofol? Is that what you are referring to?

White: Perhaps.

A small note: In court only the answers of witnesses are taken into account. Dr. White took Flanagan’s question for the other expert’s answer and says that he based his opinion on that expert’s “testimony”. The above is a glaring example of Dr. White’s standards of accuracy. Now he is pretending that his own report was nothing but a letter.

Walgren: How long did it take you to prepare that report?

White: Are you referring to the letter? The letter was asked to prepare on a very short notice – a couple of days. I was extremely busy at the time but I agreed to provide a letter and my preliminary thoughts based on the information I reviewed at the time.

Walgren: You’ve had seven months now and again the only letter I have is the one which you had to rush.

White: I have not been asked to prepare a report. Correct.

Walgren: What is the two days’ reference referring to?

White: That was the time from when Dr. Flanagan contacted me and told me they needed something in writing, preliminary thoughts.

(more deviations are omitted)

Walgren: Is there anything in this report where you say that “these are my preliminary thoughts or my preliminary opinion”? …. Is it stated anywhere in your March 8, 2011 letter?

White: Well, I haven’t looked at that letter some time.  (He is given a chance to review it again).

Now he says it was a preliminary letter only –  while initially it was an official report where he stated “it is MY OPINION that Michael Jackson self-administered the drug or took it orally”. The media went mad about it

Walgren: Does it anywhere say that these are your preliminary thoughts?

White: I didn’t use the word preliminary.

Walgren: “It is my opinion” – I am quoting –  “it is my opinion that Michael Jackson self-administered these drugs intravenously and/or orally”. Correct?

White: That sounds correct, yes.

Walgren: There is nothing characterizing it as simply preliminary thoughts? It says it is your opinion..?

White: Correct, based on the information I had been able to review in the short time prior to writing a letter to Mr. Flanagan.

Walgren: You did a word search for oral propofol and that didn’t come up with the piglet study and then you wrote your report? Was there other research that you did regarding oral propofol before you put this in writing?

White: I don’t believe so. And I also looked up the autopsy report which showed propofol in the stomach, the gastric contents.

Walgren: Is there anything else? As far as your opinion… you said, “It is my opinion that Mr. Jackson self- administered these drugs intravenously and/or orally”?

Walgren: As far as the issue of propofol being oral bioavailable from a scientific point of view did you do any other research other than a word search for “oral propofol”?

White: Well, later…I received Dr. Shafer’s report which suggested it was unlikely…

Walgren: Actually it said it was not possible.

White: Not possible. Then I communicated electronically with Dr. Glenn who also confirmed that it was his understanding that the studies were made by the Imperial Chemical Industries in the 70s suggested that it wouldn’t be effective.

Walgren: Dr. E. Glenn’s study done in the 80s dealt with oral propofol, correct? You were aware of his paper that discussed oral propofol not being bioavailable based on his animal study, correct?

White: Incorrect. I think I said earlier that I was unaware of any studies, either on animals or on human beings.

Walgren: Prior to writing your opinion?

White: I could not find any scientific information.

Walgren: So you had NO scientific information and wrote this report stating it was your opinion that he either orally ingested or self-administered propofol, correct?

White: I was just trying to cover all the possibilities… I just thought it was appropriate to leave open the possibilities. … I wanted to list possibilities that seemed reasonable.

Walgren: And the two possibilities you came up put the blame in your mind squarely on the deceased victim, correct?

White: Well, if Dr. Murray had only given the 25ml that he claims to have given there must have been another factor that contributed to Michael Jackson’s demise.

Walgren: In your March 8, 2011 letter the only options you came up with were – you blamed it on Michael Jackson for possibly orally ingesting and you blamed on Michael Jackson for possibly self-administering, correct? Those are the two options you came up with, correct?

White: I believe that’s correct, yes.

Walgren: And since that time you’ve rejected oral propofol and you’ve come up with a new theory to say that Michael Jackson did it himself, correct? (Defense: objection)

Walgren: Did you mention that Michael Jackson swallowed eight 2ml Lorazepam pills in your March 8, 2011 letter?

White: No, because at that time I had no time to really analyse the Lorazepam levels until my colleague Dr. Shafer provided his report in mid-April.

Walgren: So that new theory that you came up with followed that March 8, 2011 letter, correct?

White: It isn’t a new theory, it just presents a more indepth look at all the information available. Theory still is that the death was a result of rapid IV injection of propofol.

Walgren: Have you ever put forward a theory other than – in your mind – blaming on Michael Jackson himself?

White: If you are asking if I believe what Dr. Murray stated I did take his word that he administered 25 ml of propofol because the prior night he’d been trying to wean Mr. Jackson from propofol.

Walgren: You took everything Conrad Murray said as the truth in your evaluation, right?

White: Well, I certainly…

Walgren: “Have you come up with any theories other than attributing the drug intake to Michael Jackson himself?”             White: “I don’t believe so”.

Walgren: Yes or no?

White: Yes.

Walgren: Have you come up with any theories other than attributing the drug intake to Michael Jackson himself? Have you put forth any other theory?

White: I don’t believe so.

BRAVO, WALGREN!

THE WAY DR. WHITE CONDUCTS HIS RESEARCH

In order to prove his irresponsible statements about Michael Jackson dying from oral ingestion of propofol Dr. White commissioned a research on beagles made by some veterinarian in Indiana.

He did not overview it, had no idea how the research was made, how long it took or what dosages were involved.

Actually he didn’t know the first thing about the way the experiment was made and was only interested in the result. The result showed that propofol taken orally does not have any effect.

If the poor things were given litres of propofol to prove Dr. White’s theory that it worked orally Dr. White simply would not know.

However he raised his brow and said he was shocked that Dr. Shafer had conducted a study on human beings. Dr. Shafer indeed made a joint study with a Chilean professor of anesthesiology involving 3 volunteers who took 20ml and 3 more who took 40ml. The study was made in a hospital setting with their health fully monitored during the process. In the course of it Dr. Shafer swallowed propofol himself.

Dr. Shafer’s study also showed that oral propofol was ineffective. This evidence was needed by Dr. Shafer not only for Murray’s case, but its primary goal was to keep the Drug Enforcement Agency from making propofol a controlled drug. It was necessary for Dr. Shafer to prove that propofol is effective only if taken IV and cannot be abused outside a hospital setting.

During his testimony Dr. Shafer stressed that Propofol should be easily accessible to anesthesiologists – each patient is different and you never know how much propofol will be required for anestheisa, so its lack during the operation will result in numerous complications for patients in the first place.

Dr. White wanted to disprove Dr. Shafer’s results and ordered an experiment on beagles. Walgren asked Dr. White about the way he conducted his study.

Walgren: When did you request a study on animals?

White: Perhaps after being shown a copy of Dr. Shafer’s report. ….

Walgren: Had you made any research between your March 8, 2011 report and April 18, 2011 (the date of Dr. Shafer’s report) to confirm that your preliminary thoughts were accurate?

White: No, I hadn’t done any research.

Walgren: So when did you request that animal study?

White: We discussed it at the end of April or May.

Walgren: Did you do the study and did you have someone do it for you?

White: Mr. Flanagan said that he knew a veterinarian in Indiana who could conduct the study.

Walgren: So you had nothing to do with the study as a scientist?

White: I directly did not participate, no.

Walgren: Mr. Flanagan had someone do the study in Indiana.

White: That’s correct.

Walgren: Did you oversee it in any way?

White: I was not directly involved as I said.

Walgren: So Mr. Flanagan requested an animal study in Indiana sometime after you received Dr. Shafer’s report, is that correct?

White: Correct.

Walgren: Did you ever review any data or were you provided any report regarding that study?

White: No formal report. Only an oral report that it had no effect.

Walgren: Who provided this oral report?

White: Mr. Flanagan.

Walgren: As a scientist you were not interested in providing the data or speaking to the people who did the research?

White: It was a negative study which confirmed what Dr. Glenn and Dr. Shafer had suggested, so I didn’t see the need to pursue it. To be honest I was quite shocked to hear that Dr. Shafer had taken his own medication and commissioned a study on human beings.

Dr. White’s junk science allows him to be critical of other people’s work while he doesn’t give a damn how his own research is being done.

DR.WHITE EXCUSES MURRAY FOR ALL VIOLATIONS

Dr. White says he strictly observes the standard of medical care himself but for some reason never minds Conrad Murray doing the opposite. In the incredible scenario he suggests for the morning of June 25, 2009 he easily excuses Murray for breaking every possible rule of medical ethics.

He allows Murray to leave Michael’s bedside and talk over the phone implying that Murray ‘just’ received a phone call and had to answer it. This way Dr. White pretends that this in and of itself is not an unheard-of-thing to do for doctors who are monitoring their patients under anesthesia.

His further scenario allows Murray to leave a drawn-up syringe with a ready-made mix of Propofol and Lidocaine beside his patient. This crazy idea is needed for Dr. White to avoid questions how Michael could have drawn up propofol and lidocaine from glass vials himself – Dr. Shafer showed us that it was a difficult process due to a vacuum created inside (you have to push it back and forth and do it bit by bit to fill the glass vials with air first).

In his desire to stretch the truth Dr. White turns the scenario into a total farce and suggests that Murray left the syringe in the infusion port of the IV stand for Michael just to press it.

All this is totally is amazing as he does not accompany any of these statements by a single word of reprimand for Murray. Listening to Dr. White one would even think that it is a normal thing for an anesthesiologist or surgeon to keep a syringe in a patient’s hand during an operation and leave the operating room for some 30-45 minutes to answer the phone or go and relieve himself in the bathroom!

And when Dr. White’s scenario comes to Michael walking about the room with an IV stand and a condom catheter and urine bag attached to him there is simply no word to describe it  – no description can surpass the original in its absurdity.

But first David Walgren asks Dr. White about his own attitude towards administering propofol at home. White makes a solemn face and says that it is absolutely ruled out:

Walgren If Michael Jackson had come to you and indicated that he would like to hire you to administer propofol to him to put him asleep each night in this bedroom, would you do it?

White: Absolutely not. That would be a job I would never consider. ..No amount of money would convince me to accept it because of time and the responsibility for someone, because of the fact that it was a complete off-label use of the drug which had not been studied prior to 2011.

Then Walgren asks White about the time frame when Michael in his opinion could have self-injected 25ml of propofol.

Dr. White forgets that it was 25ml only. He shows Murray drawing up 50ml of propofol and 50ml of lidocaine into a 10cc syringe

Dr. White tells his story and in the process of fabricating it forgets that Murray claimed he gave only 25ml of propofol.

Now Dr. White says that Murray actually left in the room a fully drawn up 100ml (10cc) syringe filled with 50ml of Propofol and 50ml of Lidocaine.

It will totally contradict his own charts and models based on 25ml only – but is a slip of the tongue similar to his earlier tale-telling description of that bedroom as “a crime scene”:

Walgren: In the scenario that you put forward when Michael Jackson self-administered the 25 ml of propofol – that’s not at the time when Conrad Murray left the room for 2 minutes?

White: I cannot be sure of the time frame. From the phone records that I’ve reviewed, after observing Mr. Jackson for a period of twenty to thirty minutes Dr. Murray had got some phone calls and he began returning phone calls …

Walgren: The question is, when Michael Jackson self-administered the 25ml of propofol, is it taking place – in your mind – when Conrad Murray leaves the room for 2 minutes or is it at a different point in time that Conrad Murray left Michael Jackson alone?

White: It could well be at a different time. I don’t know whether the time is established.

Walgren: And in your scenario when you put forward that Michael Jackson may have consumed eight 2ml tablets of Lorazepam at 7 a.m. does it also assume that Conrad Murray left Michael Jackson alone?

White: Not necessarily, because I understand that Mr. Jackson walked around, he apparently had …(objection)

Walgren: Does your theory that you put forward assume that Conrad Murray was out of the room when Michael Jackson could have consumed eight 2mg Lorazepam tablets?

White: I assume that Dr. Murray was in some other part of the room – in the bathroom or adjacent bedroom. My understanding is that there were two bedrooms connected and since he apparently moved between the bedrooms I think it is likely that Dr. Murray was somewhere in the vicinity but certainly…

Walgren: Does your analysis assume that Dr. Murray was unaware that Michael Jackson swallowed eight 2mg tablets?

White: Yes.

Walgren: So he was either in a different room or not watching? Is that fair to say?

White: Fair to say.

Walgren: And then you know from Conrad Murray’s statement that the only time he tells the police that he left the room was 2 minutes to use a rest room and when he came Michael Jackson was not breathing. So we have the time when he is either gone or not paying attention at 7 am, correct, based on your scenario?

(Dr. White starts coughing)

Walgren: Based on your analysis it is a different time when Michael Jackson self –administers the 25ml of propofol, correct?

White: I’m not sure, sir. All I said is that I’ve reviewed the phone records where Mr. Murray was on the cell phone presumably away from Mr. Jackson because Mr. Jackson was trying to sleep.

Walgren: And that is just a common sense assumption that if his whole job is to put Michael Jackson to sleep when he is on the phone for a lengthy period of time he is probably not standing there in Michael Jackson’s presence, correct?

White: That’s what I would assume, yes.

Walgren: …so you are assuming that Michael Jackson is in bed and at some point Conrad Murray leaves him, correct?

White: Correct.

Walgren: And as you demonstrated on Friday that Michael Jackson takes a syringe and draws up 25 ml of lidocaine , correct?

White: My understanding is that Dr.Murray drew up 50ml of propofol and 50ml of lidocaine into a 10cc syringe.

Walgren: So your scenario is assuming that Conrad Murray drew up a syringe and left it there, is that what you are assuming in your scenario, yes or no?

White: Can I finish my ..?

Walgren: … Are you assuming that it was Conrad Murray who drew up the syringe or Michael Jackson –  which one?

White: I am assuming that it is the 25ml that Dr. Murray had drawn up.

Walgren: So Conrad Murray drew up the syringe? In your analysis? Yes or no?

White: Yes.

Walgren: And he left this syringe in the bedroom when he left the bedroom?

White: First of all I don’t know if he left the bedroom. I’m told that he was standing in the kind of a hall .. (objection)

Walgren: Conrad Murray leaves the room with the syringe accessible to the patient?

White: I didn’t say where the syringe was left.

..

Walgren: You would agree that in the statement he gave to the police Conrad Murray he only references to leaving Michael Jackson alone for those 2 brief minutes, correct?

White: I believe that’s correct.

Walgren: But it is your opinion that it took place when Conrad Murray was on the telephone for a lengthy period of time, is that correct?

White: That’s pretty correct, yes. More or less correct.

Walgren: So in your scenario how long would Conrad Murray have had to leave Michael Jackson unattended in order for Michael Jackson to self-administer the propofol?

White: Well, it’s hard to say without exactly knowing where the syringe was. What I do know is that the phone records suggest that after this observation period Dr. Murray was on the phone for a time of 35-40 minutes.

Walgren: And this is when this event transpired?

White: Followed by the 2 minutes when he went to the bathroom to relieve himself. It was some time during that 40 minute period where I believe Michael Jackson had the opportunity and likely self-administered the final fatal dose of propofol, yes.

Walgren: And in your scenario Michael Jackson does this through the port on the IV tubing, is that accurate?

White: That would be the likely site, yes.

Walgren: And in your analysis was the syringe left in that port for Michael to have access to it or was it left somewhere else or do you simply have no opinion in that regard?

White: …I think that was a syringe with a needle attached in that side port.

Walgren: Well, if the syringe for example, had been left, let’s say on the chair filled with propofol as you described and Conrad Murray came back into the room and found Michael Jackson not breathing and now the syringe is in the port do you think it would raise alarms to Conrad Murray? (sustained)

Walgren: So the syringe is left somewhere, under your analysis. Conrad Murray is gone out of the room for 35 or 40 minutes.

White: I don’t think I said he was out of the room.

Walgren: I mean he is not watching, correct?

White: He is not directly watching Mr. Jackson.

Walgren: You are not putting forward to the jury that Conrad Murray stood there and watch Michael Jackson self-administer propofol, are you?

White: No, I don’t.

Walgren: And during this period of absence it is your theory that Michael Jackson woke up and self-administered the 25ml  and killed himself?

White: This is what I suggested in my testimony on Friday, correct.

Walgren: And are you assuming that after Michael Jackson did that that he fell back in the same location he had been on the bed prior to Conrad Murray leaving the room?

White: I’d be my assumption that once he secured the syringe from where it was left that he probably returned to bed and the IV was in his leg but clearly accessible in the common position…

Walgren: Did you say “he probably returned to bed?”

White: Before he injected the propofol? Yes, I would think so.

Walgren: So you are assuming he got out of bed to get the propofol?

White: He could have got out of bed. I understand that he moved around the room.

Walgren: Did you know that he had a condom catheter attached with an urine bag?

White:.. Yes, I did.

Walgren: Did you know that he was hopped up to the IV line attached to an IV stand?

White: An IV stand has wheels and is mobile.

Walgren: So just to be clear, under your scenario Michael Jackson is walking around the room wheeling the IV stand and holding his urine bag connected to a condom catheter? And Conrad Murray is somewhere else on the phone, is that is your assumption, correct?

White: That’s not the only scenario, that’s possible scenario, yes.

Walgren: And you would agree that a possible scenario is that Conrad Murray administered more propofol, correct?

White: It is possible if he wanted to potentially harm Mr. Jackson.

What is totally impossible is that Dr. White is speaking of all these crazy things –  Murray talking on the phone for 40 minutes, leaving a full syringe unattended, putting it into the IV infusion port as if ready for a push – and does not give his assessment of it, as if all that would be a totally normal thing to do!

DR. WHITE’S DEATH MODEL BASED ON THE LORAZEPAM THEORY

Despite all the fun of Dr. White’s crazy excuses for Murray his main job was to fabricate the models of Michael Jackson’s death based on totally arbitrary assumptions. The modelling itself was done by Gabriela Ornales.

Dr. White expected to make a grand entree with these models but David Walgren’s and Dr. Shafer’s scrutiny of them showed that the models had no leg to stand on.

The simulations themselves were made following the same formula which Dr. Shafer used. Paul White stressed it on several occasions that the formula was worked out by another scientist – Dr. Schneider.  One of the goals of that emphasis was to produce the impression that Dr. Shafer was not using his own unique method and all this modelling could be done by anyone.

However there is absolutely no equal mark between the modelling done by Dr. Shafer and the one done by Dr. Gabriela Ornales.

Any formula is correct only if the data fed into it is correct too. And the data fed into Gabriela Ornales’s formulas was heavily distorted. And though Dr. White says he had nothing to do with it I strongly suspect that it was on his order (or request) that Ornales made her models on false or totally arbitrary assumptions.

There is a lot to say about those charts, however to make the long story short I will focus only on the main points.

First comes a word about Dr. Gabriela Ornales and how Dr. White came to know her.

Dr. White met her at Flanagan’s house a few days before his testimony after “someone from the defense team” had contacted her. He doesn’t know of her expertise or integrity and has nothing to say about her except her official CV from which he was reading out in court. We learn that she is no medical doctor but is a Ph.D. student in pharmacokinetics who is working for her degree.

Dr. White’s choice of a person to do the models is surprising.

Blindly taking the calculations from someone totally unknown to you is a somewhat reckless thing to do – especially if you cannot check them yourself (and Dr. White repeatedly said that pharmacokinetics was beyond his expertise and was like “Greek” to him).

Dr. White could have approached Dr. Shafer as he was offering his services to him and actually had even worked out one model for Dr. White.  Dr. Shafer’s reputation is impeccable and if Dr. White’s model had turned out a more accurate one Dr. Shafer would have accepted it as a true scientist does – his goal in this trial is not to defend Michael Jackson, his goal is to find out the truth of what happened there.

But surprise-surprise, Dr. White preferred to approach someone totally unknown. This way it is easier to manipulate the result and shift the blame for it to another person too:

Walgren: Had you heard of Dr. Ornales before someone in the defence team told you to contact her?

White: I had never met her.

Walgren: Had you ever heard of her in the pharmacokinetic field? In anaesthesiology? Yes or no.

White: The answer is no.

Walgren: Did you ask her to create some computer models for you?

White: I don’t recall asking her specifically to create models.

Walgren: Was this last week that you met her? And we have models here today in court and you don’t recall if you asked her to create those?

White: She created them overnight and emailed to me.

Walgren: You are aware that Dr. Shafer provided his spread sheet and software to the defense, correct?

White: Yes, I am.

Walgren: What you have provided to the people from Dr. Orneles is a piece of paper with computer code written on it, with no software, correct?

White: I was not asked to provide software, so all I provided was a print out, yes, sir.

Walgren: Can you make sense of this computer code?

White: I think I said earlier that pharmacokinetic modelling is not my expertise.

Walgren: So you knew it wouldn’t mean anything to me, right?

The idea of various Dr. White’s models of Michael’s death was to show that Michael died not because his breathing stopped (as Dr. Shafer had proven) but because all of a sudden he had a heart attack.

Coroner’s report about Michael’s heart being absolutely healthy

There was nothing to show that Michael had a poor heart but this didn’t stop Dr. White from developing his theory.

As I’ve said according to his model it is an absolute must for Michael to have had a poor heart and have died immediately.

That is why White is ready to disregard even Murray’s own words who said that the pulse oxymeter showed 122 beats and he could feel Michael’s pulse when he re-entered the room.

Dr. White’s explanation of that fact is laughable. Acording to him Murray did not feel Michael’s pulse – no,  he felt his own pulse. And when confronted with information that a pulse oxymeter showed 122 beats Dr. White simply avoided answering.

Walgren: You reviewed the autopsy report?

White: Yes, I did some time ago.

Walgren: And you noted that Mr. Jackson had a strong heart and no heart problems, nothing in that nature, correct?

(White says something about arhythmia sometimes happening even to a structurally healthy heart)

Walgren: Is there any indication in the coroner’s report that there is any problem with Michael Jackson’s heart?

White: No, there is not.

Walgren: According to Murray’s own words Michael’s heart was beating when Murray re-entered the room and the pulse oxymeter read 122 beats.

Dr. White said something incoherent about it, so Walgren had to refresh his memory by showing some excerpts from Murray’s interview.

THE PULSE WAS 122 BEATS. Excerpt from Murray’s statement to the police

Walgren: “He looked at his pulse oxymeter right away and his heart rate was like 122 beats”. That would mean he has a heartbeat, correct?

White: Without feeling the pulse and knowing that there was a profusing pulse I am not sure I agree with that.

Walgren: “So I immediately felt for a pulse, and I was able to get a thread pulse in the femoral region”, correct?

White: That’s what Dr. Murray reported.

Walgren: So he not only checked the pulse oxymeter, saw the 122 beats but he then felt the femoral region and felt a thread pulse, correct?

White: He reported feeling a thread pulse, correct.

Walgren: That was suggest his heart was beating, right?

HE FELT A THREADY PULSE IN THE FEMORAL REGION. Excerpt from Murray’s statement to the police

White: It might suggest that or alternatively it might suggest that Dr. Murray was simply feeling his own pulse since it was very weak and thready. In these kind of situations…

Walgren: So you don’t believe Conrad Murray when he says he felt a thread pulse in the femoral region?

White: I don’t believe it may have been profusing. He may have felt…

Walgren: Are you disputing that?

White: I am merely suggesting that clinicians may be deceived and can feel their own pulse when they are under stress..

Walgren: Because if he felt a pulse it doesn’t match up with your theory that Michael Jackson died instantly upon receiving 25 ml by self-administration, correct?

White: It happens clinically.

Walgren: Would you agree that the primary cause of Michael Jackson’s death is that he stopped breathing?

White: I don’t see any evidence of that.

Walgren: Do you see any evidence that contradicts that?

White: I don’t any evidence that contradicts either respiratory or cardiac event or a combined cardio-respiratory event following the rapid administration of propofol to a patient who also had extremely high levels of Lorazepam.

Walgren: In your March 8, 2011 letter you do reference respiratory issues as a potential to presume respiratory cause of death, correct?

White: I think I said cardio-respiratory and it was a preliminary letter I prepared for Mr. Flanagan.

Walgren reads out from White’s letter,  which say “…it can produce significant ventilator depressing effect as well as upper airway obstruction”, correct?

White: That’s of course a possibility. Among other things, yes, sir.

Walgren: Among other things including the theory that Michael Jackson drank propofol? Which you now reject?

White: Now that I have more data and more evidence I can say that it was extremely unlikely.

All this twisting, pretending and denying the obvious are simply unbearable.

Walgren raises Lorazepam.

Walgren scrutinizes the Defense’s exhibit and wonders about the figures by Ornelas and why their curve line starts not at a zero point (but at 0,05)

Over here it turns out that Gabriela Ornales used the wrong figure for Lorazepam in Michael’s stomach:

White:  It is a very, very small amount of Lorazepam but as I testified even a small amount of free Lorazepam would suggest oral administration.

Dr. White had no idea where the 0,0013 number cited there came from – he would have to consult Dr. Ornelas.

Walgren: As you sit here today you have no idea where that 0,0013 ml came from, correct?

White: Not as I sit here today, sir.

Walgren: And what is that on the bottom – “Residual Lorazepam assuming 10mg per day for 5 days”? Why was that put in there?

White: Well, she did the simulation so that you could try to take into account the fact that he had been receiving Lorazepam prior to the day of his death and we don’t really have a good handle on that number.

Walgren: But it is very specific – assuming 10mg per day for 5 days.

White: Well, as I said it was an arbitrary assumption based on what he might have been taking prior to the day of his death.

Walgren: And the level of Lorazepam was 0,0169 – do you know where this 0, 0164 came from?

White: Maybe a typographical error.

Let me explain the point about these falsifiers assuming that there was some Residual Lorazepam in Michael’s body after taking 10mg of it per day for 5 days running.

Even Dr. White says that it was a totally arbitrary assumption (or just pure guesswork not based on any data at all).

Why 10mg, which is five 2mg pills of Lorazepam per day?

And why for 5 days running?

Because it is only if they make this assumption about this level of Lorazepam in Michael’s blood prior to that night will their model of Lorazepam death be workable at all.

