Conrad Murray’s guilt has been proven. Why does the media pretend that it has not?
While we are waiting for the jury to decide Murray’s fate let me tell you about one thing which surprises me most.
During this trial the truth was established with a precision only true science is capable of.
The anesthesiologist Dr. Shafer, cardiologist Dr. Steinberg, toxicologist Dr. Andersen, coroner Dr. Rogers and lots of other scientists who were simply doing their work by researching propofol helped to find out that Conrad Murray was telling huge lies about the night of June 25, 2009.
He lied to everyone that he had given only 25ml of this drug but science provided undeniable proof that he had administered to Michael more than 200ml of it. The method Dr. Shafer used is undisputable and is supported not only by the study made in the year of 2002 but by all earlier studies as well.
The researchers found that propofol practically does not leave the body through kidneys and goes into the urine in tiny quantities. For propofol to be found in the urine the infusion of it into the blood should be really big.
And since more than 80 micrograms of propofol were found in Michael’s bladder the dose he received should be no less than 200ml.
As simple as that.
It also turns out that this amount of propofol fully coincides with the number of empty vials found on the crime scene. One empty 100 vial was hidden in the closet and found there inside a saline bag, and five more empty and half-empty 20ml vials were found in other Murray’s bags hidden in the same closet.
Everything has come a full circle and all the evidence is fitting in.
Conrad Murray was lying to us all along when he repeated his fairy tale about “trying to wean Michael of propofol for the past three nights”.
He had not tried to wean Michael of anything. He was the first to tell Michael that it was safe to have propofol at home and gave him huge doses of it in a totally criminal way he did – he simply made holes in the vials and the fluid dropped uncontrollably into Michael’s body. The only way to check the speed of it was a roller clamp on the tubing which for a drug like propofol is a method too crude to employ.
Propofol is an anesthetic where each drop counts. One extra drop can turn moderate sedation (with natural breathing) into general anesthesia (when breathing stops and death ensues) – so the way Murray administered propofol manually and in the absence of a precision dosing electronic device is a separate crime of its own.
But now comes the point which surprises me most.
I can more or less understand that the jury is having a difficulty with the scientific findings presented to them at the trial. No one can guarantee to us that the jury is made up of people who studied well at school. Now in hindsight it is clear that given the specifics of the case only educated people should have been selected to the jury and should have taken a test before it.
But what surprises me most is that the media is also pretending that they do not understand it. The media are supposed to be well-educated people and it is impossible to imagine that they – with a whole army of experts at their disposal – could not have grasped that Murray’s guilt was proven by scientific methods and by one hundred percent too.
If the media wanted to tell the public the truth about Murray’s, now they would be using the spare time before the verdict for inviting experts to their studios and educating their viewers on how science managed to prove the amount of propofol Murray administered to Michael. They could be explaining the matter to the general public in simple terms – by means of pictures, drawings or computer animations.
But they are not doing anything like that.
Instead they are putting up a show called “an unbiased approach” pretending that Murray’s case is difficult to decide and each side has some truth behind it, and it is not yet clear on whose side more truth will be found.
However the truth is only one here. Murray lied to everyone including the police and concealed the facts that he had been uncontrollably infusing Michael with huge doses of propofol, had been speaking on the phone while “monitoring” his patient and simply hadn’t noticed that his patient died.
And since the trial was supposed to simply prove gross negligence on the part of Murray it did prove this gross negligence so well that from now on Murray’s name will be a dictionary word for it.
But the media keeps pretending that it is deaf and blind, “does not yet know” and instead of educating people on the basics of the case gives venue to Murray’s supporters who keep telling us how “good a doctor” Conrad Murray is and how “friendly” he was with Michael Jackson.
Some gullible guys will probably believe these fairy tales but the rest of the world won’t.
We find ourselves in a unique situation when due to the trial broadcast live the people the world over were able to learn the truth about Conrad Murray’s case directly – without it being retold to us by the media. And this also gives us a unique chance to test the media’s credibility and how objective they are.
One would expect that in these circumstances they wouldn’t take the risk of telling their flagrant lies or distorting the truth.
However you are amazed to see that this is exactly what they are doing.
I wonder what they and everyone else will do if the jury does not understand that Murray’s guilt has been proven scientifically.
Will the media lie to us that he is not guilty or that no truth has been found?
We have heard and seen it with our own eyes, but they will tell us we should believe them instead?
I hope it never comes to it.
But whatever the result is the media has already shown its true worth.