And it is only if Michael takes those mythical eight pills from that level will the curve line in their model will reach the level of Lorazepam found in Michael’s blood on autopsy.

Only on this condition.

And if he didn’t take 5 pills of Lorazepam every day for the last 5 days (the total of 25 pills) the model will not be working.

Well, all of us can make any assumptions we like – only it won’t be science. I can also make assumptions on the basis of their assumptions. One of them, for example is that 8 pills would not make much difference to Michael and would not kill him if he was given 5 pills on a daily basis. People are known to get used even to poison if it is given regularly to them.

Another of my assumptions is that all this is just a plain lie because the bottle found on the night stand said that Lorazepam was prescribed by Murray on April 28, 2009 and originally contained 30 tablets. At the time of death it had 9 tablets which means that Michael took only 21 pills for the past 2 months – or one tablet in three days!  And absolutely not five pills for 5 days running!

One more of my assumptions is that it could be Murray who could offer Michael any amount of Lorazepam pills in a glass of juice, for example, without Michael knowing it. By the way the Prosecutor David Walgren also made such an assumption during the trial. Evidently we are thinking along the same lines:

Wagren: Is there any way scientifically to exclude, for example, Michael Jackson swallowing Lorazepam on his own or Conrad Murray giving Michael Jackson oral Lorazepam to swallow?

Dr. Shafer: They would look the same.

However these are only our assumptions. And assumptions are no science and are no proof of anything at all.

*  *  *  *  *

We are coming to the crucial point in the argument between True Science and Dr. White.

The point over which they really clashed was Propofol as the cause of Michael Jackson’s death or the unnaturally high level of propofol in his blood found on autopsy.

In order to understand under which condition propofol can remain in the body in so big quantities it is necessary to learn how the drug is functioning.

Propofol easily breaks up (metabolizes) in a human body and disappears from it while the heart it still beating and is pushing blood along its veins. This is why almost immediately after the drip stops the patient wakes up – all propofol has broken up and evaporated from his system and he wakes up almost totally clean of it.

However if the heart stops beating and the blood stops circulating, propofol no longer metabolizes. If the drug happens to be dripping into the dead body it starts collecting there and its level in the blood rises.

And when it comes to propofol it is top important to figure out what happened to the patient and what was the cause of his death – a stop in breathing or a stop in the heart beating.

If breathing stops first the heart will go on beating for approximately 10 minutes due to some oxygen left in the lungs. During these 10 minutes the blood will go on circulating and even a huge dose of propofol will break up and leave the system.

But  if the heart stops first even a relatively small dose of propofol will immediately “freeze” in the veins and its concentration will not drop.

This is why Dr. White’s goal was to prove that Michael died of a heart attack when he “self-administered 25ml of propofol”,  as a result of which the drug reached the peak level just for one single moment at which Michael suddenly and instantaneously died.

Dr. Shafer worked out an opposite model based on Michael’s having a breathing arrest first. Under Dr. Shafer’s model  the stop in breathing  made the heart stop, and it is then that propofol started accumulating in the blody and gradually reached the peak level found in Michael’s blood upon autopsy.

After trying on his computer a great deal of simulations Dr. Shafer came to the conclusion that Michael received at least 100ml of Propofol part of which dripped into his body after his heart stopped.

The reason why Dr. Shafer focused on the breathing arrest is because this is the only complication which takes place with propofol at all.

Propofol works on the brain and not on the heart. As soon as propofol reaches the brain it stops sending signals to the lungs to breathe. And as the lungs no longer breathe, so the heart begins starving of oxygen and dies in some 10 minutes after the intake of oxygen stops.

Cardiologist Alon Steinberg who testified on week 2 specifically differentiated between a cardiac and respiratory arrests and said that Michael had a respiratory arrest. This fact is not disputed by any scientists except Dr. White who stubbornly argues that Michael’s heart stopped first and he died of a heart attack.

Though propofol does not affect the heart and cardiac attacks are possible only when someone has a heart problem – which Michael did not have  – Dr. White’s theory did leave some room for doubt which could be critical for the jury’s decision.

Dr. White had to prove his crazy theory and in order to do it he looked into the amount of propofol which went into the urine. He asked Gabriela Ornelas to calculate whether the amount of propofol found upon autopsy in the urine was consistent with the amount of propofol in the blood.

It is clear to any of us that if Michael’s blood was saturated with propofol, his urine must have been saturated with it too.

If the level of it was consistent with Dr. White’s theory (of 25ml self-injected by MJ) then it is he who is right.

If the level of it was consistent with Dr. Shafer’s conclusion (that Michael received at least 100ml under infusion), then it is Dr. Shafer who is right.

THE FINAL ARGUMENT

1.

The amount of propofol in Michaels’s bladder found on autopsy was 0,15 micrograms per ml which multiplied by the amount of urine recovered (approx. 500ml) made up 82,5mcg (micrograms)

In comparison with the 1000mg (or 100ml) of Propofol which Dr. Shafer thinks Michael received it is a very small amount.

Especially if you consider that one microgram (mcg) is equal to 1/1000 of milligram (mg).

So now we will have to find out whether the big 100ml (or 1000mg) bottle of propofol infused into blood could produce the tiny quantity of only 0,0825mg in the urine.

Dr. White approached Gabriela Ornelas to make a computer model and see whether 1000mg amount of propofol could result in only 0,0825mcg in the urine.

She made a model and it said that it couldn’t – this tiny amount of the drug in the urine could result only from a very small dose infused or injected into Michael’s blood. Like 25ml for example suggested by Dr. White.

So no matter how unlikely Dr. White’s theory sounded Ornelas’s calculations coincided with his theory and not Dr. Shafer’s?

2.

However every model is true only when it is based on correct data. And in her calculations Dr. Ornelas used the findings published in 1988 (by Simons and other authors) which were approximate and outdated.

What that article basically says is that propofol evaporates from the system so quickly that the amount of propofol excreted into urine is extremely small – less than 0,3% of the drug originally infused into the blood.

The only problem is that these scientists did not know how much propofol that 0,3% number contained as an unchanged drug.

Their number included both the original propofol as a drug (in Michael’s case it was the drug calculated and recorded in the toxicology report) and propofol metabolites (which the autopsy report did not have).

Like all other substances in the body the drug of propofol breaks up into metabolites which are also excreted into urine – and how much of propofol was excreted as a drug and how much as its metabolite was impossible to measure in the year 1988 when Simons’ study was made. The radioactive technology they used did not allow to make more precise calculations.

But the percent of unchanged drug excreted into urine is crucial for comparing with Michael’s results on autopsy as the propofol found in Michael’s bladder was the drug (or unchanged propofol) and not its metabolite!

Simons wrote in 1988 that their 0,3% number had both and they could not differentiate one from the other. He also wrote that the 0,3% was an overestimate.

However Gabriela Ornelas did not provide all those details. Or probably she did, but the details were in the article. Only  Dr. White did not read the article. He said he had read it, but Walgren’s questions showed that he didn’t. He was satisfied with her conclusions and that’s that.

3.

After hearing Gabriela Ornelas’s conclusions Dr. Shafer checked up all the data once again.

He studied the scientific literature published since that 1988 article and each of the follow-up articles (by the same authors) indeed said that 0,3% was a huge overestimate. The percent of unchanged propofol in the urine was much smaller.

What that means we will see later, but first let us look at the article which provided the definitive and precise data on that problem.

The study which decided it all was made in 2002 in Poland (judging by the names of the authors). When these people were making their research there was no way to know that their findings would determine the exact amount of propofol Michael Jackson was given by Murray and was ultimately killed with.

These authors studied patients receiving propofol during several hour long operations and managed to calculate the molecules of propofol as a drug and the molecules of it as a metabolite left in their urine. They found that the drug excreted into urine in its unchanged form comes in the incredibly tiny amount of 0,004% of the dose initially infused into blood.

So in application to the results in Michael’s toxicology report it means that 82,5mcg found in his bladder make up only 0,004% of the dose which was infused into his veins.

Now please take a calculator and find what the full 100% of the dose is if the 82,5mcg remaining in the urine make up only 0,004% of it.

I came up with the dose of 2062500 mcg = 2062,5mg =  206ml of propofol.

This means that to be able to get 82,5mcg of unchanged propofol in one’s urine you need to be first given 2062,5mg (or 206ml) of propofol in one’s blood.

And this means that Michael received NOT ONE 100ml vial of propofol. No,  he received TWO 100ml vials of propofol from Murray, amounting to 206ml all in all.

4.

The same 2002 year article had a reference table where we can check our calculations with the average figures provided by Polish scientists.

They actually measured the unchanged propofol in the urine of patients who underwent long surgery under a drip of propofol.

  • The average amount of propofol given to those patients was 2000mgs or 200ml.
  • The average amount of urine each of them collected during that time was 530ml (which is comparable with Michael’s).
  • The average propofol found in the urine was 70,71 mcg of unchanged propofol.

So the 70,71 mcg residual unchanged propofol is associated with the dose of 2000mcgs or 200ml of Propofol given.

And this again proves that if Michael had 82,5mcg in his urine he received more than 200ml of Propofol that night.

We have checked ourselves.

Murray infused into Michael MORE THAN TWO 100 ml vials of propofol.

So Dr. Shafer’s model is absolutely correct and his verdict is a clear one:

Murray put Michael under a drip of propofol.

He was infusing more than 200ml that night.

While Michael was under the infusion, Murray went about his business – making calls, sending emails, typing text messages.

He simply did not notice Michael die and propofol kept on flowing into his body after his breathing stopped.

10 minutes after that his heart stopped too, but Murray didn’t notice it either.

Propofol went on dripping into Michael’s body until it reached the levels found on autopsy.

Most probaby by then the bottle had simply run out of the liquid.

And it was only then that Murray finally looked at his patient.

And noticed that he had died.

5.

Now it does not even matter whether Michael died of a heart or respiratory arrest.

What matters is that Murray told us huge lies.

And Dr. White’s junk science has been adjusting to Murray’s huge lies trying to whitewash a criminal.

And if it hadn’t been for Dr. Shafer we would have never learned the truth.

Here is the actual cross-examination which will illustrate the above conclusions.

DR. WHITE’S DEATH MODEL BASED ON THE PFOPOFOL THEORY

Walgren: You felt it was the most accurate account of unchanged propofol in the urine?

White: Actually I didn’t make the determination. Dr. Ornelas is the one who did the pharmacokinetic modelling.  She is the one with expertise, not me.

To Dr. White it looked like a very accurate estimation.

Walgren: Did you read the article, Dr. White?

White: I did look over the article. I didn’t really analyse it.

Walgren: You came to testify in the court room regarding unchanged propofol levels in the urine. Told us that this was your opinion. Did you read this article in detail upon which to base your opinion?

White: I didn’t read it in detail, no.

Walgren: And you started working with Gabriela Ornelas the first time last week?

White: She was contacted by someone in the defence team, is an expert in pharmacokinetics…I met her last week, later in the week, Wednesday, Thursday.

Walgren: How many hours did you put into collaborating with Dr. Ornelas to conduct her computer modelling you’ve testified to this jury?

White: I don’t know how many hours Dr. Ornelas spent working on this. I asked her a simple question, how much propofol you’d expect in the urine if the patient got two 25ml boluses of propofol versus 1000ml, because the numbers that were provided at autopsy in terms of concentration of free propofol in the urine did not seem to be consistent with the one thousand ml infusion given for 3 hours before Mr. Jackson died.

Walgren: I’m sorry, Doctor. How many hours did you put in collaboration with Dr. Ornelas prior to your testifying so that you are confidently informed as to the data and the literature that you are relying upon?

White: I had a conversation with her, she came over to the house where I was staying – the  Flanagans’ house …

Walgren: The Flanagans’ house?

White: The Flanagans’ house, yes. And we had a conversation about kinetics, I asked her if she could provide the details about the modelling used, and she was kind enough to provide the hard copy.

Walgren: When was that meeting?

White: I believe it was near the end of last week.

Dr. White assumed that Murray injected Michael Jackson with 25 ml of propofol at about 10.40 (they must have looked up for a break between the calls to fit it in there) and Michael Jackson supposedly self-administered another 25ml between 11.30 and 12 o’clock.

Then they discussed the urine model.

Walgren: Did you make your research to make sure that the very premise of the model – namely the 0,3% measurement was accurate and reflected in the literature?

White: Well, there is variability among papers, I am sure, but we can repeat the model with another paper if you want to suggest better reference source.

Walgren: Did you do any research of your own to make sure you are giving accurate information to this jury before you came in and testified to the 0,3% measurement?

White: Sir, I was given her hypotheticals shortly before I had to testify.

After several more attempts from Walgren White said that his “feeling” was that 0,3% was the lowest estimate:

White: I didn’t look the articles on elimination. I cannot say that I researched every paper. My feeling was that it was most probably the most conservative estimate.

The Simons et al. 1988 article on the basis of which Dr. White testified. He claimed that this article proved that Michael died of 25ml of self-injected propofol. It did not. He simply did not read it.

Looking at the article on which he was basing his testimony Dr. White says:

White: It is the article which I believe Dr. Ornelas used in her modelling upon which I based my testimony that the amount of free propofol in the urine after a three hour infusion would have been substantially higher than that reported at autopsy.

Walgren: It says less than 0,3%. Do you know how much less then?

White: No, I do not. But I think that there is another article which suggests that it could be as high as 1%. I suspect that Dr. Ornelas looked at the various papers available and picked what was a conservative number.

Walgren: Dr. White said he had had read some of the papers, but he didn’t “recall right off”.

White: I’ll be happy to provide you with a list of references if I am given time to do the research.

Walgren: Do you know how the unchanged propofol was measured in this research article?

White: I think it was by gas liquid chromatography.

White didn't know how the 1988 results were obtained. He simply did not read itWalgren: Do you see that the article says, “due to the low count rates, the samples were not analysed chromatographically”?

White: Yeh, I see that.

Walgren: So they were not analysed  that way?

White: I don’t know how they were analysed.

Wagren said that it was the basics of the model Dr.White was presenting in his testimony.

White: I haven’t had a chance to critically review that paper. It was an analysis done for me. I am not comfortable to comment on the article which is outside my expertise and which I have not been able to carefully analyse.

Walgren read the article much more attentively than Dr. White and pointed to a statement saying that “it is possible that the estimated value (0,3%) is an overestimate”. However to Dr. White it doesn’t make any difference:

The article said that the 0,3% number was a overestimate. However Dr. White can’t care less

White: It could be an overestimate, it could be an underestimate. There is tremendous variability. The fact of the matter is that these small difference that you are point out  would not explain the massive difference that was determined based on the 3 hour infusion of a thousand milligrams and two 25ml doses.

It was my impression that the fact that urine concentration was only minimally higher than the propofol concentration in the urine that was collected at 7 am, suggested to me that it was highly unlikely and improbable that … (objection, the answer is stricken)

Walgren: Were you aware that the authors of the article in the very article itself indicated themselves that the 0,3% could be an overestimate?

White: No.

Walgren: Thank you.

Walgren asked him if he knew of article by the same author dated three years later. White said he didn’t think he had found it in the very fast search he had made.

He lied that he had looked into the articles involving humans only because there is a great variance between species (and because of other pretexts for not looking into anything at all).

White: I did not research this topic. I merely asked a question.

The answer from Dr. Gabriela O. was that in case 1000ml of propofol were administered the residual propofol number in urine should be significantly higher.

Walgren: The answer was based on one outdated, isolated article, is that right?

White: No.

Dr. White is always ready to deny the obvious.

*  *  *  *  *

Day 22, November 1

Let us jump over to Dr. Shafer’s testimony on the next day and see what Dr. Shafer said on the same topic.

First Walgren asked how would Lorazepam find itself in the stomach if it was administered intravenously.

Walgren: It will still enter the stomach, is that correct?

Shafer: Correct. Drugs taken intravenously go into all the tissues. They go to the brain, the organ , the muscles, the intestines and the stomach.

Walgren: And is it a correct statement that this has nothing to do with post-mortem redistribution?

Shafer: That is correct.

Walgren: Is there any way scientifically to exclude, for example, Michael Jackson swallowing Lorazepam on his own or Conrad Murray giving Michael Jackson oral Lorazepam to swallow?

Shafer: They would look the same.

Walgren: In your simulation where based on the evidence you discussed that the infusing line was running and Michael Jackson stopped breathing and the propofol continued to infuse into his body, do you recall that?

Shafer: Yes, I do.

Walgren: In that simulation were you designating a precise time that Michael Jackson stopped breathing?

Shafer: No. What the simulation shows is how the level (of propofol) initially rises initially fast and then slowly through a period of time. The simulation has shown that Michael Jackson could have died at any time with the propofol concentration continue to be high in his blood. And there is no suggestion that he had to die at any specific time. He died with a high level of propofol during the infusion.

Walgren: You wouldn’t say that it was precisely at noon?

Shafer: No, not at all.

Walgren: And when you demonstrated the two infusion lines that’s a fairly typical setup when you would be using two separate.

Shafer: Except than when you use an (infusion) pump, but other than that, yes.

Walgren: Dr. White commented on the gravitational differences in the bottle, for example, in the saline bag and the saline bag with saline solution. Can you comment on how you deal with any such difficulty?

You can control the dripping process by using roller clamps on both IV stands. For non-critical drugs it is acceptable practice

Shafer: If you recall the infusion set up that I showed you I demonstrated how by controlling the roller clamps you can all being the saline coming out or all being the propofol coming out – simply by the adjustment of the roller clamps.

Walgren: This is common and typical how it is done?

Shafer: No, it is common to do without the infusion pump. And it is commonly done with non-critical things like antibiotics.

– – – –

Walgren: What is the risk if propofol is applied? What happens if complications arise?

Shafer: The serious risk of propofol is that you stop breathing either from the lack of effort (you don’t have the desire to breathe) or because the tongue falls into the back of your throat and the airway is obstructed. And that is the main cause of serious injury from infusions of propofol – the failure to breathe.

Walgren: Was this failure to breathe eventually led to failure of cardiac activity which caused Michael Jackson’s death in this case?

Shafer: Correct. When oxygen does not run into your lungs, the lungs run out of oxygen. The blood runs out of oxygen and the heart runs out of oxygen. And it is the lack of oxygen in the heart is that it kills the heart.

Walgren: Dr. Shafer, have you reviewed the models presented by the defence that reflect the levels of unchanged propofol in the urine?

Shafer: Yes, I have.

Walgren: You’ve had an opportunity to research the various literature as it exists today in regard to the amounts (of propofol) to be found in the urine?

Shafer: Yes, I have.

Walgren: Are you aware that the defence’s findings relied on Simons’ article from 1988?

Shafer:  Yes, I am. The Simons article found that there was very little unchanged propofol – so little that it is actually difficult to measure it. What they did was mix oil with the urine knowing that propofol would go into the oil.

He explained that the researchers employed a radioactivity method but they didn’t  know whether they were measuring unchanged propofol or its metabolite. They said that the upper limit of the overall radioactivity measured was 0,3% but they didn’t know how much of it was actually unchanged propofol – because they didn’t know what the source of the radioactivity was. It could be propofol or it could be propofol metabolite that also goes into oil.

So in that article they stated that out of those 0,3% the level of free propofol could be all the way down to zero because all the radioactivity could be the result of metabolites going into oil.

Dr. Shafer conducted research into more recent studies on unchanged propofol. There were multiple articles published since 1988.

The 2002 article which gave Dr. Shafer the definite reply

One particular article Dr. Shafer found definitive on this issue. It is a 2002 Polish manuscript where the authors referred to the Simons paper which stated that “what we measured might be a metabolite”.

The authors said that Simons was right – what he showed was a metabolite and the actual unchanged propofol is much, much less.

The reason why this article was more precise is because for 14 years additional technology for measuring molecules was developed. A radioactivity method was much more crude.

Walgren:  Based on that improvement in technology they were able to be much more precise in their measurements?

Shafer: That’s correct.

Their measurement was 0, 004% of unchanged propofol eliminated into urine of the totally applied dose.

The level of unchanged propofol found in the urine found upon autopsy was 0,15 micrograms per ml. And the urine in the bladder was 500 ml. Converting it into micrograms Dr. Shafer came up with the number of 82,5 mcg.

The table showing the amount of propofol infused and the amount of propofol excreted into urine. The average numbers are underlined

In the 2002 article they actually had a table where they listed out the amount of propofol excreted unchanged and the doses administered to give those amounts.

  • The first column is how long the patients were undergoing surgery under propofol.
  • The second showed the method of calculations.
  • The third is the total amount of propofol delivered to each patient. The average amount of propofol given was 2000mgs or 200ml.
  • The fourth is the amount of urine. The average was 530ml.
  • The fifth shows the average amount of propofol excreted. The average per patient was 70,71 mcg of unchanged propofol.

This is quite close to what was measured in Michael Jackson’s case – his was 82,5mcg.

The 70,71 mcg residual propofol is associated with the dose of 2000mcgs or 200ml of Propofol given.

So if Michael Jackson had 82,5mcg it means that he had more than 200ml of Propofol.

It absolutely rules out the hypothesis offered by Dr. White (who said that Michael died of 25ml).

Actually it suggests that Michael Jackson received more than in Dr. Shafer’s simulations.

Thank you, Dr. Shafer!

Walgren: Dr. Shafer, would you agree that the need for monitoring and safety precautions will be even greater in a home setting?

Shafer:  Yes. Anesthesiologists spend a certain amount of time providing care in what we call remote locations. A remote location may be a radiology suite, or perhaps a difficult patient in an eye clinic, or a patient in some location where we normally don’t give anesthesia.

And what we are taught is that when we are in a remote location you have less tolerance for air. You have to be particularly careful.  You have to adhere to the standards as careful as possible, and the reason is that you have no back-up.

So to your question if there were such a thing as bedroom based anesthesia the standard guidelines would be considered a minimum because you have no back up, no tolerance for air.

And if you have no air, you have the mortality.

Walgren: Thank you , Dr. Shafer.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED, DR. SHAFER!

*  *  *  *  *

159 Comments leave one →
  1. December 8, 2011 5:21 pm

    ivy, may I please share the last quotation from my correspondence with Dr.Shafer as it is relevant to this thread (I wanted but didn’t know where to post it a bit earlier):

    “…I am glad that my testimony has helped many Michael Jackson fans understand what happened on June 25th, 2009. It is important when dealing with a tragic loss to understand how it happened. Not knowing can be as painful as the loss itself. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the circumstances of Michael Jackson’s death, and am humbled by the outpouring of appreciation…” – Dr. Steven Shafer

    > “Not knowing can be as painful as the loss itself”.

    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/120403-MJJC-Exclusive-Q-amp-A-with-Dr.-Steve-Shafer-Write-your-questions/page2

    Like

  2. December 5, 2011 2:34 am

    Tom Mesereau on Dr White, during a chat

    @Ivy_MJJCIvy
    “He WAS a reputable witness before he started to testify” T-Mez about Dr.White. LOL

    http://twitter.com/#%21/Ivy_MJJC

    “He was a class act. He wasn’t over the top, he was very passionate when needed”. T-Mez about Walgren.

    Like

  3. November 26, 2011 3:08 am

    @MOA,

    It’s from Dr Addams lawyer

    “Just so you know, Jane, we have information that as far back as 2007, Dr. Murray was pressuring some local doctors to actually give Michael Jackson propofol. So first of all, he hasn’t even come clean regarding when he started pushing propofol on Michael Jackson”

    http://site2.mjeol.com/video/mjeol-libo-agwara-adams-murray-propofo-10072011.html

    Like

  4. MOA permalink
    November 26, 2011 2:42 am

    @Shelly

    Could you explain what you mean here:

    “After all, he claimed that he know from other doctors that Murray was pushing MJ to use propofol since 2007.”

    Like

  5. November 26, 2011 1:52 am

    @vindicate

    You’re welcome.

    Something that I don’t understand about Dr Addams is why he didn’t spoke to the police. After all, he claimed that he know from other doctors that Murray was pushing MJ to use propofol since 2007.

    Like

  6. November 26, 2011 1:42 am

    Walgren will probably use the Murray documentary during the sentencing. http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1123_murray.pdf

    Shelly, thank you for the link!

    Like

  7. November 25, 2011 10:14 pm

    Shelly, you are right,I don´t really know if Dr.Adams has filed that lawsuit at this point in time. From what I have come upon recently he has been very angry that he somehow will even be named in this mess created by murray.At least he and his lawyer seemed serious re the filing.
    Now murray tried all the time to claim it was drugs from some other Dr.s that caused the death.I don´t think so,just the huge amount of propofol given that night-morning based on amount of urine in bladder,the content of unmetabolised propofol in that + the urine in the bottle that also contained unmetabolized propofol is so overwhelming.And ofcourse the fact that the bladder was filled to capacity at death adds to the argument that Michael was unconscious for many hours and died without regaining consciousness.
    The documentary will not be in Murray´s favor. I hope it will be shown during the sentencing.

    Like

  8. November 25, 2011 12:20 am

    Walgren will probably use the Murray documentary during the sentencing.

    http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1123_murray.pdf

    Like

  9. shelly permalink
    November 24, 2011 10:32 pm

    Did he really filed that lawsuit. He said he would at the beginning of trial.

    Like

  10. November 24, 2011 7:56 pm

    Dr Adams would have done the whole thing, including sleep specialist and addititional staff for 600.000 dollars.Murray had asked him to come to his home and discuss the matter which he refused so they met in his office instead. This was the only time the 2 of them met.Murray did not want anybody else with him,fearing ofcourse his 150.000/month.Dr.Adams or his lawyer Libo Awgada say straight out that murray killed MJ. Dr Adams would also have done rapid detox, which is done under c.4 hrs anesthesia (don´t know what kind) during which opiate antagonists are administered.This way you can deal with the physical withdrawal synptoms if there were any.If there is addiction you ofcourse have to follow up with support and other measures. Murray was not trained to do this himself. Now the manslaughter sounds too little. With that documentary murray only put his foot in his mouth. .

    Like

  11. November 24, 2011 5:25 pm

    More bad news for Murray now that Dr.David Adams has heard Dr Murrays documentary,where Murray implicates Dr Adams, refuses Dr.Adams services, which would have included a sleep specialist,and the pricetag being less,ie 600.000 dollars. Dr Adams attorney Libo Agwara states Murray monopolised Michael .Dr Adams is furious over the lies Murray told in his documentary and plans to sue murray.

    Like

  12. November 23, 2011 12:32 am

    “It was determined that Michael got 2063.5 mgs of propofol based on the propofol concentration in the urine of the bladder.The bladder had a higher concentration of propofol than that in the bottle. Now murray is a liar and teller of tall stories. He may well have created the whole drama of what happened in the morning and midday 6/25 , just made it up from his own head.”

    Kaarin, of course Murray made most of it up! I am surprised that everyone listens to Murray’s fairy tales as if he were a guru to admire. Murray said this, Murray said that? The correct formula should be Murray lied this and Murray lied that!

    The urine in the jug also had propofol – its concentration was 2/3 of the final concentration in the bladder, so the number was also rather high. Does it mean that some 3-4 hours prior to his death when that urine was collected in the jug Michael had already been under propofol for some time and had already received at least part of that dose? But then he was sleeping under propofol most of the night!

    What I see as real drama is the fact that Murray administered propofol in excessive quantities. He didn’t have a measuring device and was constantly overmedicating Michael with propofol. It is one thing to provide minimal doses for mild sedation (when a person is just dosing off a little) and it is a totally different thing to pour propofol without limit and constantly balancing on the edge of general anesthesia.

    How many times did Michael’s breathing stop during those 2 months prior to his death? How many times did Murray revive him by turning off propofol at the last minute and giving him oxygen? And Michael wouldn’t even know that he was dying several times a week! The only thing he would feel in the daytime is the after effects of all this dying night after night. Hence his shivering and other strange signs.

    If Murray wanted his patient alive he should have spent some $500 and bought that measuring pump for delivering precise doses, a device which will not give a single excessive drop. But he preferred to save up on Michael and pour propofol uncontrollably.

    That manual roller clamp on the tubing with propofol was a joke. Dr. Shafer said that while saline was dripping from the saline bag on the one side of the IV stand and the propofol was dripping from the other side of the IV stand, joining somewhere in the middle, the balance between the two parts would change, and this means that the speed of a propofol drip would change too.

    This is not the way to administer propofol! One more drop and mild sedation turns into moderate sedation. One more drop and moderate sedation turns into general anesthesia (where breathing stops). You cannot play jokes with a medication like that. And Murray was playing them. Because he simply could not care less…

    Like

  13. November 22, 2011 5:14 am

    It was determined that Michael got 2063.5 mgs of propofol based on the propofol concentration in the urine of the bladder.The concentration of the various meds in the urine in the bottle was similar, but the proportions somewhat differed. The bladder had a higher concentration of propofol than that in the bottle. Now we will never know when the urine in the bottle was voided.I doubt that it would have been there from the night before.Also murray claimed he had slept without propofol for 2 nights. Now murray is a liar and teller of tall stories. He may well have created the whole drama of what happened in the morning and midday 6/25 , just made it up from his own head.
    The nurse who died (I presume he used lidocaine with it) may have pushed it in the fastest way possible.Even faster than a drip.I do believe that Michael was sedated or unconscous while Murray made all those calls and text messages. At some point the propofol level hit the point when breathing stopped and some 10 min later his heart stopped.

    Like

  14. November 22, 2011 3:00 am

    Font Size:

    Discord Over Strategy on Dr. Conrad Murray’s Defense Team

    Miriam Rozen ContactAll Articles

    Texas Lawyer

    November 21, 2011

    Print
    Share
    Email
    Reprints & Permissions
    Post a Comment

    Ed Chernoff of Houston’s Stradley, Chernoff & Alford
    Image: John Everett

    The lawyers representing Dr. Conrad Murray in Los Angeles Superior Court had no reason to cheer on Nov. 8, but it wasn’t just the guilty verdict that created tension on the trial team.

    For much of the trial, discord dominated relations between Houston lawyer Ed Chernoff, who led the criminal-defense team for Murray, and his co-counsel J. Michael Flanagan of Glendale, Calif.’s Flanagan Unger Grover & McCool. Neither lawyer plans to represent Murray on appeal.

    “This is the first time I’ve done a case with co-counsel in 30 years, and we had a difference of opinion about how the case should be handled,” Flanagan says.

    The California criminal trial of Murray ended with the jury convicting him of one count of involuntary manslaughter related to the death of pop star Michael Jackson. Citing Murray’s significant ties outside the state of California (Murray formerly had a practice in Houston) and public safety concerns, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael E. Pastor remanded Murray into custody, noting sentencing would occur on Nov. 29.

    Chernoff of Stradley Chernoff & Alford sat at the defense table with Flanagan for the entire six weeks of the trial. At the start, Chernoff lived at Flanagan’s home to save on expenses, but after several weeks Chernoff says he moved out. The cause of the strained relationship? Disagreements over trial strategy, specifically how to handle the examination of expert witnesses, among other things. Plus, Chernoff says, “You can only impose on co-counsel for so long.”

    Flanagan says, “Dr. Murray got Monday morning-quarterbacking on his doctoring, so I don’t want to be Monday morning-quarterbacking Ed’s lawyering.” But he notes that he disagreed with Chernoff over whether Murray should testify on his own behalf: Flanagan thought he should, but Chernoff said no. In the end, Murray did not take the stand.

    “You had a doctor providing an unusual drug under unusual circumstances for an unusual person. We could never get past that as logical as we tried to be. And as much as we tried to differentiate the case from that, we couldn’t get past it. There was an elephant in the room and we could never feed it enough peanuts,” Chernoff says, referring to the decision not to have Murray testify.

    But Flanagan says, “I think the elephant was the need for the doctor to explain what he did.”

    Flanagan says he also proposed a different tack for cross-examining the last prosecution witness: Dr. Stephen Shafer, an anesthesiologist. “I thought we ought to go after Shafer real hard. Ed didn’t,” Flanagan says. At trial, it was Chernoff who cross-examined Shafer — instead of Flanagan, as the defense team initially had planned.

    The tension between Chernoff and Flanagan was apparent in the documentary “Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Fatal Friendship,” which recently aired on MNSBC and other networks. In one scene, Chernoff prepares to leave Flanagan’s house as Flanagan curses at Chernoff, then admonishes him saying he has the trial strategy “all mapped out. . . .”

    Chernoff says “the carnival atmosphere” put more pressure on the defense team and on Murray. “The press tried to create drama; the whole thing was a reality show,” Chernoff says. Thankfully, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department helped the defense team use “backdoor entrances” to avoid the press, he says. “They took my client and me away from the hordes of people out there when they could have done nothing.”

    Occasional weekends home in Houston and several excursions to the beach in California also eased the stress, Chernoff says.

    “In a trial like this you are going to have some disagreements among the counsel, and the lead counsel has to make the decisions,” Chernoff says. “And that’s the way it was happening at this trial. I had to make some decisions.”

    Back to California

    Within 48 hours of the verdict in People of the State of California v. Conrad Robert Murray , Chernoff had flown back to Houston, welcomed by his law partners who needed him to get back to work right away. But it isn’t just Murrays’ sentencing that will have Chernoff and partner Matt Alford back in California on Nov. 29.

    Judge Pastor has ordered Alford to appear before him at a hearing related to Alford’s September appearance on NBC’s “Today” show. Pastor had issued a gag order in Murray’s case. “In my 20 years of practice I have never knowingly or otherwise violated a court order,” Alford says.

    Chernoff says of the hearing, “I think it’s bullshit and typical.”

    Chernoff and Flanagan will represent Murray at his Nov. 29 sentencing hearing, where Murray faces up to four years in prison. Chernoff says he has turned to a sentencing specialist with a background in the California justice system for help preparing. He has not decided if he will present any witnesses at the hearing. Unlike Texas, California juries do not participate in sentencing, he says.

    Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted Murray, did not return a telephone call and an email seeking comment.

    Chernoff says he has received telephone calls from prospective clients who watched him defend Murray. “I’ve already got a couple calls from California,” notes Chernoff, who passed the California bar exam last year. [See “Houston Meets Hollywood,” Texas Lawyer , Jan. 31, 2011, page 1.]

    But he has no plans to take on any more California cases. “I’m not saying there is not another case; I reckon I will. But it’s going to have to be a special case.”

    It is unknown who will represent Murray in his appeal, Chernoff says. Flanagan says he prefers trial work. Chernoff says he already has spent three months away from his Houston firm, and his partners and family “deserve better than that.” Plus he has a trial set to begin in a Houston court on Dec. 15.

    He believes a new lawyer who wasn’t involved with the trial will have a fresh perspective and be better equipped to develop an effective appellate strategy for Murray.

    Citing attorney-client privilege, Chernoff and Flanagan decline to discuss how much they charged Murray in legal fees. But so far, the financial remuneration for representing Murray has not been equal to the task, Chernoff says. “If Dr. Murray had paid me a quarter-million dollars, it was entirely too little considering the amount of work that was involved and the collateral issues that were attached,” Chernoff says.

    In January, Chernoff told Texas Lawye r, “If I walk out with my client at the end of the trial, it’s going to have a tremendous impact on my practice. If I don’t walk out [with him], I’m going to be the guy who lost the biggest trial since O.J. Simpson’s.” Now that Murray’s trial is over, Chernoff sticks by that sentiment.

    “I’m glad I did it,” he says, “but, yes, it’s a big loss. But as a defense attorney you are not worth a crap if you don’t try these things. Defense attorneys often lose, but what differentiates those attorneys are those who are willing to get on the bull in the first place.”

    http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202532904349&slreturn=1

    Like

  15. November 22, 2011 2:42 am

    “my question was more about the quantity of urine in itself. In my opinion it’s another proof that he was sedated for a long time before he died”.

    The prosecution did not focus on the quantity of urine as proof of the fact that Michael was asleep – they had much more powerful proof of that. But we can very well add this argument to a dozen others we have by now. Judging by the table I mentioned and the average amounts of urine listed there for various periods of sedation, Michael was under sedation for more than 3 hours.

    Like

  16. November 22, 2011 2:32 am

    I know about Dr Shafer and the amount of Propofol in his urine, my question was more about the quantity of urine in itself. In my opinion it’s another proof that he was sedated for a long time before he died.

    Like

  17. November 22, 2011 2:29 am

    Are they serious

    A judge has denied a request to retest a vial of the powerful anesthetic that killed Michael Jackson.

    Dr. Conrad Murray’s lawyer asked for testing on a vial of the anesthetic propofol on Friday.

    Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor says Murray’s defense attorneys knew about the vial at the start of the case and could have requested the testing months ago.

    Attorney J. Michael Flanagan wrote in a court filing that the testing is necessary to analyze the prosecution theory that Murray placed Jackson on an IV drip of propofol and the painkiller lidocaine then left the room.

    A prosecutor argued Monday that Murray received a fair trial and there was no legal basis for the request.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

    Just days before sentencing, lawyers for the doctor convicted of causing Michael Jackson’s death want a judge to order independent testing of a vial of the powerful anesthetic that killed the singer.

    Attorneys for Dr. Conrad Murray will ask a judge at a hearing Monday to release to an independent lab the vial of propofol that authorities contend was used on the morning of Jackson’s death.

    Attorney J. Michael Flanagan wrote in a court filing that the testing is necessary to analyze the prosecution theory that Murray placed Jackson on an IV drip of propofol and the painkiller lidocaine then left the room.

    Prosecution expert Dr. Steven Shafer testified during the six-week trial of Murray that the only plausible scenario to explain Jackson’s death was that the doctor left the pop superstar on the IV drip.

    Shafer said he ruled out all other scenarios, including the defense theory that Jackson somehow gave himself the fatal dose of the anesthetic being used as a sleep aid.

    The chemical makeup of the propofol vial “has become relevant to confirm or negate the accuracy of Dr. Shafer’s proposed scenario,” Flanagan wrote.

    Publicists for Murray and his lawyers say the results may form the basis of an appeal of the Houston-based cardiologist’s conviction.

    Prosecutors and Flanagan were expected to argue about the request during an 11 a.m. hearing.

    Murray was convicted two weeks ago of involuntary manslaughter. He remains jailed while awaiting sentencing on Nov. 29 and faces a possible sentence ranging from probation to up to four years.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/21/national/a101704S24.DTL

    Like

  18. November 22, 2011 1:34 am

    Did they brought that subject during the trial? “Michael had 550 mL of urine in his bladder. A normal bladder comfortably holds 300-350 mL of urine. A “full” bladder holds about 500-700 mL of urine. Michael’s bladder had about 550 mL of urine in it so his bladder was at capacity. The desire to urinate begins to be felt when the bladder is at about 25% of its working value–so, if the working volume was 400 mL for Michael then at about 100 mL Michael should have felt the need to pee. Whatever the percentage, at 550 mL Michael should have felt the need to urinate and urinate ASAP. But, Murray claims Michael was awake, “demanding” propofol. Really? Michael was awake yet did not think to empty his at-capacity bladder?”

    Yes, of course this was addressed at the trial. This matter was actually the centre point of the whole case.

    Gatorgirl is absolutely correct in her conclusions. Dr. Shafer also proved that Michael was asleep, had been sleeping under propofol for several hours (in a state of moderate sedation when breathing is natural). However the quantity of propofol in his body was slowly rising and Michael died when it reached the level when breathing stops. If Murray had been watching he should have just stopped the propofol from dripping and pushed some air into Michael’s lungs and Michael would be alive now – as simple as that.

    As regards the amount of urine found in Michael’s bladder Dr. Shafer produced a very good table from a scientific article devoted to this particular subject.

    Patients were operated on under propofol anesthesia, and scientists measured the molecules of propofol found in their urine.

    The table shows how long the operation lasted, how much propofol was given and how many molecules were found in the urine. So if we know how much was found in Michael’s urine, we know how much he received.

    The table shows that he received more than 200ml of propofol that night (and this explains all those empty bottles found).

    All people who showed the same level of propofol in their urine as Michael, were under anesthesia for about 170 minutes, or 3 hours. The average urine collected during that time was 530ml. This is higher than usual because propofol was provided to them together with the saline. In Michael’s case the saline flowed from the second bag hanging on the same IV stand – the two fluids, propofol and saline, were joined via a connector and Murray regulated the flow of each with a roller clamp on each tubing (an absolutely barbaric method of regulating propofol – it should be dosed precisely by a special device!)

    Since Michael was receiving both propofol and saline he produced a bigger amount of urine too, and that it why he needed a catheter.

    More about it here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/conrad-murray-trial-week-6-anything-for-money/ (the very end of the post)

    Like

  19. November 22, 2011 12:52 am

    Did they brought that subject during the trial?

    Thursday, March 17, 2011
    “But I Have Got to Pee…”

    I have a new finding that I would like to share with everyone tonight that was meant to be a comment to my previous blog posting but became too long. I was talking with a dear friend today and it occurred to me to examine Michael’s urine output. I wish I did not have to cover this topic but is important because I think this further proves that Michael was sedated when Murray did in fact give the propofol to Michael which then begs for the question–why would Murray give Michael propofol if he was already sedated?

    Apparently 450 mLs of urine were found in the bottle left at the house and 550 grams (which is roughly the same amount in mL) was found in his bladder. His bladder, according to the autopsy report, was “distended and trabeculated”. It was distended from the volume of urine. Trabeculated means “characterized by thick wall and hypertrophied muscle bundles; typically seen in instances of chronic obstruction”. Michael had obstruction due to an enlarged prostate which is common in men around his age. When men have an enlarged prostate they tend to “go a little way too often” instead of being to empty their entire bladder at one time.

    I was reading a case study on a young male nurse who died from propofol abuse. His cause of death as well as his estimated amount of propofol administration was estimated through his propofol urine content. The nurse’s urine was found to have contained 5.4 ug/g–the bottle of Michael’s urine found at the house had less than 0.10 ug/g and the urine from the body had 0.15 ug/g of propofol–much less than the nurse who died. This report estimated that the nurse had died after accidentally giving a 200 mg dose of propofol too himself too fast–but before he died, he’d given himself at least eleven 20mL (200 mg) doses over about six hours (roughly 2225 mg).

    This report on the nurse also said that the typical person produces about 40-50 mL of urine an hour. Okay–450 mL divided by 50 mL gives you about 9 hours of urine in the bottle at the house. If you divide 550 mL by 50 mL you get about 11 hours worth of urine in Michael’s bladder. Whoa. We do not know when that urine in the bottle was voided, we do not know if it was voided at one time or collected over so many hours or even days. However, it seems it may have been urine released over that night because of the similar content to the urine found in Michael’s bladder–both contained propofol, lidocaine, ephedrine and midazolam (noticed the midazolam/propofol amounts “flipped” in the two samples–more propofol found in the bladder than the bottle and more midazolam found in the bottle than the bladder which seems to indicate the urine in the bottle was voided sometime that night, probably in more than one voiding).

    In a normal person (as in, someone without diabetes insipidus) , someone usually makes urine in proportion the amount of fluids they take in, so, a person who drinks just a little bit of liquid should not pee as much as someone who has taken in a lot of liquids. Murray claims Michael was dehydrated–so Murray may have actually given Michael a lot of IV saline fluids, either for dehydration or some other reason (perhaps a reason like Monica hinted at, for example).

    So, assuming Murray gave Michael a lot of fluids, for whatever reasons, it caused Michael to produce a lot of urine. Here is where the problem occurs–Michael had 550 mL of urine in his bladder. A normal bladder comfortably holds 300-350 mL of urine. A “full” bladder holds about 500-700 mL of urine. Michael’s bladder had about 550 mL of urine in it so his bladder was at capacity. The desire to urinate begins to be felt when the bladder is at about 25% of its working value–so, if the working volume was 400 mL for Michael then at about 100 mL Michael should have felt the need to pee. Whatever the percentage, at 550 mL Michael should have felt the need to urinate and urinate ASAP. But, Murray claims Michael was awake, “demanding” propofol. Really? Michael was awake yet did not think to empty his at-capacity bladder? In fact, Michael should have felt the urge to go well before he passed away but yet died with a full bladder but Murray insists Michael was awake all this time. I seriously doubt an awake Michael consciously held this much urine and did nothing about it, hell, he did not even have to get up to pee since he had a condom catheter on–I think almost certainly Michael was sedated thus did not feel the need to urinate and that is why his bladder was full. He would have peed had he been awake during all that time when Murray claims he was awake demanding this and that and what not. With Michael creating that amount of urine and holding it all that time one has to ask if Michael EVER awoke at any point on June 25th before he died? It does not seem likely from my point of view.

    Let us not forget the autopsy report also lists “benzodiazepine effect” as a indirect cause of death. This indicates that Michael was in fact being sedated by the lorazepam given to him. I mentioned before that Michael was given a large dose of lorazepam. An expert who testified at the hearing in January said his estimate of lorazepam given was 7-12 mg–a far cry from the 4 mg total Murray claims he gave that night. He also said he thought it would have been sedating him. He also estimated the amount of propofol given was somewhere between 100-200 mg–a dose that should not have caused death in Michael had he not been being sedated by lorazepam in the first place which together these medications caused Michael to not be able to breathe on his own. (I hope to soon be able to directly quote the expert on the findings above as they cannot be verified at this time since the transcripts are no longer publicly available online. I also hope to try and come up with his findings as a way of double-checking everything at some point since an expert is not always right. Estimating the doses Michael received is very difficult given possible reasons such as being over-hydrated, decomposition of propofol in plastic containers, multiple administrations of certain drugs rather than just one dosing, etc. I am not sure if the amounts quoted above are meant to indicate terminal (last) administrations or cumulative administrations of the medications, either.) However, Murray is lying about the dose and time he last gave lorazepam. Murray has lied about the dose of propofol he gave. He has almost certainly lied about Michael being awake during this time–WHY? Why do you give propofol to a man who is sedated and why do you claim he asked for it when he could not ask for it because he was already sedated?!

    One thing I am still puzzled about is why were so many bottles empty at the scene. Two lidocaine bottles were empty and three others had partial amounts of drugs, two 20 mL bottles of propofol in addition to a 100 mL bottle of propofol (propofol should be discarded after 6 hours of being opened). I do not know if these were used during previous nights or if they were emptied as a part of staging a scene or something.
    Murray supposedly used no propofol the night before (thus should have used no IV lidocaine, either). Looking at Michael’s urine levels it does not appear he had been given that much propofol before he died, certainly not any grand amount over 6 hours as was the case with the nurse died. It is difficult to make all these assumptions given Murray has done nothing but lie and evidence was not preserved properly if preserved at all. It will always be hard to state anything as 100% fact concerning Michael’s death but I, and others, will try our best to piece everything together in time as more information comes out of the trial and I learn more information scientifically-related to this case.

    http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/search?q=pee

    Like

  20. Linda permalink
    November 8, 2011 8:25 am

    “It’s amazing how we were interviewed for 50 minutes and ABC aired less than 2 minutes of what we said. What they did not show was the full context of the session.”

    What did they expect??? We’re talking MJ and the media. Nothings changed there in all these years. They’re all just different forms of Demon and Basher with the same agenda. I can’t imagine any fans that would want to see him get away with this.

    He was found guilty. Justice is partially served. Curious about his sentence now. At least no matter, I’m sure his career is over. Still wondering if he is going to go down alone, and if it was a planned murder. Was he in on the plan or if he just worked it out accidentally. So many questions left unanswered for me so far.

    I felt kind of a relief when I saw the verdict and the cuffs go on him, but I know it is far from over. Watching him get cuffed, he still seemed to have little expression on his face, but it brought back, at that minute how Michael was treated being cuffed over an allegation only. There was no reason for that. His killer was cuffed, only AFTER being found guilty by a jury.

    Did you guys feel like me watching all the after affects, It was almost like a party. I felt like I was watching a new years eve party. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve been waiting on this, and was in the middle of steam cleaning carpets with my sis when it all came down, but it felt right, but kind of weird too watching the jubilation.

    I didn’t feel a party mood, just a sense of relief that the jury did get it and brought out the right verdict. Sometimes, things actually do work out right for Michael. Now we just have to patiently wait to see if the big fish get caught. I really thought more about AEG would come out in the trial but I guess that wasn’t the time for it. I hope if Murray knew what he was doing and WAS working for bigger fish, that he will start pointing fingers. Michael should have full justice, if there were others involved.

    Like

  21. November 7, 2011 11:23 pm

    Just like many others;Trying to make money anyway you can.So Michael did not really mind being killed..? And how nice to know that Michael was messy..here we have stickers with words of wisdom,one,( I am sorry for the poor translation)A tidy (100%) house is a sign of a life not lived.
    Letting Murray go..well that opens a new venue for doctors:Become a medical hitman,good pay guaranteed.

    Like

  22. November 7, 2011 7:40 pm

    I just found that article on LSA

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/26/local/la-me-0226-home-surgery-20110226

    Like

  23. November 7, 2011 7:18 pm

    “A relatively small-but seemingly growing-percentage of people who call themselves Michael Jackson “fans” seem to be in support of Murray’s acquittal.” –– Raven

    Since it is the first time I hear that some “fans” are in support of Murray’s acquittal I have a question to those who know these “fans”. Are they by any chance the same people who fought the release of the posthumous album “Michael”? And who blamed Sony for Michael’s death?

    I am just curious.

    Like

  24. November 7, 2011 5:05 pm

    “Raven has written a good article regarding the statements of the bodyguards: http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=5228#comments

    Yes, Raven’s article is very good! It also opened my eyes on some things going among the fans – or rather “fans” to be more precise. At this very moment I cannot write about it but in a few hours probably will.

    My first reaction is what these “fans” are doing is setting free a person who was the hands of someone who wanted Michael’s death.

    Big fish never do it by themselves – they have others, small fry to do it for them. And if we are able to get the small fish we will probably eventually get to the big ones too.

    So the desire to get the big ones is no reason to let the small ones go. And “killing one’s paycheck” is no argument either – against any paycheck there is always a bigger paycheck.

    The above is of course true only if it was something worse than an involuntary manslaughter.

    And if it was “just” gross negligence – it was again Murray who made it happen. No matter how bad the other doctors were their involvement in Michael’s life did not bring about his death. It was Murray who did it.

    So whichever it is he has to answer.

    Though it may be only a start.

    Like

  25. Susanne permalink*
    November 7, 2011 4:03 pm

    I think Raven has written a good article regarding the statements of the bodyguards:
    http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=5228#comments

    Like

  26. lynande51 permalink
    November 7, 2011 6:20 am

    The trouble I have with the bodyguards now changing their story once again is that they talked to ABC in the first place.Every time that someone does that they turn around and say “they shot 50 minutes and only showed 2 minutes”.Everybody in the world knows that is the modis operandi with the media and MJ why did they do it or answer any questions like that at a time like this.They should have known better is what I say to them now.

    Like

  27. shelly permalink
    November 6, 2011 11:41 pm

    If they are others, then the bodyguards should have said that to the police in 2009. the bodyguards should have said that. Speaking to the media is always very easy when you have no proof. They are like Latoya when she claimed you have to read between the lines of her book to know who are the real killers.

    Like

  28. November 6, 2011 11:12 pm

    “It’s amazing how we were interviewed for 50 minutes and ABC aired less than 2 minutes of what we said. What they did not show was the full context of the session.”

    I can easily believe that the media distorted everything they said. This isn’t the first time and not the last one.

    The media’s role in this game is awful. One would expect that after Dr. Shafer testified on the last day the press would present the truth to the public and explain in simple terms what science had already proved at the trial. They could have asked experts to comment on Dr. Shafer’s words so that the truth became understandable even to a small child – by making charts, drawings, animations, etc.

    I cannot imagine even for a second that they are complete idiots and didn’t understand what Dr. Shafer said.

    And since they are not doing it the only other alternative is that they don’t want the truth to be known.

    Instead they are playing games with the public, are still distorting facts and giving a chance to Murray’s supporters to speak for him on TV.

    This is probably why these bodyguards said that “this is the same system that tried to Crucify Mr. Jackson”

    “There are many others that should be held accountable for MJ’s death.”

    They should name them or otherwise it will never end.

    Like

  29. appleh permalink
    November 6, 2011 7:38 pm

    How do they know what MJ wanted, this is just an assumption !!!

    Like

  30. shelly permalink
    November 6, 2011 6:17 pm

    What does it have to do with what MJ wanted or not? If you are criminally negligent then it’s normal to be on trial.

    Like

  31. November 6, 2011 4:50 pm

    New message from the 2 bodyguards:

    “It’s amazing how we were interviewed for 50 minutes and ABC aired less than 2 minutes of what we said. What they did not show was the full context of the session. On our watch Mr. Jackson and Murray were friends. If Murray is found guilty then he needs to pay for his negligence.
    The Mr. Jackson we knew would not want Murray criminally tried because this is the same system that tried to Crucify Mr. Jackson. WE DO NOT SUPPORT OR DEFEND Conrad Murray, he needs to be held accountable for any negligence. There are many others that should be held accountable for MJ’s death.
    No matter the outcome, Murray will forever carry the cloud of being responsible for the death of Michael Jackson.”

    Like

  32. November 6, 2011 3:48 pm

    It is much simpler than you think.Go back and listen carefully to Dr. Shafer, when he talks about the paper from 2002 ,and read VMJ transcript of that.

    Like

  33. November 6, 2011 3:12 pm

    Not to be too harsh on the jury,remember that in US the metric system is not in use. The jury ought to get a chart on metric weights..They are of course permitted to use their computers at home for this information.The metric system for sure has no agenda. But thinking of the exellent material the prosecution witnesses presented, especially it would be a tragedy if no weight,if not all,I would say,be given to Dr. Shafer´s 2002 paper and how it exactly fits.If people do not use it in their daily living and only have a vague recollection from schooldays I think it is absolutely necessary for them to have some understanding of it. It is really simple.You can go to :www. Metric weights,Tecnocrati.Free dictionary on mass units. There may other good sites too.One really good had disappeared, I used it when the grain of sand amount of propofol in stomach was being questioned. Also calculations can reach a huge number of digits,so jurors need access to calculators.I don´t know if there is a single witness with some background who could help the others.To me this seems something that should have been thought of by the judge as much scientific material of the highest quality was presented.What about not demonstrating for neither either party, just ask:DO YOU KNOW THE METRIC SYSTEM FOLKS?

    I hope the jurors are permitted to use their own brains even when not in the jury room.Let this not go south just from plain ignorance.
    What I have seen by scanning other posts, little ,if any attention is given to scientific facts. More like a popularity vote.I truly hope I am wrong re the the jyry in this

    PS The 2002 paper was not published by DR,Shafer, he just found it in his thorough search on everything on propofol.

    Like

  34. November 6, 2011 12:19 pm

    “.If Murray had thought at that time that someone else was giving him something that is what he would have done.”

    Or he should have realized that he was responsible for MJ’s illness.

    Like

  35. November 6, 2011 12:00 pm

    @lynande,

    I think it’s the police who contacted her in 1995. Otherwis, I don’t know why she would spoke to the police, it makes no sense.

    As for Murray, the bodyguards forget that he isn’t on trial for murder, it’s for unvoluntary manslaughter, it’s not the same thing at all.

    Sometimes I wonder if it would been better to have Murray judge by doctors or people who has knowledge in medicine.

    Like

  36. lynande51 permalink
    November 6, 2011 4:37 am

    I think the voicemail from Frank Dileo says everything.He called Murray saying he thought that they should get blood tests to find out what Michael was doing.If Murray had thought at that time that someone else was giving him something that is what he would have done.Instead he tells everyone that he has it under control.It wasn’t until he killed Michael that he thought he could use that to get him off the hook.

    Like

  37. lynande51 permalink
    November 6, 2011 4:26 am

    Shelly I don’t know why Lisa Marie even talked to the police let alone bring up 1995. I have givien up trying to figure out her motivation for talking about Michael at all. In her interview with Oprah she said she was doing it to stop the questions about Michael before she released her new album and now there is no album.Who knows what motivates some of these people.
    It was Mike Garcia’s father that was a patient of Murray’s and he is the one that called Murray to get him to come to the house for the kids.The other 2 bodyguards are now out there saying that Michael would not have wanted Murray to go to trial.They give their reason that Michael never would have wanted his life opened up in court again. I have a pretty strong opinion about that too and he probably would not have wanted that but then he for damn sure never wanted that quack to kill him either. I think it has totally escaped people that the only one that put Michael’s life out there to be scrutinzed in this trial was Murray and his lawyers. If they think that Murray was not the one that killed Michael and that there is someone else responsible I would like them to name a name and get it over with otherwise the only thing they are doing is hurting Michael not helping him. Murray needs to be convicted. Michael did not insert an IV cath behind his knee every night Murray did. Michael did not buy propofol Murray did. Michael did not hang an IV drip Murray did. If they think there were others involved theybetter put forth a firm answer as to who or they need to get off the LaToya gravy train. Sorry but some of the people that were around Michael need to just shut up.
    I think everyone should listen to Murray’s statement again so theycan get a grasp on this very simple statement. The only one in the whole world that suggested that Michael did this regularly was Murray or have they not noticed that every other Doctor that talked about it says that would never have done this. I know one of the biggest problems is that people don’t understand the pharmacodynamics of propofol and they make assumptions about it that are based on the quacks statement. We have heard time and time again just how reckless Murray was from every other doctor. That is because of the phamacodynamics of the propofol and how quickly it can kill.Do they not get the part where if any part of Murray’s statement were true it was only to give the police the name of the drug that killed him. Doen’t anyone understand that he could not have been doing this for years without this very thing happening to him long before Murray came into his life.

    Like

  38. November 6, 2011 12:42 am

    With friends like Murray you don´t need enemies.I recall reading about the Riot Act,actually there were 2 meetings at Michaels, 6/18 and 6/20.
    I think the 20th was when the riot act was read to Michael. It was said that murray was rude and condescending towards Michael.He felt sure about himself having AEG behind him. At other times,why should he have been unfriendly? A friend does not ask for 150 gran per month and then carelessly poison you.And to state, more or less, that Michael did not mind being killed? Well, he is dead so you can presume whatever suites you.Psychopathic charm is in fact a clinical concept that applies to some psychopaths.What did he tell all those women he made pregnant?

    And how nasty to tape Michael after he had drugged him. There are other nasty rumours about him,but I´ll not comment He is good at telling tall stories,ie how he comforted the children and had a conversation with Paris.He has a tendency towards pseudologia fantastica.Who knows what he goes around telling, he certainly has a gift for that.He has made a mess of his own life so far. I fear that the market will be flooded by books about Michael and murray will contribute with some about himself..

    Scanning other sites it makes me sad to see how little attention is paid to the excellent expert witnesses and the scientific proof. White was hired to poke sticks in the wheels,not to come forward with anything except messing up what others had stated after careful study of all literature and serious research.

    Like

  39. November 6, 2011 12:31 am

    Let me say a couple of things more.

    Conrad Murray is GUILTY.

    He is guilty first and foremost not because he gave propofol (in my opinion), but because he was extremely, criminally negligent in doing it.

    – He could have bought a slightly more expensive pulse oxymeter with an alarm (or could have brought it from his clinic) and at the first sounds of Michael having a breathing trouble should have simply turned off the propofol infusion. The situation would have stabilized on its own.

    – He gave Michael an enormous amount of propofol – 2 vials of 100ml each. By the way, this was totally consistent with the empty vials found on the scene of crime. The total was more than 200ml. He was overdosing Michael on an nightly basis.

    – He was giving this huge amount without an infusion pump (a dosing precision device which does not allow any overdosage of propofol).

    – Instead Murray used a spike which makes a huge hole in the rubber of the vial through which propofol drips uncontrollably. The only way you can control is use a roller clamp on the tubing which is a very rough device. In no way can it be compared with an infusion pump which controls the dose electronically.

    – When propofol is administered that uncontrollably it can easily pass the margin from “moderate sedation” (when breathing is natural) into “general anesthesia” (when breathing stops).

    – If you have economized on the precision dosing device you should have the decency to at least monitor your patient and see that his breathing does not stop.

    – However Murray does not have this decency and not only leaves Michael to go to the bathroom, but also stays away from Michael to 1) make business phone call and calls to his girlfriends 2) leave voicemails for his patient who says he will take legal action against him 3) and sustain email correspondence with London.

    – It takes him a hour or more to do all these things and when he comes back he naturally finds his patient not breathing! The patient has been overdosed and has fallen into general anesthesia!

    – Instead of reviving his patient he starts hiding the evidence. Most probably he understands that it is too late to try and revive Michael, so no doctor on earth is able to help him

    – That is why he leaves a voicemail for Michael’s assistant and never asks him to call 911.

    – When Alvarez comes in Murray starts doing CPR (which is not done on patients with breathing arrest as it can do only harm) and does it on the soft surface of the bed where it is never done.

    Most probably he does it for effect only as Michael has been long dead.

    The rest of it you know – it is LIES, LIES, LIES to the paramedics, doctors and the police. To the police he lies many things including the theory that he gave only 25 ml of propofol (while in reality it was more than 200ml).

    How can Murray not be found guilty for such gross negligence and all these lies is beyond my understanding.

    And what difference can it make if Murray “was friends” with Michael?

    When you are friends with someone does it give you the right not to value his life and put his life at risk?

    Or is it forgivable if you do it for a friend?

    Like

  40. shelly permalink
    November 5, 2011 11:30 pm

    @lynande,

    What I don’t understand is why she spoke about Ratner in 1995.

    Like

  41. November 5, 2011 11:29 pm

    This is the video of their interview http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/michael-jacksons-bodyguards-conrad-murray-14879836#.TrPeqNKaoz0.twitter

    I am outraged. What is the good of their stories about Murray “being friends” with Michael? You can be a friend and still be very slack in your work! Which is what he was! If Michael had been more demanding towards Murray and held him accountable for what he was doing, Murray would have probably paid more attention to “his friend” and would NOT have been talking on the phone while he was dying.

    OF COURSE THE SITUATION IS MUCH BIGGER THAN IT APPEARS. I was the first to speak about it from the very beginning of it. To be able to understand who else is involved we should first see who Murray was answerable to. And he was answerable not to Michael – he was answerable to AEG as his contract said it.

    The only right Michael had was to say he didn’t like the doctor but it was only AEG who could fire him.

    Whom would YOU be more listening to – the boss who can fire you or someone you work together with who may be displeased with you? If Michael was displeased with Murray it does not mean that AEG would fire him!

    Murray WAS taking orders from AEG as Kenny Ortega practically said it in his email. “We brought the doctor into the fold” and “we decided to play tough love”.

    Murray told him to stop playing an “amateur doctor or psychologist” – and this was said when Ortega wanted to stand up for Michael and render him help!

    Murray wasn’t defending Michael from Ortega’s demands – no, it was the opposite – he was telling Ortega that it was none of his business to take care of Michael’s interests!

    And this was done in the presence of Randy Phillips who keeps complete silence about his role in this matter!

    These bodyguards are only distracting everyone’s attention from the real culprits. Giving them the benefit of the doubt I will assume that they simply do not understand what they are doing and definitely do not understand the situation between Michael and AEG (in fact very few people do).

    And if we don’t give them the benefit of the doubt I would even suggest that someone is paying them to confuse everyone and simultaneosly divert attention from Murray.

    Now they say they are defending Michael, but their pointing fingers at other doctors (as someone who gave him something to keep up his energy in the daytime) is only making Michael look like an addict he actually wasn’t!

    What a great way to defend Michael!

    Like

  42. November 5, 2011 10:06 pm

    “Murray should be judged by a jury of his peers.Some check on their understanding of science should be included in the process.We live in the 21.st century afterall”

    Kaarin, I feel very sad about this awful situation. Michael was studying all his life, liked reading books and knew a lot despite receiving very little formal education. The situation with the current jurors – or at least some of them being unable to understand the truth science is telling them – is screaming that people should stop being ignorant and be satisfied with the little they know. It is simply dangerous.

    Their ignorance is a stumbling block to the truth. Even when the truth is shown to these people they are unable to recognize it. What’s the use of presenting numerous facts in Michael’s vindication? Will they be able to understand them at all?

    And how can we expect these people to ever understand Michael? He and them are simply poles apart. He was growing all his life – in skills, knowledge and perception of life – while they are satisfied with the basic plant life they are living.

    Certainly not all people should be the Nobel prize winners, but some knowledge is required, as well as the desire to grow in it – or otherwise we will constantly fall victim to someone else’s lies. Michael would love to see his supporters knowledgeable and therefore immune against lies. This seems to be a kind of a bequest he is leaving to all of us.

    If things go the way they do now we are in for a total chaos. The few remaining sensible voices will simply drown in the sea of ignorance and lies.

    Like

  43. November 5, 2011 10:05 pm

    I think it was Michael Amir who introduced Murray. I have to check again the videos from the trial. In the meantime, this is what the 2 boduguards wrote a while ago in their FB to address the fans’ negative reaction:

    “In reference to our recent GMA interview: We are neither in support nor against Dr. Murray. We speak and answer from our own direct personal experience and eyewitness account of the relationship between Mr. Jackson and Dr. Murray. We were there and we speak truth. For those of you that disagree, you have that right. However; keep in mind that as Dr Murray Stands trial we believe there are others that should be held accountable as well. As fans of MJ you know that this situation is much bigger than it appears. .

    The Media has reported that we support Dr. Murray however the opening statement of the interview is that we insist we are not speaking to defend Dr Murray. You may all interpret that as you wish.”

    Days ago the 2 boduguards anounced that their book is ready and before that they had announced that Mike Garcia left from the deal.

    Like

  44. Suzy permalink
    November 5, 2011 9:20 pm

    Wasn’t it Faheem Mohammed who introduced Murray to Michael?

    Like

  45. November 5, 2011 8:44 pm

    Erin Jacksobs is doing a great job of being our spokesperson.

    It is the first time I hear Murray’s supporters voice a theory that “someone else killed” Michael. Is this what Murray himself is saying? Why didn’t he tell the truth at the trial then?

    Frankly – knowing the other players in this game – I don’t rule out anything at all. But Murray was Michael’s personal physician and should have never left his bedside. If he had been there all the time no one would have done Michael any harm.

    Do Murray’s suppporters mean to say that Murray was either an accomplice or an indifferent observer of what others were doing? He should have been there – but instead of closely monitoring his patient under propofol he fully neglected him and incessantly talked on the phone. When doctors administer propofol they dodn’t leave the patient’s side even for a second.

    So whichever way you look at it he is still guilty like hell. And if others put a hand to this too it does not make Murray less guilty.

    Like

  46. shelly permalink
    November 5, 2011 8:26 pm

    I believe the bodyguard who recommended Murray is one of those who testified against him. Those bodyguards are writing a book about MJ. At the beginning they were 3 but the third one, I believe his name is Mike Garcia, left them.

    Like

  47. November 5, 2011 8:18 pm

    2 crazy stories: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/11/conrad-murray-filming-documentary-while-waiting-verdict
    http://www.contactmusic.com/news/michael-jacksons-former-bodyguards-michael-wouldnt-have-wanted-conrad-murray-on-trial_1255921

    The very latest events bring a strange feeling that the world around us is mad.

    However for some bodyguards speaking up for Murray there might be a totally reasonable explanation. In his police statement Murray said he had been recommended to Michael by one of his bodyguards. He could be one of these two.

    Like

  48. November 5, 2011 5:09 pm

    Like

  49. November 5, 2011 3:56 pm

    A hung jury,then they have to start all over again.How does that differ fron reasonable doubt? And if this would be the case,will there be a new jury selection?Sure the defence has all along tried to push the case forward. Now they have used Dr White to stir up the concepts of science for the jury. One can hope there is 1 or 2 people with understanding of science who will explain it to the others,or will this go on forever.Dr Whites mischeif has cost him fines and I think the judge has even set a court date for him,(for contempt?).At best some jurors just need some time to digest the facts and will come to understand scientific facts.Chernoff told juge he will keep an eye on White.

    m

    Like

  50. November 5, 2011 2:45 pm

    If the jury fails to totally,and I have to say totally,understand science there must be a way(too late perhaps for this one)to take these matters into account in jury selection.Murray should be judged by a jury of his peers.Some check on their understanding of science should be included in the process.We live in the 21.st century afterall.Or how
    is it with the US schoolsystem? This is a topic for a sociologist to study. How much does the avarage, or comparable persons to this jury ,understand about science, even after the facts have been stated to to them? Maybe the situation is so bad that they need to borrow juries from abroad.

    Like

  51. Susanne permalink*
    November 5, 2011 12:41 pm

    Perhaps the jury doesn’t want to convey the impression that they take the easy way out. Or perhaps they need time to convince one person. I want to keep the faith. Can anyone explain again what happens when there is a hung jury? I am not quite sure what will expect us then.

    Like

  52. November 5, 2011 10:45 am

    “I think exactly as I do ! I’m talking about the answer you gave to Sheley’s comment . Agree with you 100% !”

    Thank you, Nora!

    Like

  53. November 5, 2011 10:41 am

    “That 2002 study is the nail in the coffin for Murray. Is it possible that the jurors could deny this?”

    It seems that they are denying this. If they couldn’t pass a guilty verdict within the first hour it means they simply didn’t understand a thing.

    They should have selected for the jury people at least with some education.

    This jury is doing a great disservice to their nation.

    Like

  54. November 5, 2011 10:28 am

    “I disagree that he hired other doctors to give him propofol especially Neal Ratner.When Ratner was in South Africa during the History tour with MJ which is what the entire story is Dr. Metzger was there also.Knowing what I know about Ratner I doubt very much that MJ would have been that reckless and I know for a fact that Dr.Metzger never would have allowed it. The first one that suggested the use of propofol for years was Murray and then in that very statement says it was the first time he used the propofol. I do not believe that he had it done because Dr. Metzger said he did not ask for a medication by name just IV medication.He had the name for Cherilyn Lee but he was also told by doctors that it would be safe if someone was there with him.We can pretty much guess what doctor gave him that information.”

    Lynette, you are probably right and all this “propofol-for-years” story is just Murray’s invention.

    Like

  55. November 5, 2011 7:34 am

    You’re so GOOD , mi amor !! And think exactly as I do ! I’m talking about the answer you gave to Sheley’s comment . Agree with you 100% ! LYM , Nora .

    Like

  56. lynande51 permalink
    November 5, 2011 5:52 am

    Teva,I’m not sure when Sanjay Gupta caught up with Neal Ratner but according to the court docs it was LMP that told police about him.When you read the document it talks about her saying that he collapsed in 1995 and that is when she found out he had a drug problem and wh yshe divorced him.We know better From Dr. Alleyn at Beth Israel Hospital but then she thought what she thought.Here is a link to the document
    http://ww2.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/e1ycmg2wf2ieox25icina055/1468308454.pdf

    Like

  57. Teva permalink
    November 5, 2011 4:40 am

    About Neil Ratner. His name was dropped into the mix by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. He tracked Ratner down, and confronted him outside his home about giving Michael Jackson propofol on the History tour. To the best of my knowledge he has never admitted to doing that, so I until I see some corroborating evidence it is just conjecture. Furthermore, outside of the Ratner innuendos I have not heard of another doctor giving Michael propofol for sleep, except former doctor Conrad Murray. I am sure he has had propofol for surgeries, and might of thought it could be used for sleep, maybe they were others before Murray, but where are the sources?

    Like

  58. November 5, 2011 4:40 am

    I found that, I don’t know if it’s true

    @jodigomesjodi gomes

    Fu@king appalled #ConradMurray is filming a documentary during entire trial & contacted me! Jackson family scrutinized 24/7, but he can?

    http://twitter.com/#%21/jodigomes

    Like

  59. November 5, 2011 4:26 am

    Guys, here is my final portion in this post – it is the actual cross-examination which will illustrate the conclusions provided earlier (the pictures are in the post).

    DR. WHITE’S DEATH MODEL BASED ON THE PFOPOFOL THEORY

    Walgren: You felt it was the most accurate account of unchanged propofol in the urine?

    White: Actually I didn’t make the determination. Dr. Ornelas is the one who did the pharmacokinetic modelling. She is the one with expertise, not me.

    (To Dr. White it looked like a very accurate estimation).

    Walgren: Did you read the article, Dr. White?

    White: I did look over the article. I didn’t really analyse it.

    Walgren: You came to testify in the court room regarding unchanged propofol levels in the urine. Told us that this was your opinion. Did you read this article in detail upon which to base your opinion?

    White: I didn’t read it in detail, no.

    Walgren: And you started working with Gabriela Ornelas the first time last week?

    White: She was contacted by someone in the defence team, is an expert in pharmacokinetics…I met her last week, later in the week, Wednesday, Thursday.

    Walgren: How many hours did you put into collaborating with Dr. Ornelas to conduct her computer modelling you’ve testified to this jury?

    White: I don’t know how many hours Dr. Ornelas spent working on this. I asked her a simple question, how much propofol you’d expect in the urine if the patient got two 25ml boluses of propofol versus 1000ml, because the numbers that were provided at autopsy in terms of concentration of free propofol in the urine did not seem to be consistent with the one thousand ml infusion given for 3 hours before Mr. Jackson died.

    Walgren: I’m sorry, Doctor. How many hours did you put in collaboration with Dr. Ornelas prior to your testifying so that you are confidently informed as to the data and the literature that you are relying upon?

    White: I had a conversation with her, she came over to the house where I was staying – the Flanagans’ house …

    Walgren: The Flanagans’ house?

    White: The Flanagans’ house, yes. And we had a conversation about kinetics, I asked her if she could provide the details about the modelling used, and she was kind enough to provide the hard copy.

    Walgren: When was that meeting?

    White: I believe it was near the end of last week.

    (Dr. White assumed that Murray injected Michael Jackson with 25 ml of propofol at about 10.40 (they must have looked up for a break between the calls to fit it in there) and Michael Jackson supposedly self-administered another 25ml between 11.30 and 12 o’clock. Then they discussed the urine model.)

    Walgren: Did you make your research to make sure that the very premise of the model – namely the 0,3% measurement was accurate and reflected in the literature?

    White: Well, there is variability among papers, I am sure, but we can repeat the model with another paper if you want to suggest better reference source.

    Walgren: Did you do any research of your own to make sure you are giving accurate information to this jury before you came in and testified to the 0,3% measurement?

    White: Sir, I was given her hypotheticals shortly before I had to testify.

    (After several more attempts from Walgren White said that his “feeling” was that 0,3% was the lowest estimate:)

    White: I didn’t look the articles on elimination. I cannot say that I researched every paper. My feeling was that it was most probably the most conservative estimate.

    Looking at the article on which he was basing his testimony Dr. White says:

    White: It is the article which I believe Dr. Ornelas used in her modelling upon which I based my testimony that the amount of free propofol in the urine after a three hour infusion would have been substantially higher than that reported at autopsy.

    Walgren: It says less than 0,3%. Do you know how much less then?

    White: No, I do not. But I think that there is another article which suggests that it could be as high as 1%. I suspect that Dr. Ornelas looked at the various papers available and picked what was a conservative number.

    Walgren: Dr. White said he had had read some of the papers, but he didn’t “recall right off”.

    White: I’ll be happy to provide you with a list of references if I am given time to do the research.

    Walgren: Do you know how the unchanged propofol was measured in this research article?

    White: I think it was by gas liquid chromatography.

    Walgren: Do you see that the article says, “due to the low count rates, the samples were not analysed chromatographically”?

    White: Yeh, I see that.

    Walgren: So they were not analysed that way?

    White: I don’t know how they were analysed.

    (Wagren said that it was the basics of the model Dr.White was presenting in his testimony).

    White: I haven’t had a chance to critically review that paper. It was an analysis done for me. I am not comfortable to comment on the article which is outside my expertise and which I have not been able to carefully analyse.

    Walgren read the article much more attentively than Dr. White and pointed to a statement saying that “it is possible that the estimated value (0,3%) is an overestimate”. However to Dr. White it doesn’t make any difference:

    White: It could be an overestimate, it could be an underestimate. There is tremendous variability. The fact of the matter is that these small difference that you are point out would not explain the massive difference that was determined based on the 3 hour infusion of a thousand milligrams and two 25ml doses.

    It was my impression that the fact that urine concentration was only minimally higher than the propofol concentration in the urine that was collected at 7 am, suggested to me that it was highly unlikely and improbable that … (objection, the answer is stricken)

    Walgren: Were you aware that the authors of the article in the very article itself indicated themselves that the 0,3% could be an overestimate?

    White: No.

    Walgren: Thank you.

    (Walgren asked him if he knew of article by the same author dated three years later. White said he didn’t think he had found it in the very fast search he had made.
    He lied that he had looked into the articles involving humans only because there is a great variance between species (and because of other pretexts for not looking into anything at all).

    White: I did not research this topic. I merely asked a question.

    (The answer from Dr. Gabriela O. was that in case 1000ml of propofol were administered the residual propofol number in urine should be significantly higher.)

    Walgren: The answer was based on one outdated, isolated article, is that right?

    White: No.

    (Dr. White is denying the obvious)

    * * * * *

    Day 22, November 1

    Let us jump over to Dr. Shafer’s testimony on the next day and see what Dr. Shafer said on the same topic.

    First Walgren asked how would Lorazepam find itself in the stomach if it was administered intravenously.

    Walgren: It will still enter the stomach, is that correct?

    Shafer: Correct. Drugs taken intravenously go into all the tissues. They go to the brain, the organ , the muscles, the intestines and the stomach.

    Walgren: And is it a correct statement that this has nothing to do with post-mortem redistribution?

    Shafer: That is correct.

    Walgren: Is there any way scientifically to exclude, for example, Michael Jackson swallowing Lorazepam on his own or Conrad Murray giving Michael Jackson oral Lorazepam to swallow?

    Shafer: They would look the same.

    Walgren: In your simulation where based on the evidence you discussed that the infusing line was running and Michael Jackson stopped breathing and the propofol continued to infuse into his body, do you recall that?

    Shafer: Yes, I do.

    Walgren: In that simulation were you designating a precise time that Michael Jackson stopped breathing?

    Shafer: No. What the simulation shows is how the level (of propofol) initially rises initially fast and then slowly through a period of time. The simulation has shown that Michael Jackson could have died at any time with the propofol concentration continue to be high in his blood. And there is no suggestion that he had to die at any specific time. He died with a high level of propofol during the infusion.

    Walgren: You wouldn’t say that it was precisely at noon?

    Shafer: No, not at all.

    Walgren: And when you demonstrated the two infusion lines that’s a fairly typical setup when you would be using two separate.

    Shafer: Except than when you use an (infusion) pump, but other than that, yes.

    Walgren: Dr. White commented on the gravitational differences in the bottle, for example, in the saline bag and the saline bag with saline solution. Can you comment on how you deal with any such difficulty?

    Shafer: If you recall the infusion set up that I showed you I demonstrated how by controlling the roller clamps you can all being the saline coming out or all being the propofol coming out – simply by the adjustment of the roller clamps.

    Walgren: This is common and typical how it is done?

    Shafer: No, it is common to do without the infusion pump. And it is commonly done with non-critical things like antibiotics.

    – – – –

    Walgren: What is the risk if propofol is applied? What happens if complications arise?

    Shafer: The serious risk of propofol is that you stop breathing either from the lack of effort (you don’t have the desire to breathe) or because the tongue falls into the back of your throat and the airway is obstructed. And that is the main cause of serious injury from infusions of propofol – the failure to breathe.

    Walgren: Was this failure to breathe eventually led to failure of cardiac activity which caused Michael Jackson’s death in this case?

    Shafer: Correct. When oxygen does not run into your lungs, the lungs run out of oxygen. The blood runs out of oxygen and the heart runs out of oxygen. And it is the lack of oxygen in the heart is that it kills the heart.

    Walgren: Dr. Shafer, have you reviewed the models presented by the defence that reflect the levels of unchanged propofol in the urine?

    Shafer: Yes, I have.

    Walgren: You’ve had an opportunity to research the various literature as it exists today in regard to the amounts (of propofol) to be found in the urine?

    Shafer: Yes, I have.

    Walgren: Are you aware that the defence’s findings relied on Simons’ article from 1988?

    Shafer: Yes, I am. The Simons article found that there was very little unchanged propofol – so little that it is actually difficult to measure it. What they did was mix oil with the urine knowing that propofol would go into the oil.

    He explained that the researchers employed a radioactivity method but they didn’t know whether they were measuring unchanged propofol or its metabolite. They said that the upper limit of the overall radioactivity measured was 0,3% but they didn’t know how much of it was actually unchanged propofol – because they didn’t know what the source of the radioactivity was. It could be propofol or it could be propofol metabolite that also goes into oil.

    So in that article they stated that out of those 0,3% the level of free propofol could be all the way down to zero because all the radioactivity could be the result of metabolites going into oil.

    Dr. Shafer conducted research into more recent studies on unchanged propofol. There were multiple articles published since 1988.

    One particular article Dr. Shafer found definitive on this issue. It is a 2002 Polish manuscript where the authors referred to the Simons paper which stated that “what we measured might be a metabolite”.

    The authors said that Simons was right – what he showed was a metabolite and the actual unchanged propofol is much, much less.

    The reason why this article was more precise is because for 14 years additional technology for measuring molecules was developed. A radioactivity method was much more crude.

    Walgren: Based on that improvement in technology they were able to be much more precise in their measurements?

    Shafer: That’s correct.

    Their measurement was 0, 004% of unchanged propofol eliminated into urine of the totally applied dose.

    The level of unchanged propofol found in the urine found upon autopsy was 0,15 micrograms per ml. And the urine in the bladder was 500 ml. Converting it into micrograms Dr. Shafer came up with the number of 82,5 mcg.

    In the 2002 article they actually had a table where they listed out the amount of propofol excreted unchanged and the doses administered to give those amounts.

    The first column is how long the patients were undergoing surgery under propofol.
    The second showed the method of calculations.
    The third is the total amount of propofol delivered to each patient. The average amount of propofol given was 2000mgs or 200ml.
    The fourth is the amount of urine. The average was 530ml.
    The fifth shows the average amount of propofol excreted. The average per patient was 70,71 mcg of unchanged propofol.
    This is quite close to what was measured in Michael Jackson’s case – his was 82,5mcg.

    The 70,71 mcg residual propofol is associated with the dose of 2000mcgs or 200ml of Propofol given.

    So if Michael Jackson had 82,5mcg it means that he had more than 200ml of Propofol.

    It absolutely rules out the hypothesis offered by Dr. White (who said that Michael died of 25ml).

    Actually it suggests that Michael Jackson received more than suggested by Dr. Shafer’s simulations.

    Walgren: Dr. Shafer, would you agree that the need for monitoring and safety precautions will be even greater in a home setting?

    Shafer: Yes. Anesthesiologists spend a certain amount of time providing care in what we call remote locations. A remote location may be a radiology suite, or perhaps a difficult patient in an eye clinic, or a patient in some location where we normally don’t give anesthesia.

    And what we are taught is that when we are in a remote location you have less tolerance for air. You have to be particularly careful. You have to adhere to the standards as careful as possible, and the reason is that you have no back-up.

    So to your question if there were such a thing as bedroom based anesthesia the standard guidelines would be considered a minimum because you have no back up, no tolerance for air.

    And if you have no air, you have the mortality.

    Walgren: Thank you , Dr. Shafer.

    THANK YOU, DR. SHAFER!
    …….

    Like

  60. November 5, 2011 4:25 am

    That 2002 study is the nail in the coffin for Murray,though he is not “fighting for his life”as Chernoff suggested and judge Pastor said,more or less “come on..”There has been much going on behind the curtains,out of sight of the jurors.Dr.White´s ego has been bruised and he has engaged in various mischief.His role has been sinister,ie to introduce new theories even at this stage of the trial,insisting on heart attack. Now colloquially sudden death is often presumed to be heart attack,so this could attract some jurors to support this theory.
    Propofol acts on the center in the brain that regulates breathing, otherwise it is not really toxic.It is used even for full anestesia in babies. This study fits like a glove to Michaels situation or must I say death.
    -So Dr. White stays at Flanagans and so did this PhD student, Ornelas.Wonder if murray also was invited.
    Is it possible that the jurors could deny this?

    Like

  61. November 5, 2011 4:16 am

    He did his interview to cover his ass, there is no other explanation.

    Like

  62. lynande51 permalink
    November 5, 2011 3:49 am

    Actually what Murray said was that MJ never slept naturally in his entire life.How’s that for a good one.Murray had an agenda when he went in to give his statement and that was to paint MJ as a drug seeking addict and himself as a poor unsuspecting Doctor that got caught up in a situation that he did not want to be in.What a joke! That statement is a joke and the MD that used to go with Murray’s name is a joke.

    Like

  63. November 5, 2011 3:19 am

    There were articles about him when MJ died and I believe he was in a trial where some lawyers mentioned the History tour and said they have reason to believe he did something illegal or unethical to MJ on that tour.

    I don’t believe at all that he did that for years but more that he did it when he was on tour and by the way I don’t know if it was propofol.

    Like

  64. lynande51 permalink
    November 5, 2011 3:03 am

    Shelly I disagree that he hired other doctors to give him propofol especially Neal Ratner.When Ratner was in South Africa during the History tour with MJ which is what the entire story is Dr. Metzger was there also.Knowing what I know about Ratner I doubt very much that MJ would have been that reckless and I know for a fact that Dr.Metzger never would have allowed it. MJ and Neal ratner were friends because Ratner was also big in the music industry. Here is some information about Dr. Neal Ratner. It is in the 5th paragraph of this article and ask yourself of you think that MJ would have been that reckless with his life when he had a 5 month old son?Where do you get the idea that other Doctors did this for him and he survived it supposedly for years? From Murray.The name Ratner comes from LMP in a statment to the police.I don’t want to get into a big long thing about it but I just do not believe for on second that MJ was having this done to him for years especially by someone like Neal Ratner.He never would have survived to make it plain.The first one that suggested the use of propofol for years was Murray and then in that very statement says it was the first time he used the propofol. I do not believe that he had it done because Dr. Metzger said he did not ask for a medication by name just IV medication.He had the name for Cherilyn Lee but he was also told by doctors that it would be safe if someone was there with him.We can pretty much guess what doctor gave him that information.
    http://nymag.com/nymetro/health/features/3422/index1.html

    Like

  65. November 5, 2011 2:51 am

    Guys, this is my next – and the saddest – portion in this post. It provides explanation for what Dr. White did. His actual words and Dr. Shafer’s conclusion will hopefully come later.

    In the meantime here is the gist of the saddest of all stories:

    We are coming to the crucial point in the argument between true science and Dr. White.

    The point over which they clashed is the unnaturally high level of propofol in Michael’s blood found on autopsy.
    In order to understand how propofol can remain in the body in so big quantities it is necessary to learn how the drug is functioning.

    Propofol breaks up easily in a human body and disappears from it while the heart it still beating and is pushing blood along its veins. This is why almost immediately after the drip stops the patient wakes up – all propofol has evaporated from his system and he wakes up almost totally clean of it.

    However if the heart stops beating and a person dies, propofol stops evaporating from the system, and if the drug is still dripping into the dead body it starts accumulating there and its level in the blood rises.

    So when it comes to propofol it is top important to figure out what happened to the patient and what stopped first – his breathing or his heart?

    If breathing stops first the heart will go on beating for some 10 minutes, within which even a huge dose of propofol will evaporate from the system.

    However if the heart stops first even a relatively small dose of propofol will immediately “freeze” in the veins and its concentration will not drop.

    This is why Dr. White’s goal was to prove that Michael died of a heart attack when he “self-administered 25ml of propofol”, as a result of which the drug reached the peak level just for a moment at which Michael suddenly and instantaneously died.

    Dr. Shafer has worked out an opposite model based on the premise that Michael had a breathing arrest first, then his heart stopped beating but the propofol kept flowing into Michael’s body, accumulating there and gradually reaching the peak level found in Michael’s blood upon autopsy.

    After trying on his computer several models he came to the conclusion that Michael received at least 100ml of Propofol part of which dripped into his body after his heart stopped.

    The reason why Dr. Shafer focused on the breathing arrest is because this is the only complication which takes place with propofol at all.

    Propofol works on the brain and not on the heart. As soon as propofol reaches the brain it stops sending signals to the lungs to breathe. And as the lungs no longer breathe, so the heart begins starving of oxygen and dies in some 10 minutes after the intake of oxygen stops.

    Cardiologist Alon Steinberg who testified on week 2 specifically differentiated between a cardiac and respiratory arrests and said that Michael had a respiratory arrest. This fact is not disputed by any scientists except Dr. White who stubbornly argues that Michael’s heart stopped first and he died of a heart attack.

    Though there is no seeming reason for it – as Michael’s heart was strong – the theory is still difficult to disprove as none of us was present there, and Murray as the only person who could tell the truth does not know it either as he was speaking on the phone during that time.

    In the circumstances of this seeming impasse Dr. White decided to look into the amount of propofol in the urine and asked Gabriela Ornelas to find out whether the amount of propofol in the urine was consistent with the amount of propofol in the blood.

    It is clear to any of us that if Michael’s blood was saturated with propofol, so his urine must be saturated with it too.

    The amount of propofol in Michaels’s bladder found on autopsy was 0,15 micrograms per ml which multiplied by the amount of urine (500ml) made up 82,5mcg.

    In comparison with the 1000mg (or 100ml) of Propofol which Dr. Shafer said Michael received it is a very small amount.

    Especially if you consider that one microgram (mcg) is equal to 1/1000 of milligram (mg). So if I my calculations are correct we are comparing 1000mg with only 0,0825mg left in the urine.

    Dr. White approached Gabriela Ornelas to make a computer model and see whether 1000mg amount of propofol could produce only 82,5mcg of propofol in the urine.

    She made a model and it said that it couldn’t – this tiny amount of the drug in the urine could result only from a very small dose infused into Michael’s body. Like 25ml for example (suggested by Dr. White).

    So no matter how unlikely Dr. White’s theory sounded her calculations coincided with his theory and not Dr. Shafer’s.

    However in her calculations she used the findings published in 1988 by Simons and other authors.

    What the article basically said is that that propofol evaporates from the system so quickly that the amount of propofol excreted into urine is extremely small – less than 0,3% of the drug originally infused into the blood.

    The only problem is that these scientists did not know how much propofol that 0,3% number contained as a drug.

    Like all other substances the drug propofol breaks up into metabolites which are excreted into urine – and how much of propofol was excreted as a drug and how much as its metabolite was impossible to measure in the year 1988 when the study was made. The radioactive technology they used did not allow to make more precise calculations.

    But the percent of unchanged drug excreted into urine is crucial for comparing with Michael’s results on autopsy as the propofol found in Michael’s bladder was the drug (or unchanged propofol) and not its metabolite.

    Simons wrote in 1988 that the 0,3% number they found contained both unchanged drug and a metabolite and they could not differentiate one from the other. He also wrote that the 0,3% was an overestimate.

    After hearing of Gabriela Ornelss’s results Dr. Shafer checked up all the data once again. He studied the scientific literature published since 1988 and each of the articles indeed said that 0,3% was a huge overestimate. The percent of unchanged propofol in the urine was much smaller.

    But the study which put the final touch to this problem was made in 2002 in Poland (judging by the names of the authors).

    These authors managed to calculate the molecules of propofol as a drug and the molecules of its as a metabolite and found that the drug in its unchanged form is excreted into the urine in the incredibly tiny amount of 0,004% of the dose initially infused into the body.

    So in application to the results found on Michael’s autopsy it means that 82,5mcg found in his bladder make up 0,004% of the dose which was infused into his veins.

    Now please take a calculator and find what the full 100% of the dose is if the 82,5mcg remaining in the urine make up only 0,004% of it.

    I came up with the dose of 2062500 mcg, or 2062,5mg or 206ml of propofol.

    This means that Michael received not one 100ml vial of propofol – no, he received two 100ml vials of propofol from Murray.

    The same 2002 year article had a reference table where we can check our findings with the findings of the Polish scientists.

    They actually measured the unchanged propofol in the urine of patients who underwent long surgery under a drip of propofol.

    – The average amount of propofol given to those patients was 2000mgs or 200ml.

    – The average amount of urine each of them collected during that period was 530ml.

    – The average propofol found in the urine was 70,71 mcg of unchanged propofol.

    – So the 70,71 mcg residual propofol is associated with the dose of 2000mcgs or 200ml of Propofol given.

    And this again means that if Michael had 82,5mcg in his urine he had received more than 200ml of Propofol that night.

    We have checked ourselves.

    Murray gave Michael more than two 100ml vials of propofol.

    Dr. Shafer’s model is absolutely correct and his verdict is a clear one.

    Murray did not notice Michael die and propofol kept on flowing into his body even after his heart stopped.

    Murray has been lying to us all along.

    And Dr. White has been adjusting his results to Murray’s lies.

    And if it hadn’t been for Dr. Shafer we would have never learned the truth.

    Like

  66. November 5, 2011 2:25 am

    By the way I think the Lorezapam theory from the defense is terrible. Even if you don’t sleep you are under the influence of the drug anyway. How can you be in your right mind if you swallow 8 pills of lorezapam?
    It makes Murray even more reckless.

    Like

  67. shelly permalink
    November 5, 2011 1:13 am

    My point about Ratner is, that story make Murray looks like a bigger liar than he already is. Yes, I believe he hired doctors to give him propofol but I don’t think it’s ok to do that even if it’s safe.

    I think it makes Murray’s story even more ridiculous. When MJ required propofol it was for a full night sleep not for a few minutes.

    Like

  68. November 5, 2011 12:46 am

    @vindicatemj–the part on the video I’m referring to is Day 23, part 2, starting at 2:09:03 and going to 2:10:10. It is Dr. White’s gift to the prosecution.

    Like

  69. Chris permalink
    November 5, 2011 12:14 am

    @Shelly

    Ratner could not be called even if they wanted him.

    The judges stipulation made it clear no evidence outside the days leading up to MJ’s death would be used. Okay defence used back door tricks to go back further which most got sustained but the judge would never of allowed him to testify because he didn’t kill MJ Murray did.
    Should he be investigated and punished probably but he’s already retired what are you gunna do to him? Murrays actions were Murrays alone and his choice I think that is what judge was trying to do by that ruling and not allow destractions.

    Like

  70. November 5, 2011 12:14 am

    – “I see that Murray’s interview is turning into a kind of a bible.”
    – “Yes, because from his own word MJ hired people to put him to sleep for many hours and yet he wants us to believe that he didn’t do it the day MJ died.”

    Shelly, some of your statements are totally amazing. I would call them provocative and demagogic.

    You were “wondering if having Dr Neil Ratner on the stand would have been a clever choice for the defense”. Well, firstly, as far as know the defense did not call Dr. Neil Ratner on the stand – so speculating on this issue is pure demagogy.

    Another of your statements is, “You would have to believe that during the History tour he hired a doctor to give him propofol in order to sleep for 15 hours”. If this is no provocation enveloped into a sweet wrapping of an innocent question, then I don’t know what else it can be.

    If you want to rub in the idea that Michael hired other doctors to administer him propofol for sleep it is okay with me.

    Propofol is an absolutely safe drug if it is administered PROPERLY. If it is done by a PROPER, conscientious anesthesiologist who is ready to adhere to all PROPER rules of giving this medication. If he has all PROPER equipment and is monitoring his patient PROPERLY.

    Basically I see no difference in administering this drug to the intensive care unit patients (who are given a drip of it for controlled sleep) and Michael Jackson who was also a sort of a sleep invalid.

    He developed a severe insomnia due to many factors, the main of which is his many years of harassment by the media and society in general.

    Most of us would have died of this type of harassment – while he stoically endured it.

    What some people seem not be able to understand is that a person CANNOT go without sleep for a long time.

    IT IS FATAL.

    That is why if some anesthesiologists helped Michael to sleep, so be it.

    At least in their hands he didn’t die.

    He died in the hands of Murray because this guy was talking over the telephone with girls instead of taking care of his patient.

    Even if he hadn’t been administering propofol his patient could have easily died of his Lorazepam and other injections since they also depress breathing.

    Whichever way you look at Murray he is guilty like hell.

    And Neil Ratner does not have anything to do with it.

    Like

  71. Deborah permalink
    November 5, 2011 12:04 am

    From Debbie Kunesh just now:

    Katherine Jackson has been called to the courthouse and is on her way to be on standby.

    http://fb.me/1l4Cz2Bxd

    Update:

    Now being reported that Katherine Jackson just wanted to be closer to the court due to Friday traffic. The court has said they did not contact Katherine to come to the court, so this may not mean anything re the verdict.

    Like

  72. November 4, 2011 11:45 pm

    “I see that Murray’s interview is turning into a kind of a bible.”

    Yes, because from his own word MJ hired people to put him to sleep for many hours and yet he wants us to believe that he didn’t do it the day MJ died.

    Like

  73. November 4, 2011 11:26 pm

    “According to Murray’s interview, Ratner put MJ to sleep for 15 hours.”

    I see that Murray’s interview is turning into a kind of a bible.

    Like

  74. November 4, 2011 11:19 pm

    I was just wondering if having Dr Neil Ratner on the stand would have been a clever choice for the defense. According to Murray’s interview, Ratner put MJ to sleep for 15 hours. You would have to believe that during the History tour he hired a doctor to give him propofol in order to sleep for 15 hours but only wanted Murray to give a very small dosage of Propofol.

    Like

  75. November 4, 2011 10:49 pm

    I have lost hope with this jury.
    Here is my next portion on Dr. White (the illustrations are in the post):

    DR. WHITE’S DEATH MODEL BASED ON LORAZEPAM THEORY

    Despite all the fun of Dr. White’s crazy excuses for Murray his main job was to fabricate the models of Michael Jackson’s death based on totally arbitrary assumptions. The modelling itself was done by Gabriela Ornales.

    Dr. White expected to make a grand entree with these models but David Walgren’s (and probably Dr. Shafer’s) scrutiny of them showed that the models had no leg to stand on.

    The simulations themselves were made following the same formula which Dr. Shafer used. Paul White stressed it on several occasions that the formula was worked out by another scientist – Dr. Schneider. One of the goals of that emphasis was to produce the impression that Dr. White’s modelling was a full alternative to Dr. Shafer’s.

    However there is absolutely no equal mark between the two.

    Any formula is correct only if the data fed into it is correct too. And the data fed into Gabriela Ornales’s formulas was heavily distorted. And though Dr. White says he had nothing to do with it I strongly suspect that it was on his order (or request) that Ornales made her models on false or totally arbitrary assumptions.

    There is a lot to say about those charts, however to make the long story short I will focus only on the main points.

    First comes a word about Dr. Gabriela Ornales.

    Dr. White met her at Flanagan’s house a few days before his testimony after “someone from the defense team” had contacted her. He doesn’t know of her expertise or integrity and has nothing to say about her except her official CV from which he was reading out in court. We learn that she is no medical doctor but is a Ph.D. student in pharmacokinetics who is working for her degree.

    Dr. White’s choice of a person to do the models is surprising.

    Blindly taking the calculations from someone totally unknown to you is a somewhat reckless thing to do – especially if you cannot check them yourself (and Dr. White repeatedly said that pharmacokinetics was beyond his expertise and was like “Greek” to him).

    Dr. White could have approached Dr. Shafer as he was offering his services to him and actually had even worked out one model for Dr. White. Dr. Shafer’s reputation is impeccable and if Dr. White’s model had turned out a more accurate one Dr. Shafer would have accepted it as a true scientist does – his goal in this trial is not to defend Michael Jackson, his goal is to find out the truth of what happened there.

    But surprise-surprise, Dr. White preferred to approach someone totally unknown – this way it is easier to manipulate the result and shift the blame for it to another person too:

    Walgren: Had you heard of Dr. Ornales before someone in the defence team told you to contact her?

    White: I never met her.

    Walgren: Had you ever heard of her in the pharmacokinetic field? In anaesthesiology? Yes or no.

    White: The answer is no.

    Walgren: Did you ask her to create some computer models for you?

    White: I don’t recall asking her specifically to create models.

    Walgren: Was this last week that you met her? And we have models here today in court and you don’t recall if you asked her to create those?

    White: She created them overnight and emailed to me.

    Walgren: You are aware that Dr. Shafer provided his spread sheet and software to the defense, correct?

    White: Yes, I am ..

    Walgren: What you have provided to the people from Dr. Orneles is a piece of paper with computer code written on it, with no software, correct?

    White: I was not asked to provide software, so all I provided was a print out, yes, sir.

    Walgren: Can you make sense of this computer code?

    White: I think I said earlier that pharmacokinetic modelling is not my expertise.

    Walgren: So you knew it wouldn’t mean anything to me, right?

    The idea of various Dr. White’s models of Michael’s death was to show that Michael died not because his breathing stopped (as Dr. Shafer had proven) but because all of a sudden he had a heart attack.

    There was nothing to show that Michael had a poor heart but this didn’t stop Dr. White from developing his theory. According to his model it is an absolute must for Michael to have had a poor heart and that is why White is ready to disregard even Murray’s own words who said that the pulse oxymeter showed 122 beats and he could feel Michael’s pulse when he re-entered the room.

    Dr. White’s explanations are laughable. Acording to him Murray did not feel Michael’s pulse – he felt his own pulse. And when confronted with information that a pulse oxymeter showed 122 beats Dr. White simply avoided answering.

    Walgren: You reviewed the autopsy report?

    White: Yes, I did some time ago.

    Walgren: And you noted that Mr. Jackson had a strong heart and no heart problems, nothing in that nature, correct?

    (White says something about arhythmia sometimes happening even to a structurally healthy heart)

    Walgren: Is there any indication in the coroner’s report that there is any problem with Michael Jackson’s heart?

    White: No, there is not.

    Walgren: According to Murray’s own words Michael’s heart was beating when Murray re-entered the room and the pulse oxymeter read 122 beats.

    Dr. White said something incoherent about it, so Walgren had to refresh his memory by showing some excerpts from Murray’s interview.

    Walgren: “He looked at his pulse oxymeter right away and his heart rate was like 122 beats”. That would mean he has a heartbeat, correct?

    White: Without feeling the pulse and knowing that there was a profusing pulse I am not sure I agree with that.

    Walgren: “So I immediately felt for a pulse, and I was able to get a thread pulse in the femoral region”, correct?

    White: That’s what Dr. Murray reported.

    Walgren: So he not only checked the pulse oxymeter, saw the 122 beats but he then felt the femoral region and felt a thread pulse, correct?

    White: He reported feeling a thread pulse, correct.

    Walgren: That was suggest his heart was beating, right?

    White: It might suggest that or alternatively it might suggest that Dr. Murray was simply feeling his own pulse since it was very weak and thready. In these kind of situations…

    Walgren: So you don’t believe Conrad Murray when he says he felt a thread pulse in the femoral region?

    White: I don’t believe it may have been profusing. He may have felt…

    Walgren: Are you disputing that?

    White: I am merely suggesting that clinicians may be deceived and can feel their own pulse when they are under stress..

    Walgren: Because if he felt a pulse it doesn’t match up with your theory that Michael Jackson died instantly upon receiving 25 ml by self-administration, correct?

    White: It happens clinically.

    Walgren: Would you agree that the primary cause of Michael Jackson’s death is that he stopped breathing?

    White: I don’t see any evidence of that.

    Walgren: Do you see any evidence that contradicts that?

    White: I don’t any evidence that contradicts either respiratory or cardiac event or a combined cardio-respiratory event following the rapid administration of propofol to a patient who also had extremely high levels of Lorazepam.

    Walgren: In your March 8, 2011 letter you do reference respiratory issues as a potential to presume respiratory cause of death, correct?

    White: I think I said cardio-respiratory and it was a preliminary letter I prepared for Mr. Flanagan.

    Walgren reads out from White’s letter, which say “…it can produce significant ventilator depressing effect as well as upper airway obstruction”, correct?

    White: That’s of course a possibility. Among other things, yes, sir.

    Walgren: Among other things including the theory that Michael Jackson drank propofol? Which you now reject?

    White: Now that I have more data and more evidence I can say that it was extremely unlikely.

    Even Walgren had to give it up and raise Lorazepam instead. Over here it turns out that Gabriela Ornales used the wrong figure for Lorazepam in Michael’s stomach:

    White: It is a very, very small amount of Lorazepam but as I testified even a small amount of free Lorazepam would suggest oral administration.

    Dr. White had no idea where the 0,0013 number cited there came from – he would have to consult Dr. Ornelas.

    Walgren: As you sit here today you have no idea where that 0,0013 ml came from, correct?

    White: Not as I sit here today, sir.

    Walgren: And what is that on the bottom – “Residual Lorazepam assuming 10mg per day for 5 days”? Why was that put in there?

    White: Well, she did the simulation so that you could try to take into account the fact that he had been receiving Lorazepam prior to the day of his death and we don’t really have a good handle on that number.

    Walgren: But it is very specific – assuming 10mg per day for 5 days.

    White: Well, as I said it was an arbitrary assumption based on what he might have been taking prior to the day of his death.

    Walgren: And the level of Lorazepam was 0,0169 – do you know where this 0, 0164 came from?

    White: Maybe a typographical error.

    Let me explain the point about these falsifiers assuming that there was some Residual Lorazepam in Michael’s body after taking 10mg of it per day for 5 days running.

    Even Dr. White says that it was a totally arbitrary assumption (or just guesswork not based on any data at all).

    Why 10mg or FIVE 2mg pills of Lorazepam per day?

    Why for 5 days running?

    Because it is only if they make this assumption about this level of Lorazepam in Michael’s blood prior to that night will their model be workable at all.

    It other words if Michael takes those mythical eight pills from that level only will the curve line in their model will reach the level of Lorazepam found in Michael’s blood on autopsy.

    Only on this condition.

    And if he didn’t take 5 pills of Lorazepam every day for 5 days running the model will not be working.

    Well, all of us can make any assumptions we like – only it won’t be science. I can also make assumptions on the basis of their assumptions. One of them, for example is that 8 pills would not make much difference to Michael and would not kill him if he was given 5 pills on a daily basis. People are known to get used even to poison if it is given regularly to them.

    Another of my assumptions is that they are lying because the bottle found on the night stand said that Lorazepam was prescribed by Murray on April 28, 2009 and originally contained 30 tablets. At the time of death it had 9 tablets which means that he took only 21 pills for the past 2 months.

    One more of my assumptions is that it could be Murray who could offer Michael any amount of Lorazepam pills in a glass of juice, for example, and we would not know about it. By the way the Prosecutor David Walgren also made such an assumption during the trial…

    Only our assumptions are assumptions only, are no science and are no proof of anything at all.

    P.S. If you don’t believe that David Walgren is not ruling out the possibility of Murray giving Michael huge doses of Lorazepam here is proof of it in the form of his question to Dr. Shafer:

    Wagren: Is there any way scientifically to exclude, for example, Michael Jackson swallowing Lorazepam on his own or Conrad Murray giving Michael Jackson oral Lorazepam to swallow?

    Dr. Shafer: They would look the same.

    Like

  76. November 4, 2011 10:10 pm

    HLN got the transcript of the side bar

    http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/11/02/not-seen-tv-sidebar-secrets-revealed

    Like

  77. November 4, 2011 10:03 pm

    I don’t believe we’ll have a verdict today. Probably next week.

    Like

  78. November 4, 2011 9:44 pm

    They are deliberating for two hours already. How many idiots are there in the jury?

    Like

  79. Deborah permalink
    November 4, 2011 9:19 pm

    Day 23, November 3, 2011:

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

    Part 3:

    Part 4 /Last:

    Like

  80. November 4, 2011 8:48 pm

    Some have described white as pompuos.Ofcourse he blatantly contradicted his own writings and stated other stupidities.He said he didn´t like “all this attention”.I think so too; He would rather have taken the money and run away,that is my impression.

    Like

  81. November 4, 2011 8:39 pm

    VMJ, you have the patience of an angel. It is just myself being so frustrated over his style of presentation that I would have trouble listening to it all.Ofcourse it should be documented as videoclips disappear.You have done an incredible amount of work for this blog and I have nothing to add re white to what you state.I did not say it to dismiss your work.On the contrary.Just that I couldn´t have done it.

    Like

  82. November 4, 2011 7:56 pm

    I can’t believe that it takes them more than 10 minutes to bring in a guilty verdict.

    * * *
    If an hour after starting the deliberations they are still discussing the matter it means that there are some idiots among them.

    Like

  83. November 4, 2011 6:41 pm

    “Junk science” is a close second. After the 2005 trial and T.S. I was prepared to dislike all district attorneys forever more. Walgren has personally redeemed that profession for me. His delivery was absolutely perfect, crisp, quietly outraged, extremely focused, well-planned from day one.

    EXACTLY!

    “As long as I live, I will never forget the comedy video of Dr. White taking the infusion setup out of his pocket over and over again after saying it couldn’t be done”.

    Kris, though I watched it inside out I somehow missed that moment. When was it?

    There is only one thing which I would have added to Walgren’s words. The defense says that if it hadn’t been Murray there would have been another doctor and the end result would have been the same.

    NO, IT WOULDN’T.

    Propofol is a safe drug when it is given properly, and if another doctor had been PROPERLY administering it to Michael he would be alive now.

    It was Murray’s CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE which killed him.

    Like

  84. November 4, 2011 6:24 pm

    “Enough has been said about him on the blog, so no need for more.He just filled up time to get those dollars.”

    Kaarin, please allow me to tell of Dr. White’s disgrace. I remember Shelly asking me why I thought White was lying. It seems so obvious to me that the question took me by surprise. However now I think that probably people take Dr. White at his face pompous value and don’t see the difference between him and Dr. Shafer, for example.

    These scientists are poles apart – one is a pure gem while the other is pure garbage.

    Like

  85. November 4, 2011 6:15 pm

    One more portion has been added to the post:

    DR.WHITE’S EXCUSES FOR CONRAD MURRAY

    Dr. White says he strictly observes the standard of medical care himself but for some reason never minds Conrad Murray doing the opposite. In the incredible scenario he suggests for the morning of June 25, 2009 he easily excuses Murray for breaking every conceivable rule of medical ethics.

    He allows Murray to leave Michael’s bedside and talk over the phone implying that Murray ‘just’ received a phone call and had to answer it. This way Dr. White pretends that this in and of itself is not an unheard-of-thing to do for doctors who are monitoring their patients.

    His further scenario allows Murray to leave a drawn-up syringe with a ready-made mix of Propofol and Lidocaine beside his patient. This crazy idea is needed for Dr. White to avoid questions how Michael could have drawn up propofol and lidocaine from glass vials himself – Dr. Shafer showed us that it was a difficult process due to a vacuum created inside (you have to push it back and forth and do it bit by bit to fill the glass vials with air first).

    In his desire to stretch the truth Dr. White turns his scenario into a total farce and suggests that Murray left the syringe in the infusion port of the IV stand for Michael just to press it.

    All this is totally is amazing is he does not accompany any of these statements by a single word of reprimand for Murray. Listening to Dr. White one would even think that it is a normal thing for an anesthesiologist or surgeon to keep a syringe in a patient’s hand during an operation and leave the operating room for some 30-45 minutes to answer the phone or go and relieve himself in the bathroom!

    And when Dr. White’s scenario comes to Michael walking about the room with an IV stand and a condom catheter and urine bag attached to him there is simply no word to describe it – no comment can surpass the original.

    But first David Walgren asks Dr. White about his own attitude towards administering propofol at home. White makes a solemn face and says that it is absolutely ruled out:

    Walgren If Michael Jackson had come to you and indicated that he would like to hire you to administer propofol to him to put him asleep each night in this bedroom would you do it?

    White: Absolutely not. That would be a job I would never consider.

    No amount of money would convince me to accept it because of time and the responsibility for someone, because of the fact that it was a complete off-label use of the drug which had not been studied prior to 2011.

    Then Walgren asks White about the time frame when Michael in his opinion could have self-injected 25ml of propofol.

    Dr. White tells his story and in the process of fabricating it forgets himself well enough to suggest that Murray actually left Michael a full 100ml (10cc) syringe filled with 50ml of Propofol and 50ml of Lidocaine. It will totally contradict his own charts and models but is a slip of the tongue similar to his earlier tale-telling description of that bedroom as “a crime scene”:

    Walgren: In the scenario that you put forward when Michael Jackson self-administered the 25 ml of propofol – that’s not at the time when Conrad Murray left the room for 2 minutes?

    White: I cannot be sure of the time frame. From the phone records that I’ve reviewed, after observing Mr. Jackson for a period of twenty to thirty minutes Dr. Murray had got some phone calls and he began returning phone calls …

    Walgren: The question is, when Michael Jackson self-administered the 25ml of propofol, is it taking place – in your mind – when Conrad Murray leaves the room for 2 minutes or is it at a different point in time that Conrad Murray left Michael Jackson alone?

    White: It could well be at a different time. I don’t know whether the time is established.

    Walgren: And in your scenario when you put forward that Michael Jackson may have consumed 8 2ml tablets of Lorazepam at 7 am does it also assume that Conrad Murray left Michael Jackson alone?

    White: Not necessarily, because I understand that Mr. Jackson walked around, he apparently had (objection)

    Walgren: Does your theory that you put forward assume that Conrad Murray was out of the room when Michael Jackson could have consumed eight 2m Lorazepam tablets?

    White: I assume that Dr. Murray was in some other part of the room – in the bathroom or adjacent bedroom. My understanding is that there were two bedrooms connected and since he apparently moved between the bedrooms I think it is likely that Dr. Murray was somewhere in the vicinity but certainly

    Walgren: Does your analysis assume that Dr. Murray was unaware that Michael Jackson swallowed eight 2mg tablets?

    White: Yes.

    Walgren: So he was either in a different room or not watching? Is that fair to say?

    White: Fair to say.

    Walgren: And then you know from Conrad Murray’s statement that the only time he tells the police that he left the room was 2 minutes to use a rest room and when he came Michael Jackson was not breathing.

    So we have the time when he is either gone or not paying attention at 7 am, correct, based on your scenario?

    (Dr. White starts coughing)

    Walgren: And we have the 2 minutes when he tells the police he was gone, and then he comes back after two minutes he finds Michael not breathing but there was a pulse?

    ..

    Walgren: Based on your analysis it is a different time when Michael Jackson self –administers the 25ml of propofol, correct?

    White: I’m not sure, sir. All I said is that I’ve reviewed the phone records where Mr. Murray was on the cell phone presumably away from Mr. Jackson because Mr. Jackson was trying to sleep.

    Walgren: And that is just a common sense assumption that if his whole job is to put Michael Jackson to sleep when he is on the phone for a lengthy period of time he is probably not standing there in Michael Jackson’s presence, correct?

    White: That’s what I would assume, yes.

    Walgren: …so you are assuming that Michael Jackson is in bed and at some point Conrad Murray leaves him, correct?

    White: Correct.

    Walgren: And as you demonstrated on Friday that Michael Jackson takes a syringe and draws up 25 ml of lidocaine , correct?

    White: My understanding is that Dr.Murray drew up 50ml of propofol and 50ml of lidocaine into a 10cc syringe.

    Walgren: So your scenario is assuming that Conrad Murray drew up a syringe and left it there, is that what you are assuming in your scenario, yes or no?

    White: Can I finish my ..?

    Walgren: … Are you assuming that it was Conrad Murray who drew up the syringe or Michael Jackson – which one?

    White: I am assuming that it is the 25ml that Dr. Murray had drawn up.

    Walgren: So Conrad Murray drew up the syringe? In your analysis? Yes or no?

    White: Yes.

    Walgren: And he left this syringe in the bedroom when he left the bedroom?

    White: First of all I don’t know if he left the bedroom. I’m told that he was standing in the kind of a hall .. (objection)

    Walgren: Conrad Murray leaves the room with the syringe accessible to the patient?

    White: I didn’t say where the syringe was left.

    ..

    Walgren: You would agree that in the statement he gave to the police Conrad Murray he only references to leaving Michael Jackson alone for those 2 brief minutes, correct?

    White: I believe that’s correct.

    Walgren: But it is your opinion that it took place when Conrad Murray was on the telephone for a lengthy period of time, is that correct?

    White: That’s pretty correct, yes. More or less correct.

    Walgren: So in your scenario how long would Conrad Murray have had to leave Michael Jackson unattended in order for Michael Jackson to self-administer the propofol?

    White: Well, it’s hard to say without exactly knowing where the syringe was. What I do know is that the phone records suggest that after this observation period Dr. Murray was on the phone for a time of 35-40 minutes.

    Walgren: And this is when this event transpired?

    White: Following by the 2 minutes when he went to the bathroom to relieve himself. It was some time during that 40 minute period where I believe Michael Jackson had the opportunity and likely self-administered the final fatal dose of propofol, yes.

    Walgren: And in your scenario Michael Jackson does this through the port on the IV tubing, is that accurate?

    White: That would be the likely site, yes.

    Walgren: And in your analysis was the syringe left in that port for Michael to have access to it or was it left somewhere else or do you simply have no opinion in that regard?

    White: …I think that was a syringe with a needle attached in that side port.

    Walgren: Well, if the syringe for example, had been left, let’s say on the chair filled with propofol as you described and Conrad Murray came back into the room and found Michael Jackson not breathing and now the syringe is in the port do you think it would raise alarms to Conrad Murray? (sustained)

    Walgren: So the syringe is left somewhere, under your analysis. Conrad Murray is gone out of the room for 35 or 40 minutes.

    White: I don’t think I said he was out of the room.

    Walgren: I mean he is not watching, correct?

    White: He is not directly watching Mr. Jackson.

    Walgren: You are not putting forward to the jury that Conrad Murray stood there and watch Michael Jackson self-administer propofol, are you?

    White: No, I don’t.

    Walgren: And during this period of absence it is your theory that Michael Jackson woke up and self-administered the 25ml and killed himself?

    White: This is what I suggested in my testimony on Friday, correct.

    Walgren: And are you assuming that after Michael Jackson did that that he fell back in the same location he had been on the bed prior to Conrad Murray leaving the room?

    White: I’d be my assumption that once he secured the syringe from where it was left that he probably returned to bed and the IV was in his leg but clearly accessible in the common position…

    Walgren: Did you say “he probably returned to bed?”

    White: Before he injected the propofol? Yes, I would think so.

    Walgren: So you are assuming he got out of bed to get the propofol?

    White: He could have got out of bed. I understand that he moved around the room.

    Walgren: Did you know that he had a condom catheter attached with an urine bag?

    White:.. Yes, I did.

    Walgren: Did you know that he was hopped up to the IV line attached to an IV stand?

    White: An IV stand has wheels and is mobile.

    Walgren: So just to be clear, under your scenario Michael Jackson is walking around the room wheeling the IV stand and holding his urine bag connected to a condom catheter? And Conrad Murray is somewhere else on the phone, is that is your assumption, correct?

    White: That’s not the only scenario, that’s possible scenario, yes.

    Walgren: And you would agree that a possible scenario is that Conrad Murray administered more propofol, correct?

    White: It is possible if he wanted to potentially harm Mr. Jackson.

    Like

  86. November 4, 2011 6:07 pm

    VMJ,you managed to wade through dr whites testimony in pharmaco- neverland.I saw the videos and felt irritable as he went along.Enough has been said about him on the blog, so no need for more.He just filled up time to get those dollars.
    The pearl in all testimonies was Dr.Shafer finding the paper from 2002
    about the amount of unchanged propofol in urine correlating to total dose of propofol given.I truly pray that this did not pass unnoticed by the jurors.Michael getting at least 200ml or a bit more.”The Silent Witness”, well, that is a series of shows on tv,I know it is fiction,but the way they work backwards to figure out a homicide,ie the methods, are based on reality.And working backwards is often what has to be done in real life.
    As to murrays interviews and fiction,there is something he is good at.
    He sponaneusly told how compassionate he is, consoling the children
    in the hospital,how he loves them and their mother.There are many other examples of his lies.He has a knack for that.Even has some features of pseudologia fantastica.
    PS.I am not advocating tv-shows for investigation,just the name of these shows struck me.

    Like

  87. November 4, 2011 6:03 pm

    As long as I live, I will never forget the comedy video of Dr. White taking the infusion setup out of his pocket over and over again after saying it couldn’t be done. “Junk science” is a close second. After the 2005 trial and T.S. I was prepared to dislike all district attorneys forever more. Walgren has personally redeemed that profession for me. His delivery was absolutely perfect, crisp, quietly outraged, extremely focused, well-planned from day one. He was a sharp contrast to everything the defense said, did, and was. They could not help but look bad in comparison. Well done.

    Like

  88. Deborah permalink
    November 4, 2011 4:48 pm

    Walgren said White ‘sullied’ the trial with his substandard prepartion, contemptuous manner and evasive, aggressive style of answering.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Like

  89. November 4, 2011 4:41 pm

    I managed to update the post.
    Another small piece has been added:

    THE WAY DR. WHITE CONDUCTS HIS RESEARCH

    In order to prove his irresponsible statements about Michael Jackson dying from oral ingestion of propofol Dr. White commissioned a research on beagles made by some veterinarian in Indiana.

    He did not overview it, had no idea how the research was made, how long it took or what dosages were involved. Actually he didn’t know the first thing about the way the experiment was made and was only interested in the result. The result showed that propofol taken orally does not have any effect.

    If the poor things were given litres of propofol Dr. White simply would not know.

    However he raised his brows and said he was shocked that Dr. Shafer had conducted a study on human beings. Dr. Shafer made a joint study with a Chilean professor of anesthesiology involving 3 volunteers who took 20ml and 3 more who took 40ml. The study was made in a hospital setting with their health fully monitored during the process. In the course of it Dr. Shafer swallowed propofol himself.

    Dr. Shafer’sstudy also showed that oral propofol was ineffective. This evidence was needed by Dr. Shafer not only for Murray’s case, but its primary goal was to keep the Drug Enforcement Agency from making it a controlled drug. It was necessary for Dr. Shafer to prove that propofol is effective only if taken IV and cannot be abused outside the hospital setting.

    During his testimony Dr. Shafer stressed that Propofol should be easily accessible to anesthesiologists – each patient is different and you never know how much propofol will be required, so its lack during the operation will result in numerous complications for patients in the first place.

    Walgren asked Dr. White about the way he conducted his study.

    Walgren: When did you request a study on animals?

    White: Perhaps after being shown a copy of Dr. Shafer’s report. ….

    Walgren: Had you made any research between your March 8, 2011 report and April 18, 2011 (the date of Dr. Shafer’s report) to confirm that your preliminary thoughts were accurate?

    White: No, I hadn’t done any research.

    Walgren: So when did you request that animal study?

    White: We discussed it at the end of April or May.

    Walgren: Did you do the study and did you have someone do it for you?

    White: Mr. Flanagan said that he knew a veterinarian in Indiana who could conduct the study.

    Walgren: So you had nothing to do with the study as a scientist?

    White: I directly did not participate, no.

    Walgren: Mr. Flanagan had someone do the study in Indiana.

    White: That’s correct.

    Walgren: Did you oversee it in any way?

    White: I was not directly involved as you said.

    Walgren: So Mr. Flanagan requested an animal study in Indiana sometime after you received Dr. Shafer’s report, is that correct?

    White: Correct.

    Walgren: Did you ever review any data or were you provided any report regarding that study?

    White: No formal report. Only an oral report that it had no effect.

    Walgren: Who provided this oral report?

    White: Mr. Flanagan.

    Walgren: As a scientist you were not interested in providing the data or speaking to the people who did the research?

    White: It was a negative study which confirmed what Dr. Glenn and Dr. Shafer had suggested, so I didn’t see the need to pursue it. To be honest I was quite shocked to hear that Dr. Shafer had taken his own medication and commissioned a study on human beings.

    Dr. White’s junk science allows him to be critical of other people’s work while he doesn’t give a damn how his own research is being done.

    Like

  90. Deborah permalink
    November 4, 2011 4:25 pm

    It’s not uploaded onto YT yet, but here the closing arguments and final rebuttal.

    Video Footage of Closing Arguments/Rebuttal from the Conrad Murray Trial (COMPLETE):

    http://www.positivelymichael.com/forums/showthread.php?27915-Video-Footage-Day-23-
    (November-3rd)-Court-Proceedings #Justice4MJ

    Like

  91. November 4, 2011 2:56 pm

    “calling it “junk science” and “garbage” made me cheering loudly”

    Susanne, I cheered in the same way you did.
    For some reasons I cannot update the post (some “error” is occurring).
    Here is the first part I wanted to add:


    Day 24. Thursday, November 3, 2011

    Despite the stream channel not working for me on the day when Prosecution and Defense made their closing statements some fragments did show David Walgren calling Dr. White science junk and garbage.

    Frankly it is the first time I hear the truth being told in such a bold and straight manner . We are not used to it and the feeling of it is unforgettable. Scientists are polite people and the most they usually say is that “the opponent’s ideas are not substantiated enough” – but Walgren’s profession is different and I am happy that he called a spade a spade.

    Dr. White’s whole testimony was nothing but junk science. Outwardly it looked more or less okay as all his junk was wrapped in the scientific vocabulary – but essence of it was complete garbage.

    A true scientist will never voice an opinion on any subject if he hasn’t done at least some research of it – while Dr. Paul White has absolutely no problem in saying things which he does not have the slightest idea of.

    He did a perfunctory word-search for “oral propofol” in the Internet which brought him no result but it didn’t stop him from sending to the defense a written report that Michael Jackson was responsible for his own death by taking propofol orally. The media immediately picked up this novel idea from this self-proclaimed father of propofol and chewed it up until the defence publicly rejected it themselves at the trial.

    By the way, Dr. England (the spelling requires correction), the real father of propofol, who developed it from the 1st molecule to its clinical use, later informed his colleague that even his studies made in the 80s showed that oral propofol was not effective. But it didn’t teach Dr. White any lesson and he went on popularizing the same junk ideas.

    Now he is presenting some charts which were made by another person of whose studies (and standards) he knows nothing and whom he met only last week. Okay, this Gabriela Ornales may know something on pharmacokinetics as she is working now for a Master’s degree in this science, but Dr. White also relied on her to collect all the data for making her charts and never even checked on whether she was using the correct figures and reliable sources.

    In fact some of her figures were incorrect and the data she based her model on was taken from an outdated article, which even said that the data required further correction – but when she provided Dr. White with this article he didn’t even properly read it because in court he could not answer a single question about it and didn’t even know that the data was not final!

    To all Walgren’s questions about the charts he said he could not be responsible for them as he wasn’t the one who had made them. The euphemisms he used to shift the responsibility for any inaccuracy to Gabriela Ornales will hopefully not be lost on the jury:

    – I prefer to give credit to the person who actually did the model.
    – I believe in the expertise of those who prepared this chart.
    – I didn’t make those graphs. I became aware of them the night before my testimony, etc.

    When Flanagan of the Defense ordered a study of the effect of oral propofol on beagles (the animals were not hurt) with a veterinarian he knew, Dr. White didn’t even ask what, where and how the negative result was obtained. He just took the ready answer provided by Flanagan and presented it as his opinion in court. And this despite the fact that he had a full opportunity to learn the details as he was staying in Flanagan’s house.

    Some professors practice this method of research – their students working for various degrees do all the job and are only happy when their professor puts his name to the resulting paper giving more ‘weight’ to their findings, while the professor’s list of writings is growing by a dozen without any effort on his part.

    During Dr. White’s cross-examination by Walgren this doctor displayed total lack of responsibility and integrity, “academic rigor and seeking for the truth” as Walgren put it. Most probably Dr. White expected the prosecutor to let him get away with all his sloppiness or otherwise I cannot explain why he risked his reputation so much.

    Why he thought his lies would go unnoticed is probably due to the habit of thinking – formed by many years of Michael’s media harassment – that when it comes to Michael Jackson one will get away with any lie. Dr. White simply didn’t notice that the wind had changed and it is no longer possible to bash and slander Michael Jackson without eventually having to answer for it.

    David Walgren and his chief scientific consultant Dr. Shafer, who is the embodiment of integrity and professionalism, are the first signs of this big change.

    New people have come to stand by Michael Jackson and this is a big difference from what we had only several years ago, in 2005. There is no doubt that if a similar trial had taken place in Tom Sneddon’s time Dr. White’s speculations would have never been disputed simply because the prosecutor would have believed his junk science and would have never summoned the real one. Dr. White would have been applauded to and praised and would have received more regalia and fame for adding just one more big lie to his career.

    The total demolition of Dr. White’s reputation now should serve as a good warning to all those who are choosing to ignore this new wind of change.

    Dr. White used a whole range of various excuses under the fire of David Walgren’s cross-examination. He did read the documents but long ago and now doesn’t remember obvious things, he didn’t conduct his own research, relied on others and now it is their responsibility and not his, he says it isn’t his expertise but nevertheless testifies about it, he doesn’t explain why he is using other people’s models without knowing what data stands behind it, he says he got familiar with numerous studies while he actually didn’t, he says he believes Murray but disregards Murray’s own words in order to prove his theory, he doesn’t know why the equipment he uses to demonstrate it was meddled with, he offers all sorts of excuses for Murray’s behavior but says that he himself would absolutely never allow any of it ….

    In short his cross-examination was a complete marvel and for those who missed it I am offering some more notes on Day 21, October 31:

    DR.WHITE SAYS MURRAY SIMPLY OVERLOOKED PROPOFOL AS A DETAIL

    Dr. White called Conrad Murray’s failure to mention propofol to paramedics and emergency room doctors a detail he just overlooked.

    Walgren asked Dr. White if a doctor has a moral and ethical obligation to reveal all medicines to the paramedics who arrive at the scene. Dr .White said that in that kind of a situation it is often difficult to recall all details.

    Walgren: Is it your testimony that the failure to mention Propofol to paramedics is inability to recall details, Dr. White?

    White: Well, I’m just saying details can be overlooked. I don’t think it was done in a devious fashion.

    Walgren: I want to make it clear. So you think it was just a detail that was overlooked when Conrad Murray failed to advise the paramedics of administering Propofol, is that your testimony? A detail that was overlooked?

    White: I don’t think I used those words. …I think it was something he overlooked.

    Walgren: Was it still another detail at the UCLA when the emergency room doctors specifically asked him what had taken place? Is that your testimony that it was again a detail that was overlooked?

    White: It was obviously overlooked. He didn’t…

    Walgren: Well, not obviously. It could also be a lie, correct? That’s another option?

    White: Eh, if you say so, I guess. Yes, it’s an option.

    Walgren: Thank you.

    DR. WHITE KEPT VIOLATING THE JUDGE’S ORDERS

    From the very start of the cross-examination it was made clear to Dr. White that he could base his testimony only on the official statement Conrad Murray gave to the police. No other conversations and lies from Murray would be accepted:

    Walgren: Who is responsible for bringing propofol into Michael Jackson’s home in your opinion?

    White: Well, Conrad Murray certainly purchased propofol, but I understand Mr. Jackson had his own supply as well.

    Walgren: Really? Where is that in the police interview by Conrad Murray?

    White: Well, I’d heard… (objection)

    Walgren: Where in Conrad Murray report is that reflected?

    White: Well, I don’t have the report in front of me. I reviewed it in February and as I indicated I had two conversations… ( Objection, would the court admonish the witness?)

    Judge M.Pastor: May I ask a favour, ladies and gentlemen, if you could just leave us for a moment?

    I don’t know whether it happened at that moment or at some other time but Dr. White was even fined for not observing the court’s rulings:

    Published: Nov 1, 2011

    Conrad Murray Trial; Defense Witness Dr. Paul White Held In Contempt

    A key witness in Dr. Conrad Murray’s involuntary manslaughter trial has been held in contempt of court and fined $1,000 (£625) for refusing to heed judge Michael Pastor’s warning not to talk about a conversation he had with the defendant.

    As the prosecution and defence teams wrapped up their cases in court on Monday (31Oct11) before turning to jurors for a decision, there was final drama during expert witness Dr. Paul White’s latest day in court, when he repeatedly violated orders to refrain from testifying about private conversations with Murray.

    White is the defence team’s final witness.

    It’s the second time Pastor has held White in contempt – he used a profanity during a heated exchange with a member of the prosecution team on 21 October (11). The judge recalled White back to court for a hearing on 16 November (11).

    On Monday, the courtroom was briefly cleared after Dr. White referred to a conversation he had had with Murray, who is accused of administering the fatal dose of anaesthetic propofol which cost pop star Michael Jackson his life. Judge Pastor told him he could not offer up private responses he’d had from Murray.

    Less than two hours later, White upset Pastor further when he testified he had additional information to share with the jury but the judge told him he couldn’t. He was held in contempt and fined. (c) WENN

    http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212388387.shtml

    For those who believe Murray’s lies about Michael keeping a stack of propofol at home, let me bring to their attention that firstly, it was Murray who brought the drug into that home and had its reserve in the bags hidden in the closet and secondly, if La Toya who stayed in the house had found a big store of some unknown substance there she would have been the first to make a big fuss over it, in the same way she did it when finding some ancient rotten marijuana there.

    It is surprising that even La Toya’s never-ending desire to do harm Michael’s image can often be a way to debunk other people’s lies.

    DR. WHITE USED A MODIFIED IV TUBING TO DEMONSTRATE HIS THEORY

    It turns out that our good Dr. White used in his Friday Oct. 31st demonstration a modified infusion tubing – a cap of a vent on it was cut off as if by a knife. This cap is important as with it propofol gets stuck in the bottle, while without it it flows freely.

    Walgren asked Dr. White if he agreed that it had been modified. Dr. White said he didn’t know how the cap had been removed from the defense exhibit. Here is a small excerpt from their rather long conversation over it:

    Walgren: Did you do it?

    White: I’ve never seen it before.

    Walgren: It wasn’t intended to mislead Dr. Shafer, was it?

    White shook his body as if from an electric shock.

    Walgren: Would you agree that it is easily concealable?

    White: It could be, yes.

    Walgren: Can it be slipped into your pocket? It fits into my hand, right?

    White: Yes…

    DR. WHITE’S FINAL REPORT SENT TO THE PROSECUTION WAS “PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS” ONLY

    Walgren asked Dr. White about the conclusions he made on March 8, 2011 concerning Michael Jackson taking propofol orally. Walgren reminded him that the three and a half pages report was the only document Dr. White had provided to the prosecution.

    But now Dr. White calls it just a letter to Mr. Flanagan which contained some of his “preliminary thoughts”.

    Walgren: This is the only document you’ve ever provided – this is the letter containing preliminary thoughts?

    White: Correct.

    Walgren: You initially speculated that Michael Jackson drank propofol himself, correct?

    White: I speculated that oral administration may have played a role.

    Walgren: And you now reject that theory, right? As a cause of death?

    (let me omit numerous White’s distracting techniques)

    White: As a cause of death, yes.

    Walgren: But you did at the outset as early as March 2011 attribute a possible cause of death to Michael Jackson himself? … And in your preliminary thoughts you concluded either “self-administered” or “he drank propofol”, correct?

    White: Yes, and I based that on some of the other expert testimony that I read in February.

    Walgren: Which testimony are you referring to, because there is no report where any expert speculates about any oral consumption of propofol?

    White: I thought it was the report by Dr. Ruffalo?

    Walgren: Can you show me the reference where he is talking about oral propofol?

    White: I didn’t say it was the report. I think it was in the preliminary hearing.

    Walgren: When Mr. Flanagan asked him about oral propofol? Is that what you are referring to?

    White: Perhaps.

    Walgren: How long did it take you to prepare that report?

    White: Are you referring to the letter? The letter was asked to prepare on a very short notice – a couple of days. I was extremely busy at the time but I agreed to provide a letter and my preliminary thoughts based on the information I reviewed at the time.

    Walgren: You’ve had seven months now and again the only letter I have is the one which you had to rush.

    White: I have not been asked to prepare a report. Correct.

    Walgren: What is the two days’ reference referring to?

    White: That was the time from when Dr. Flanagan contacted me and told me they needed something in writing, preliminary thoughts.

    (again other deviations are omitted)

    Walgren: Is there anything in this report where you say that these are my preliminary thoughts or my preliminary opinion? …. Is it stated anywhere in your March 8, 2011 letter?

    White: Well, I haven’t looked at that letter some time (the doctor reviews the letter in detail).

    Walgren: Does it anywhere say that these are your preliminary thoughts?

    White: I didn’t use the word preliminary.

    Walgren: “It is my opinion”.. I am quoting .. “it is my opinion that Michael Jackson self-administered these drugs intravenously and/or orally”. Correct?

    White: That sounds correct, yes.

    Walgren: There is nothing characterizing it as simply preliminary thoughts? It says it is your opinion..?

    White: Correct, based on the information I had been able to review in the short time prior to writing a letter to Mr. Flanagan.

    Walgren: You did a word search for oral propofol and that didn’t come up with the piglet study and then you wrote your report? Was there other research that you did regarding oral propofol before you put this in writing?

    White: I don’t believe so. And I also looked up the autopsy report which showed propofol in the stomach, the gastric contents.

    Walgren: Is there anything else? As far as your opinion… you said, It is my opinion that Mr. Jackson self- administered these drugs intravenously and/or orally?

    Walgren: As far as the issue of propofol being oral bioavailable from a scientific point of view did you do any other research other than a word search for “oral propofol”?

    White: Well, later…I received Dr. Shafer’s report which suggested it was unlikely…

    Walgren: Actually it said it was not possible.

    White: Not possible. Then I communicated electronically with Dr. Glenn who also confirmed that it was his understanding that the studies were made by the Imperial Chemical Industries in the 70s suggested that it wouldn’t be effective.

    Walgren: Dr. England’s study done in the 80s dealt with oral propofol, correct? You were aware of England’s paper that discussed oral propofol not being bioavailable based on his animal study, correct?

    White: Incorrect. I think I said earlier that I was unaware of any studies, either on animals or on human beings.

    Walgren: Prior to writing your opinion?

    White: I could not find any scientific information.

    Walgren: So you had NO scientific information and wrote this report stating it was your opinion that he either orally ingested or self-administered propofol, correct?

    White: I was just trying to cover all the possibilities.. I just thought it was appropriate to leave open the possibilities. … I wanted to list possibilities that seemed reasonable.

    Walgren: And the two possibilities you came up put the blame in your mind squarely on the deceased victim, correct?

    White: Well, if Dr. Murray had only given the 25ml that he claims to have given there must have been another factor that contributed to Michael Jackson’s demise.

    Walgren: In your March 8, 2011 letter the only option you came up with were – you blamed it on Michael Jackson for possibly orally ingesting and you blamed on Michael Jackson for possibly self-administering, correct? Those are the two options you came up with, correct?

    White: I believe that’s correct, yes.

    Walgren: And since that time you’ve rejected oral propofol and you’ve come up with a new theory to say that Michael Jackson did it himself, correct? (objection)

    Walgren: Did you mention that Michael Jackson swallowed eight 2ml Lorazepam pills in your March 8, 2011 letter?

    White: No, because at that time I had no time to really analyse the Lorazepam levels until my colleague Dr. Shafer provided his report in mid-April.

    Walgren: So that new theory that you came up with followed that March 8, 2011 letter, correct?

    White: It isn’t a new theory, it just presents a more indepth look at all the information available. Theory still is that the death was a result of rapid IV injection of propofol.

    Walgren: Have you ever put forward a theory other than – in your mind – blaming on Michael Jackson himself?

    White: If you are asking if I believe what Dr. Murray stated I did take his word that he administered 25 ml of propofol because the prior night he’d been trying to wean Mr. Jackson from propofol.

    Walgren: You took everything Conrad Murray said as the truth in your evaluation, right?

    White: Well, I certainly…

    Walgren: Yes or no?

    White: Yes.

    Walgren: Have you come up with any theories other than attributing the drug intake to Michael Jackson himself? Have you put forth any other theory?

    White: I don’t believe so.

    Like

  92. November 4, 2011 2:44 pm

    Is it on youtube? I wasn’t able to watch his closing argument yesterday.

    Like

  93. Deborah permalink
    November 4, 2011 2:35 pm

    Whatever happens, Walgren brought the mother-load of all closing arguments.

    His anger at White, explosive yet carefully controlled — because he knew White lied. In fact his very presence was an obscenity in that courtroom.

    Now, waiting.

    Like

  94. Linda permalink
    November 4, 2011 8:26 am

    @ dialdancer

    Money, Money, Money, “It’s only Michael Jackson so why shouldn’t I use him?”

    Isn’t that what happened almost every time he got close to or befriended someone? I haven’t had time to see what’s going on the last few days except what I read on here tonight, but I followed that link you put on here. Wow Murray wasted no time preparing for his future. I saw it coming now, but had no idea he planned this way back then.

    Actually a while back I was feeling kind of sorry for this man, because I felt like he was just the fall guy, but now I see where he was finding a way to profit off this a long time ago. What in the world happened to honesty and integrity? Do these people have no shame?

    Like

  95. November 4, 2011 4:22 am

    I do not wish to take attention from today’s closing arguments discussions, however, I read Linda’s comment about Murray profiting from a book. Yesterday reports began surfacing about the bidding & negotiating war btw representatives of Murray & Counsel with the major TV Networks. (Looks like NBC is going to be the winner… no big surprise given their history)

    What makes this story unique besides the absolute gall of these men is the original 2010 story directed you to the IMDB website which listed Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson as the cast

    The rest is rather long with its details so it is placed on the MJEOL site:
    http://community.mjeol.com/index.php?/topic/11851-nbc-to-buy-mj-movie-from-murray/#entry222116

    Money, Money, Money, “It’s only Michael Jackson so why shouldn’t I use him?”

    Like

  96. Susanne permalink*
    November 4, 2011 2:22 am

    I agree, Walgren was amazing. How he dissected White’s testimony was the best part to me because it could have a big influence on the jury. And calling it “junk science” and “garbage” made me cheering loudly as well as when White was shown what he pulled out of his pocket (I hope my neighbors didn’t hear me).

    Like

  97. November 4, 2011 2:21 am

    Another site which may work for those having problems with the others.

    http://www.ustream.tv/conradmurraytrial

    Like

  98. November 4, 2011 1:24 am

    Dr murray is a proven liar,why believe anything he says?

    Like

  99. Chris permalink
    November 3, 2011 11:53 pm

    All I could say was WOW.

    “Junk Science” showing him take it out of his pocket and staying at Flanagans house.

    Absolutely Superb. Take a bow Mr Walgren.

    Like

  100. November 3, 2011 11:42 pm

    Got some up on On the Red Carpet.Now they took a break.VMJ,I know you don´t do pharmacokinetics, just pay attention to the findings by Dr.Shafer.That paper from 2002 re excretion of unchanged Propofol excreted into urine that led to a conclusion of the total amount infused into Michael clinched the truth of what happened on 6/25 2009.Seems like a gift from heaven to prove what happened ,but is a testimony to Dr. Shafers thorougness and knowledge.Still thank you for your work.

    Like

  101. November 3, 2011 11:31 pm

    I’ve finally managed to see some fragments of Walgren’s speech. Totally agree with him calling Dr. White’s words garbage and junk science.
    Harsh but White deserves it. It serves him right.

    Like

  102. November 3, 2011 9:25 pm

    SOS again! Does anyone know of a live stream channel which does not have too much traffic? All the channels I usually use are not working!

    I am using these:
    http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/livevideo?id=8361777
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/livenow?id=8366366
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/the-people-v-s-conrad-murray/

    Are there any other?

    Like

  103. November 3, 2011 9:24 pm

    “And the calculations you did.A great job indeed.”

    No, no, no – these were Dr. Shafer’s findings!

    Like

  104. November 3, 2011 6:44 pm

    Congratulations to you VMJ for being able to listen to DR Whites
    testimony.His manner of presentation was so poor that I had a hard time sustaining my attention.A poster said he had one or even three Freudian slips of tongue ;using the word “crimescene”.I knew he was cotradicting all other evidence,as well as his own writings,and was off the wall.
    And the calculations you did.A great job indeed.

    Like

  105. November 3, 2011 4:02 pm

    Guys, I have practically transcribed Dr. White’s testimony because all of it is so glaring in its falsity that we shouldn’t miss a thing. However I still need to put things together ( hope to post it in several hours). For the moment let me offer you the definitive proof that Conrad Murray gave Michael not 100m but 200ml of propofol on June 25.

    This dose of propofol is absolutely consistent with what Gigi wrote about the amount of urine found in Michael’s bladder and her theory that he was asleep when it happened. A person cannot be awake with this amount of urine in his bladder.

    It is also fully consistent with the number of empty vials which Murray tried to hide in his bags. And now Dr. Shafer found a definitive scientific proof that Michael was given at least 200ml that night.

    A short explanation before you read the respective part of Dr. Shafer’s testimony on Day 22. In every scientific experiment, simulation, etc.first some theoretical models are worked out. However in order to prove them it is often necessary to verify them in a practical way. This chance was given to Dr. Shafer by the concentration of free propofol in the urine found on autopsy (it is stated in the toxicology report).

    He found a 2002 study which said that when a dose of propofol is given you will get a tiny percent (0,004%) of this dose in the urine. And if you know how many micrograms of free (unchanged) propofol are in the urine, you can calculate the 100% of the dose given to the patient.

    In short the amount found in the urine will tell you how much of it was administered at all.

    The authors of the 2002 article found:

    Unchanged propofol was excreted into the urine in the amount of 0, 004% of the applied dose.

    In MIchael’s case the level of unchanged propofol found in the urine upon autopsy was 0,15 micrograms per ml. And there was 500ml urine in the bladder. Converting it into micrograms Dr. Shafer came up with the total number of 82,5 mcg of propofol per this quantity.

    In the 2002 article they actually had a reference table where they listed out the amount of propofol excreted unchanged and the doses administered to give those amounts.

    The first column was how long the patients were undergoing surgery under propofol (the average was about three hours).
    The second was the method of calculations.
    The third was the total amount of propofol delivered to each patient. The average amount of propofol given was 2000mgs or 200ml.
    The fourth was the amount of urine. The average was 530ml.
    The fifth showed the average amount of propofol excreted. The average per patient was 70,71 mcg of unchanged propofol.

    This is quite close to what was measured in Michael Jackson’s case – his was 82,5mcg.

    The 70,71 mcg residual propofol is associated with the dose of 2000mcgs or 200ml of Propofol given.

    So if Michael Jackson had 82,5mcg in his urine it means that he had received more than 200ml of Propofol that night.

    Dr. Shafer has come a full circle – first he proved it by a theoretical model and then he got confirmation of it from the toxicology report. This result is impeccable.

    Like

  106. Linda permalink
    November 3, 2011 9:18 am

    It’s too sad that all through Michael’s life, he could trust in so few people, because almost everybody that he ever befriended turned out to be money grubbers. Now he’s gone and the one person that he should have been able to trust sounds like the worst of all of them.

    I’m real slow to have a bad opinion of anyone, but my God, this is just insane. The sh.t on Michael has only gotten worse with his death. I still have a problem with the word dead concerning Michael. It still doesn’t seem real to me. Some times I read an article and I see that word and I have to remind myself that he really is gone.

    Murray killed him, whether by stupidity or a planned murder that he may have been payed for, the end result is the same, and if that man makes money from book or movie deals I’m going to be really pissed.

    Dr. Shaffer was so eloquent and polite, not to mention very well prepared and didn’t charge for his expertise. I didn’t notice him evading any questions. I sensed he was just seeking justice for all concerned. He got my respect. Dr White danced all over the place and made no sense while being payed. I would still love to know just who is paying him. Shaffer seemed so honest and sincere, while white seemed to be on one side. I think he chose the wrong side to be on. Another one hoping to get a book deal off Michaels name?

    Damn it, this crap has got to stop somewhere!!! Thank God for the people that actually loved, and still love Michael for the wonderful person that he was. Why don’t people find out the facts for themselves instead of relying on tabloid bull? This case is so obvious, just like 93 and 2003. They didn’t want to see it then, and they aren’t willing to see it now, when the facts are right in front of them. It’s going to take some time, but I still believe some day they will get it, but it is frustrating waiting on some day.

    Like

  107. lynande51 permalink
    November 3, 2011 7:58 am

    Although there is concern about aquital in this case just like any other case the sentencing is at the discretion of the Judge. There are other things to consider in this case as well.It was Murray that cost LA County tons of money prosecuting him not the other way around.He could have plead out meaning no contest but no he sat and said Judge I am an innocent man.Baloney and Pastor knew that.Yesterday once again Murray mislead the court and wasted time with instructions to his right not to testify. That was the second time.Why do you suppose that Judge Pastor was so adament about him hearing those instructions and meticulously going over them point by point?Because he is already of the opinion that Murray is guilty of the crime.He did not want him testifying.All he would have been doing was playing on the jury’s sympathy and preening for the media.
    As for the Documentary something else was put into play when they repealed the Son Of Sam law.They extended the time that a victim can sue to 10 years so that any money he does make from it will be all tied up in court by the Estate.That is at least what Beth Karas said.Let him write a book and let him make his pitiful documentary first he has to be aquitted to make it interesting or else he would have to do it from prison.My guess is that no Network is signing any deals with him til it is over and this information coming out before deliberation is just for sensationalism.

    Like

  108. November 3, 2011 5:42 am

    Susan Yu seems so sincere.

    Like

  109. November 3, 2011 4:30 am

    Dialdancer, this is terrible news.And he will have access to ghost writers, hater-journalists and all the help he needs from AEG. He can buy his expensive house with garden and pool, sit there and give audiences to who ever wants to further slander Michael. I presume he will lose his MD, and anyway I don´t think he will care for those poor patients as he may be able to have a more relaxed future and just give interviews or receive help in writing.The doctor patient relationship and confidentiality does not end by killing your patient.Not having an MD will relieve him from such concerns.And many media pro…tes will
    profit too.And all the money, where ever it ends up originates from the person Michael Jackson.Naturally after legal expenses and whatever will be paid all should go to the orphan children of Michael.And we have heard how much he loves them!Maybe he should give thought to this highly proclaimed love before entering on any literary edeavours.Well
    I fogot his hobby is to sire children by different women,so that costs money too.The cabal will continue over Michaels dead body.
    Really we need to wait for the verdict,but he certainly is one of the most disgusting people I can think of..just that tape he made whie MJ was falling asleep.Those other criminals mentioned in the Son of Sam law
    could be considered severely mentally disturbed ,though not enough to escape prison.murray is a psychopath .That never is a legal defence qualifying as insanity.

    s.

    Like

  110. monica permalink
    November 3, 2011 4:22 am

    Yes, Suzanne thank you from me too for that clip of Ms. Yu. She is so well spoken and hearing those words coming from her made me feel her sincerity. I hope others “on the outside” of the fan world have a chance to see her speak of Michael.

    Also, I think Lynette mentioned the ridiculousness of the scenarios that Dr. White proposed when Walgren/Brasil were holding back smirks…my question is why in the world would Michael put on gloves to inject himself or inject into the port? Would someone put on gloves for something they are doing to himself? Just to add to the silly-ousness of an already stupid speculation…

    Like

  111. nan permalink
    November 3, 2011 3:12 am

    Suzanne
    Thank you for putting that clip up with Ms Yu talking about MJ..I think it is great that she is speaking out more about Michael and that case.

    Like

  112. November 3, 2011 2:54 am

    Susie,

    I asked about the “Son of Sam” law by someone who has some knowledge of the law and lives in California here is her response.

    “Son of Sam laws are impotent where Murray is concerned.

    Son of Sam Law
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

    CA Supreme Court strikes down Son of Sam law
    http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=3028

    He can make money even if he’s in prison. Heck, he’s not even going to go to prison if convicted.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/10/14/conrad-murray-could-serve-house-arrest-instead-prison-if-convicted-report-says/

    Like

  113. nan permalink
    November 3, 2011 2:33 am

    It just occured to me about that documentary that Murray wants to do to profit, I heard NBC wants to take him up on it ,They are the same network that used VG for Dateline.I wonder if that was what the prosecutor was alluding to with Dr White when he was asking him about all those financial questions.How much do you plan on making etc..I wonder if he is in on this documentary and was supposed to get paid from that source..

    Like

  114. Susanne permalink*
    November 2, 2011 11:54 pm

    Guys, something else:
    Please listen to the outstanding words of wonderful Susan Yu on the occasion of the Q&A for the premiere of the David Gest documentary “Michael Jackson – The life of an icon” today in London:
    http://www.livestream.com/mjlifeofanicon

    Like

  115. Susanne permalink*
    November 2, 2011 10:53 pm

    @Suzy: I read the same about Murray planning a documentary here:

    http://www.music-news.com/ShowNews.asp?nItemID=45442

    It’s really shocking. This would be another challenge to fight against it. Since I read it I keep thinking what could be done about it.

    Like

  116. Suzy permalink
    November 2, 2011 10:21 pm

    @ kaarin22

    ” Is there not a law that forbids anyone to profit from a crime they have comitted?”

    There is a law in the US called “Son of Sam” law:

    “A Son of Sam Law is any American law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

    However this is a British TV offering Murray a deal, not American. So I guess the law can be played out if Murray sells his story elsewhere, not in the US. So sad.

    Like

  117. Susan permalink
    November 2, 2011 9:39 pm

    @Nan

    EXACTLY!

    I sincerely hope that this Dr. White will now be considered a pariah in the medical community for his obvious bias against the victim, Michael.

    If it wasn’t so sad, you’d almost laugh – you can’t call 911 because of the “isolation” of the home, surrounded by a “fence” and a “gate”. Really, Dr. White, really? Some people truly do sell their souls.

    Like

  118. nan permalink
    November 2, 2011 8:37 pm

    Well when I heard Dr White testimony , I was dumbfounded that someone would work their whole life to build a reputation, and implode it just for money or to be somehow affiliated with Michael Jackson..
    I hope this shows people, how some people are.Michael never met this bozo, never did anything to him or his family and yet this guy gets up and starts telling obvious lies against him ……. BLATANTLY making excuses for Murray not calling 911, supposedly not finding a pulse, forgetting details of the propaful, he SUPPOSEDLY was giving him all those weeks ,while talking to paramedics and hospital doctors..
    It is incredulous that this man would bring up a supposed stash of propaful that MJ had ….Taking one for the team , as he was not supposed to talk about conversations with Murray , even getting in trouble with the judge…….to help Murray……… yet when Murray is talking to the police , they bring up some old weed and it doesnt jar his memory of a propaful stash??…..this didnt occur to Dr White??
    .It is absolutely ridiculous because of course if Murray really thought Mj had a stash , then he never would have left a full injection of propaful unattended..
    But White knows that neither are true..
    Even in death, through no fault of his own , the celebrity factor of Michael Jackson attracts the worst behavior and motives in some people…
    On a lighter note , I knew this guy was going to lie because when Flanigan asked him about taking the case , he said he didnt want to gt involved but his wife made him….Pfft..you know thats a staight out lie right there..always blaming the wife..

    Like

  119. November 2, 2011 4:47 pm

    Suzy,I am shocked about what I read in your post. Is there not a law that forbids anyone to profit from a crime they have comitted?I am pretty sure of that.He is just hurrying up in case he is found guilty.
    Total lack of shame and decency.And if he gets hold of money I hope he loses it all to Michaels children in a civil suit.What is happening today in court? Will there be a rebuttal or something,and when will jury deliberation start?I know he is very entrepeneurial and a psychopath too.I cannot think of anything more shameful than what you report he is up to.I presume the jury is not allowed any knowledge of this.Next he will write a “how to book:How to become a milloinaire through homicide and lies.”

    Like

  120. Suzy permalink
    November 2, 2011 3:54 pm

    I’m not saying I’m surprised. Everybody wants to cash-in on Michael Jackson, why would Murray be the exception.

    Report: Conrad Murray Filming and Shopping Documentary

    David McNew-Pool/Getty Images(NEW YORK) — Conrad Murray is still in the midst of an involuntary manslaughter trial in the death of Michael Jackson, but that reportedly hasn’t stopped the doctor from quietly filming a documentary that’s being offered to major TV networks, the New York Post reports.

    Sources tell the newspaper Murray has sold the rights “to his story” to an unidentified production company that has been filming him as the trial progresses. The source says the company is now shopping the documentary around to various TV networks for $1 million as part of a package deal that would also include a video diary and a sit-down interview with Murray. It’s not known how much money Murray would get from any deal.

    The source tells the Post, “A news division that pays for the documentary will end up with a side deal of getting the sit-down with Conrad. It’s crafted in such a way for a news division that doesn’t pay for interviews.”

    The report says the production company has already filmed a long interview with Murray in case he is found guilty and taken immediately into custody.

    The Post says a CNN rep confirmed they were pitched the Murray package but passed on it. Other sources tell the newspaper NBC is close to making a deal. A spokesman for Murray’s legal team declined to comment on the story.

    Murray faces up to four years in prison if found guilty of giving Jackson a fatal dose of the powerful anesthetic propofol prior to the singer’s death in 2009.

    Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio

    http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=115&itemid=29748427

    This is why I think justice will never be served for Michael. Even if Murray is found guilty, what he would get? 4 years at max, which probably will be less in reality and most of it in house arrest. Then the big Michael Jackson-money making machine can start for him too: book deals, “documentaries”, interviews. Apparently it has already started….

    Like

  121. November 2, 2011 1:44 pm

    White made me laugh when he spoke about the syringe. To leave a syringe full of propofol is gross negligence.

    Like

  122. lynande51 permalink
    November 2, 2011 8:39 am

    Just so everyone knows there is no “reasonable doubt” in this case. Any doubt that is put forward by the defense is probably the most unreasonable thing that could occur. First Paul White shows the jury what he thinks happened when he drew up 2.5 ml of propofol in a syringe and said that Michael injected it into the port himself. Well then they forgot about the Lorazepam that they had been harping on for the last 4 weeks and forgot that it has psychomotor (think of having about 6 shots of alcohol per 2 mg and Michael had 8 mg on board) effects meaning you can’t focus very well and you could never draw the propofol up in a syringe and insert that needle into the IV port without dropping something, falling over, or God forbid pulling out the IV in your leg. So then they did another switcheroo and said that maybe Murray drew it up and left it somewhere Michael could get it. That in and of itself is ridiculous because like Dave Walgren said when he was trying so hard not to laugh was Michael would have had to get up, put on latex gloves, wheel around that IV stand with the IV in his leg, hauling around his urine bag, which in this case was a regular urine bag not a leg bag because Alberto Alverez saw it, carry that around while he found this prefilled syringe went back, laid down and pushed it into his IV, removed his gloves because his prints weren’t found, and then placed another syringe that he had filled with propofol, lidocaine and Flumazenil in it back into the port before he could die instantly because his heart stopped instead of he stopped breathing. Instead of being an expert witness for the defense Paul White was the weakest link and that was because even if he went on Murray’s statement to him it was outrageous.
    And then there was at least one more attempt at what could have happened believe it or not. Then Murray went as far as leaving the syringe right in the port for him to push it in! Well at this point then lack of fingerprints tell me that Michael would have had to at least get up and put on the gloves and then go lay back down without losing the syringe from the port besides all the other ridiculous carrying on that they are attributing to him like the wheeling the IV stand and carrying his urine bag. Does that even sound reasonable? NO it sounds crazy and cartoonish is what it sounds. In all their theories all they have is this ridiculous thing that leaves Murray out of the bedroom practically the whole night, which in hindsight would have been the best thing to happen, or he has to be sitting there watching him do all this stuff. That is not reasonable but what is reasonable is Murray hung a drip let it run Michael stopped breathing and Murray started to clean everything up instead of taking care of Michael. I still think that he just rolled up the IV line stuck it in his pocket and threw it away at the hospital where it would go unnoticed with the rest of the medical garbage. There has to be something seriously wrong with a jury that does not convict this man. They convict people for 1st degree murder with less evidence and no body, than having that person in the room with the weapon of choice and an admission that he used that weapon of choice.

    Like

  123. November 2, 2011 7:31 am

    “Everybody who gets a check for their work for the defence should get a complimentary album of Michael´s “Money”.”

    Yes, and not because they were paid for their testimony but because they were paid for stretching the truth to the point of no recognition. Dr. White, for example, totally disregarded Murray’s own words about Michael having a pulse when he found him and presented a fake theory of Michael having a heart attack and his heart not beating – though Murray said the pulse oxymetry registered 122 beats!

    So on the one hand he says he believes Murray’s statement to the police but on the other hand he totally disregards what Murray is saying and makes up a theory based on nothing but speculation! It is a fabrication in its pure form.

    And when his results are not found too consistent Dr. White is not above saying that it is someone else’s responsibility – he used another doctor’s charts without checking them and learning what data they are based on. He said he was no expert in pharmacokinetics and didn’t know how those models were made. Inconceivable behavior for a scientist. Professional suicide as you said.

    Like

  124. November 2, 2011 7:11 am

    “I found this pretty surprising research http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/2009/07/31/propofol-a-dangerous-kind-of-rest/. This is an interview done in 2009 after MJ’s death, from the questions and answers it appears that based on research done on rats, there is no difference in behaviour of rats who recover from lack of sleep by sleeping naturally and those rats that recover from sleep loss by sedation! Of course, propofol is dangerous but it does have the effect of sleep as in the person feels rested like a normally sleeping person!

    BlueLotus, thank you for the article – now everything concerning studies of propofol has become of interest to us. This interview was given two years ago and since then the research has made some progress as that Chinese paper of 2010 proves it. Over there 65 patients were treated with propofol and all of them showed improvement in sleep patterns. However it is still too early to say anything for sure.

    “So Michael was using the right thing although EXTREME thing to use”

    Yes, unfortunately Michael found himself in a situation when he had to go to extremes to be able to survive. Since sleep deprivation can also cause death (studies with rats say they die after two weeks of no sleep) he didn’t have a choice. It may sound odd but for him choosing propofol was a lesser danger than non-sleep – of course if he was monitored by a proper doctor.

    Another thing is that he was using propofol only for extreme cases like these 50 shows. Anyone will say that it is impossible to make this or any number of shows if you don’t sleep. When Michael was not touring he put up with the 2 or 3 hours he had. Remember Thomas Mesereau saying that Michael used to call him at 3 am when Thomas was getting up to get ready for the next day in court? Michael was not sleeping, walking the whole night and waiting for Thomas to wake up to be able to talk to him! That trial was probably the time when his insomnia became totally incurable. Stress, fear for his children and the constant pain of feeling betrayed, slandered and harassed did their job.

    “Why do they call him an addict?”

    Propofol is not addictive. It does not form a craving the way it happens with narcotic drugs. So on this principle alone Michael cannot be called an addict. He wanted propofol because this is the only medication that helped him – that is all. In the same way if vitamins could help him sleep he would be “addicted” to them too. By the way even vitamins when taken excessively may also be dangerous.

    “IDIOTS!”
    Those who repeat it after the media are full idiots because they are not using their own brains and are not in the habit of thinking for themselves. These people are revolting. But those who keep slandering Michael in the press are clever enough not to believe what they are saying.

    Like

  125. November 2, 2011 6:32 am

    “Michael was not “using the the right thing” because he is dead”

    Michael is dead because he was killed by Murray’s ignorance, negligence and greediness (at best). Dr. David Adams said through his lawyer that he had put 6000 patients under anesthesia and all of them are alive. If Dr. Adams had been around Michael – and for less money – Michael would be alive now.

    “Propofol does not cause a person to enter into REM sleep where dreaming occurs; therefore, it is not an insomnia treatment.”

    If we cannot prove our opinions by any substantial studies it is better to refrain from bold statements like that. Dr. White voicing his opinion about “oral propofol” being the cause of Michael’s death is the best example of it. Up till now there have been no studies of this matter whatsoever. Dr. Shafer said that there is only one paper on treating insomnia by propofol (this paper is dated 2010 and recommended it as an insomnia treatment), but this is too little to make any definitive statements. The research is only starting. However the first results – both with animals and humans – are encouraging.

    Like

  126. Teva permalink
    November 2, 2011 2:40 am

    @Jill
    It is not unheard of for a defense or prospecution witness be paid for their testimony. They Just can’t make stuff up or lie.

    @BlueLotus
    Michael was not “using the the right thing” because he is dead. Propofol does not cause a person to enter into REM sleep where dreaming occurs; therefore, it is not an insomnia treatment.

    Like

  127. November 2, 2011 1:47 am

    The tedoius testimony,pretinking prethoughts and contradicing his own writing..discarding facts and on and on.I wonder how the jurors managed to listen to all this.Soon we will know for sure.There can always be some stubborn donkey among the jurors.Everybody who gets a check for their work for the defence should get a complimentary album of Michael´s “Money”.

    Like

  128. November 2, 2011 12:43 am

    Guys, the case is pretty clear. Dr. Shafer dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s. Based on the urine results he proved that Michael received not 100ml but most probably 200ml of Propofol that night.

    Case closed.
    He put Michael on propofol and went away to attend to his business.
    He deserves to be hanged for that.

    I will try to catch up with the rest of the testimonies within the next few days. Also I need to attend to some work matters in the office.

    The second portion of Dr. White’s testimony has been added.
    I hope none of his colleagues will shake his hand from now on.

    All this is very sad.

    Like

  129. BlueLotus permalink
    November 1, 2011 9:32 pm

    May be u guys already know it. but I found this pretty surprising research http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/2009/07/31/propofol-a-dangerous-kind-of-rest/. This is an interview done in 2009 after MJ’s death, from the questions and answers it appears that based on research done on rats, there is no difference in behaviour of rats who recover from lack of sleep by sleeping naturally and those rats that recover from sleep loss by sedation!
    Of course, propofol is dangerous but it does have the effect of sleep as in the person feels rested like a normally sleeping person!
    So Michael was using the right thing although EXTREME thing to use….

    Why do they call him an addict? IDIOTS!

    Like

  130. November 1, 2011 9:27 pm

    It is being reported Murray wanted to testify. It is also reported his attorneys were opposed to him doing so, however, Murray will not be testifying. I have to find out how the Media knew for sure he wanted to testify. Turned on HLN to Michael Gallegos he reported this information came from TMZ.

    Like

  131. November 1, 2011 7:37 pm

    “Please inform me on what law went into effect Oct.1st 2011.”

    William Wagener spoke about it. A law was passed which allows those convicted to serve a term at home with a special monitoring device attached to their foot.

    Like

  132. November 1, 2011 7:35 pm

    Guys, just a small note. I’ve updated this post with information about Dr. White’s testimony.

    This is the first part only concerning administering propofol at home. The most colorful details from Dr. White are still to come (at least I hope to have a chance to write them down).

    Like

  133. November 1, 2011 5:43 pm

    And murray was trying to return to the residence after Michael was officially declared dead, for that cream. Michael had never denied using the cream and makeup to deal with his vitiligo.Murray just wanted to further cover his tracks.And White to claim that Michael did all those things-and no Michael-fingerprints!I believe murray may have used latex gloves,it was mentioned in some of his orders.
    Murray´s lies have served him well.Don´t ever forget that he lied from the get go.This is a crime not only against Michael,but against his chidren too.
    With time it becomes more evident that it wasn´t just Michael and murray.

    Like

  134. November 1, 2011 4:25 pm

    Please inform me on what law went into effect Oct.1.st 2011. This case is growing like a malignant tumor.Was White speaking to Murray before the trial? Obviously white went with the defence because he knew that ís where the money was.Murray does not have any of his own. Unless he has gathered some under an alias,and I doubt that.
    White´s statements were just taken from his own thoughts,opinions and the net.He simply disregarded facts from previous witnesses. And murray taking the stand? He would tell his x nr or versions and lies, this time to fit whites testimony.-Murrays pocket getting wet?He stayed in Michaels room after everybody else, there are wash basins and toilets for disposal of extra liquid .It is more to it than a poor ,corrupt doctor looking for cash to pay his debt and finance his lifestyle.
    .A major financial crime and a murder has been comitted and the legal system can´t deal with it.

    Like

  135. shelly permalink
    November 1, 2011 1:26 pm

    @vindicate,

    I am not saying that I believe Murray, I believe he lied on everything but I believe White and Murray’s lawyer agreed to say that in court in order to confuse the jury, and I believe it’s what JVM said. She never said she believed Murray.

    I think they did the same when Waldman claimed MJ had his own supply of Demerol.

    Like

  136. November 1, 2011 1:02 pm

    “I believe JVM is right, the story of MJ having his own propofol paints a very bad pictures of him. On the other hand, it made Murray even worse.”

    Let us not misplace the focus here. Murray is telling us any lies he likes and some people seem will believe him as if here an oracle.

    Now he says that propofol was stacked in Michael’s house. But this means that firstly, Murray was the one who brought it into the house. He could be keeping a stack for himself not to carry it every night there. In fact he himself said in his statement to the police that he kept all his things ready in the closet.

    Secondly, Murray’s current lie insinuates that the family threw the stack away as the police did not find it. However the Jackson family (La Toya, for example) was always playing their own cards in the game and when some of them found some ancient rotten marijuana in some corner they immediately called the police to report it. Similarly, if they had found a stack of propofol they would have been the first to create a terrible fuss over it.

    Again, if Michael had had a stack of propofol and was so good at self-administering it, why would he have needed a doctor at all?

    Like

  137. November 1, 2011 12:34 pm

    “Who says Murray has paid that expert? The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that this Murray doctor was approached by ” somebody” and was offered some good money to get 4 years in the prison . And , maybe resistant to this idea , was assured that he wouldn’t get not even the entire time if considering time for good behavior or , who knows, maybe some law which were in the draws could be approved coincidentally and conveniently on time? And the Law was approved in the first days of October ! And , in the end , a gorged account in a Caribean Bank ! Would that be tempting ?”

    Nora, when I wondered how Murray could pay all that money to experts, three lawyers and a publicity team, but didn’t spend a single dollar on Michael to buy some necessary equipment, I had in mind something of your scenario – which is quite possible. However we don’t know the financial standing of Murray – if there is a possibility to prove that he has no money of his own then it will be obvious that someone else is paying for him.

    And if this is so then we have two options to consider:
    – the first is yours which says that it was a premeditated murder
    – the second one is that someone is paying Murray for just being silent and not telling the truth of how Michael was treated in the last months of his life (I mean those riot acts and why no equipment was supplied, etc.)

    In both cases a good sum may be waiting for Murray in the bank. If he is convicted and serves only 4 years in prison he can very well pick that money after that.

    I don’t know whether the criminal court has the power to look into Murray’s financial situation, but the civil court sure can. I remember it from the time when Larry Feldman demanded to see all Michael’s money under the civil suit he filed for the Chandlers. It was after that of his motions that the settlement agreement was made – the lawyers evidently could not prevent the civil court from reviewing Michael’s finances and forced him into agreeing to settle. Or the insurance company did as the money was ultimately paid by the insurance company.

    Like

  138. November 1, 2011 12:12 pm

    I believe JVM is right, the story of MJ having his own propofol paints a very bad pictures of him. On the other hand, it made Murray even worse.

    Like

  139. November 1, 2011 9:41 am

    This day’s testimony left me flabbergasted. Ok, so Dr. White is getting paid, he wouldn’t be the first expert to do so, but how many are staying at one of the attorney’s house with him? Reminds me of Zonen and the boys. I haven’t heard any comments about this. There is that selective reporting again.

    There was a bright spot in my day. Beth Karas backed JVM into a corner on ideas she and Ryan Smith tried to promote. For my money HLN can replace Smith with Karas as In Session Host any day.

    Oh… check out Ryan’s introduction. Something missing, yes the name Conrad Murray.

    Like

  140. Jovana permalink
    November 1, 2011 9:09 am

    Here we go again, same story different players. This doesnt surprise me at all. I just hope that the jury sees what they are doing because its beyond obvious.

    Like

  141. Jill permalink
    November 1, 2011 6:57 am

    I was shocked today when I heard that Dr. White got paid for his testimonies.
    There’s totally something wrong here, is he lying for the defense? They’re going down, we’re winning!! Thank God.

    Like

  142. November 1, 2011 6:54 am

    I do not know who wrote the first Post ,” Conrad Murray : Trial Week 6 . ANYTHING FOR MONEY” , but I want to call the attention on the paragraph #3, I think . It says : ” All that talk about money made me once again recall that Conrad Murray is able to afford to pay this much money to one of his expert, but could not afford to buy a pulse oxymeter “… Well , now is me talking : Who says Murray has paid that expert ( if you agree to call Dr. White so…) ? The most I think about this case ( every day I’ve been going to bed doing this , and crying…), more convinced I am that this Murray doctor was approached by ” somebody” or a contact of this “somebody” ( most probably …) , after certain time he was with Michael , and was offered some good money to get 4 years in the prison . And , maybe resistant to this idea , was assured that he wouldn’t get not even the entire time if considering time for good behavior or , who knows, maybe some law which were in the draws could be approved coincidentally and conveniently on time ( remember the Trial was delayed from … I think was May , to the end of September ? And the Law was approved in the first days of October ! ) And , in the end , a gorged account in a Caribean Bank ! Would that be tempting ? Because , this way , Michael would come out of the way of His own patrimony !! And another person would be considered the killer !! WOW !! Master !! And then , His “friends and admirers” would be taking care of His Estate , until His children have majority ! Is my hypothesis too far fetched ? So , why Michael was wearing anti bullet vest since before the 2005 Trial ?! Why He was convinced that the “vampires ” , after years sucking Him , wanted now to kill Him ?! Was Michael paranoid ? Why $… created from itself an another artistic Show Busyness ( … what is the name ? AEG ? ) to approach Michael , after He came from Europe , and convince Him to do ” the last and most excellent Tour ” He ever had ? And it was known that MJ didn’t accept until was convinced that He would loose all His Patrimony… And agreed on only 10 shows ! It’s also known He cried when He knew about the 50 shows . So sad ! He cried , thinking on us being disappointed with Him ! Because He knew He could do maybe more, like 20 ? But it would be hard for a 50 years old man , well fitted , OK… anyway, a 50 years old ( Good Lord ! So gorgeous , and talented , and disciplined , and… well I’m not writing here for the obvious.) ! But the true was : Michael wasn’t supposed to do 50 shows … not even 10… What ” they ” planned , ” they ” got it !! Understood ?! And “they” didn’t even had to return the ticket’s money ! Less than half claimed the money , because the fans didn’t want to return the TICKET !! ” They ” never thought it would be so easy and SO LUCRATIVE !!! Because only us , His fans , knew how much we loved and admired Him ! And , even us , we had no idea that we were no island … that we were a huge continent !!! I am part of this continent I call sisters and brothers … L,O.V.E. Nora.

    Like

  143. November 1, 2011 5:53 am

    All for Money! Nothing matter. Dignity?, Honesty?. Know these words Mr. White?

    Like

  144. shelly permalink
    November 1, 2011 5:10 am

    Murray said he hasn’t decided if he wanted to testify or not. If he chose to do it, I wonder what will happen in cross examination.

    Like

  145. lynande51 permalink
    November 1, 2011 3:47 am

    I think Dr. White compromised himself today in ways that no other doctor has other than Murray and he did it for Murray.First they try to say that Murray changed his story yet Murray will not get on the stand.That is the reason that Judge Pastor read Murray his rights the other day.If they wanted to use that conversation to bolster their case then Murray would have had to testify.Still on the stand he tried no less than five times to admit that conversation.Just before lunch was number five and it cost him $1000 to do it.The judge already found him in contempt of court. I now believe that all of his testimony looses it’s credibilty.He knew he wasn’t supposed ot go there and yet he kept it up until he actually made Judge Pastor mad.Murray is not worth this mans reputation and yet that is what it has cost him.

    Like

  146. November 1, 2011 3:37 am

    “and the telephone was not working”

    Did he really said that? How did he explained Murray’s phone calls if the telephone was not working?

    Like

  147. November 1, 2011 3:17 am

    “walgren rang white and i think he asked him to work for the pros??. white said i had been asked by the defence but hadnt decided what involvement i was gonna take place. white says in the convo with walgren he asked white if he was gonna get paid. white says im retired its my only source of income”

    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/119811-Murray-Trial-Day-21-October-31st-Discussion/page23

    Like

  148. November 1, 2011 3:07 am

    Blog by Mike Barnes
    http://psbar.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/justice-has-been-served/

    Great article.

    Like

  149. November 1, 2011 2:43 am

    I have some questions re jury instructions as I have little legal expierience only, and am not a US citizen.Also see Deborah´s post.
    Are they set rules,the same for each case?How long are they?Can each juror get a printed copy of them to refer to in complex questions?.
    BTW Wikipedia itself states that it is insufficient for academic use.
    This would apply to Dr.White who used it for info.

    Like

  150. November 1, 2011 2:41 am

    I can’t believe they are trying to justify the fact that he didn’t call 911.

    Like

  151. lcpledwards permalink
    November 1, 2011 2:23 am

    @ Deborah
    Out of everything that Mike Barnes said in that blog post, the most important thing that stuck out to me was the final sentence:

    No matter what the trial’s ultimate outcome may be, this case has helped me and others learn more about Michael Jackson, his strengths, and challenges, and I now hold an opinion of his life and legacy based on facts sworn to be the truth. In that regard, justice has been served.

    Our hard work isn’t in vain!

    Like

  152. November 1, 2011 2:11 am

    “Dr. White claims that while Murray was away Michael took the syringe with 25 ml of Propofol prepared for him (!) by Murray, self-injected himself and his heart immediately stopped after that.”

    I don’t understand that defense. Isn’t it a gross negligence in itself to leave a syringe full of propofol near an alleged addict who is desesperate enough to hire a doctor to give him propofol to sleep.

    Like

  153. Deborah permalink
    November 1, 2011 2:01 am

    Justice Has Been Served

    The defense has concluded its presentation of the facts in the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray for the homicide of Michael Jackson. The jurors will soon be instructed to apply the elements of the crime of involuntary manslaughter to the facts in this case. A number of variables remain, for example:

    Will the jury instructions accurately reflect the California criminal code and interpretive case law?

    Will the jurors adopt the defense team’s narrowing of issues to whether or not Michael Jackson self-administered the anesthetic propofol?

    Will one or more of the fact finders aim to be the lone juror to deny a conviction with the hopes of getting paid TV interviews or lucrative book deals?

    When a verdict is rendered, I will have watched this trial from start to finish. I have done so with an open mind.

    The last time I called myself a fan of Michael Jackson was 1984, when I was in 4th grade. Between then and last month, I only peripherally observed Jackson while I was in line at the grocery store, in the same disengaged way I follow any other popular figure. I never even paid enough attention to form an opinion.

    But I have an opinion now. Here are the conclusions about Michael Jackson that I have drawn as a result of this case:

    He surrounded himself with good people. With one prominent exception, the members of Michael Jackson’s professional and domestic staff who took part in this trial were genuine people who had a veritable commitment to Jackson’s personal well-being and professional success. Jackson’s fans include some extraordinarily faithful, compassionate, and intelligent individuals. “Intelligent” is an adjective I use with due caution and circumspection.

    He was a family man. Michael Jackson wanted his children to see him perform at his best. It was this motivation that drove the 50-year-old man to perform on the night before his death with the fitness and skill of a 25-year-old pop star.

    He had a kind heart. In his most uninhibited and vulnerable state of sedation, Michael Jackson described his deep-rooted desire to help children in need by establishing the Michael Jackson Children’s Hospital.

    He was vulnerable.

    Michael Jackson lamented that he did not have a typical, carefree childhood. Jackson’s desire to help children feel the joy of youth that he missed out on made him exceptionally susceptible to misconstruals of his intentions. He protected himself with complex privacy and security measures.

    Michael Jackson had severe and inadequately treated anxiety and insomnia, which led him to create for himself a rudimentary treatment plan that incorporated the use of a powerful anesthetic that mimicked the effects of sleep.

    He was exploited.

    Dr. Conrad Murray took advantage of Michael Jackson’s vulnerabilities. In exchange for the opportunity to introduce himself to women as Michael Jackson’s personal physician, and a fee of $150,000 per month, Murray threw caution to the wind and implemented Jackson’s self-designed treatment plan.

    Jackson died as a result.

    While analyzing this trial, I have spoken with and debated a number of individuals, including some of the most visible reporters and high-profile attorneys working in criminal law. No one has summarized this case more simply and clearly than my mom – the only person I know who is more disengaged from pop culture than I:

    It is not fair to blame Michael Jackson for his own death.

    Do I believe a conviction is warranted based on the facts presented? Yes. What are the odds of a guilty verdict? I say 70 percent. No matter what the trial’s ultimate outcome may be, this case has helped me and others learn more about Michael Jackson, his strengths, and challenges, and I now hold an opinion of his life and legacy based on facts sworn to be the truth. In that regard, justice has been served.

    Blog by Mike Barnes

    http://psbar.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/justice-has-been-served/

    Like

  154. November 1, 2011 1:51 am

    “Sounds like professional suicide.”

    Dr. White claims that while Murray was away Michael took the syringe with 25 ml of Propofol prepared for him (!) by Murray, self-injected himself and his heart immediately stopped after that.

    He is not confused by the fact that Murray said it twice in his statement to the police that he had felt a pulse. 1) The pulse oxymetry showed 122 beats and 2) He also felt the thready pulse in the femoral area.

    Dr. White stretches the truth as far as saying that Murray FELT HIS OWN PULSE! Okay, but how about the pulse oxymeter? Was it also showing Murray’s pulse though it was on Michael’s finger?

    White is ready to twist and turn EVERYTHING there is to twist and turn in order to make it look like it was Michael himself.

    And in order to produce that impression he is making the most ridiculous assumptions. You know I am even embarrassed to see to what lengths he is going to in order to adjust reality to his likings.

    Like

  155. November 1, 2011 1:31 am

    Sounds like professional suicide.Cannot wait to get the 2 hrs of thunderous review on his thoughts,opinions and internet search.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: