Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

People vs. Dr. Conrad Murray

Murray's Former Patients:

He's the Best Doc Ever

10/26/2011 7:20 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Dr. Murray's Former Patients Testify
Updated 10/26/11 at 9:00 AM
The defense is trying to make the case ... Dr. Conrad Murray is a great doctor with a pristine reputation -- and to prove their point, they're calling several of Murray's former patients to the stand ... each with glowing reviews.

First up ... a heart attack patient named Gerry Causey -- who told the jury, Murray saved his life. Causey said Murray is "the best doctor" he's ever had.

Interestingly, Causey told jurors he didn't want to be sedated during the operation because he was too scared ... so Murray didn't put him under.

He also said Murray took great care in explaining everything he was doing.

Prosecutors made sure to point out -- Murray's treatment was done in a monitored environment with the help of a large staff.

0104_break_mj Patient # 2 -- Andrew Guest
Updated 10/26/11 at 9:15 AM

1025_Andrew_Guest_MJtrialPatient #2 Andrew Guest said Dr. Conrad Murray performed 2 different procedures on his heart in 2002 -- telling jurors, "That man sitting there is the best doctor I’ve ever seen."

Guest said Murray often called him on weekends to check up on him.

During cross-examination, lead prosecutor David Walgren asked Guest, "I don't mean to be flip ... but  he never give you Propofol in your bedroom did he?"

Guest shot back, "I am alive today because of that man."

Patient # 3 -- Lunette Sampson
Updated 10/26/11 at 9:35 AM

1025_Lunette_Sampson_MJtrialLunette Sampson -- who suffered 3 heart attacks in 2008 and 2009 -- told the jury Murray saved her life, fixing another doctor's botched operation.

During cross examination, Walgren suggested Murray was able to fix Sampson's heart because he had access to her medical records ... a privilege Murray never afforded the ER doctors, who scrambled to save Michael Jackson's life.

Patient # 4 -- Dennis Hix
Updated 10/26/11 at 9:50 AM

1025_Dennis_hicks_MJtrialDennis Hix testified Dr. Murray placed about 13 stints in his heart ...  for free.

Hix said Dr. Murray also operated on his brother's heart free of charge ... telling jurors, "I’m 66.  I've gone to a lot of doctors, A LOT of doctors, and I’ve never had one who gave me the care he did."

Patient # 5 -- Ruby Mosley
Updated 10/26/11 at 10:20 AM

1025_Ruby_Mosely_MJtrialRoby Mosley told jurors Dr. Murray couldn't have been greedy because he opened up a clinic in one of Houston's poorest neighborhoods in honor of his father.

Murray fought back tears as Mosley described how he selflessly treated patients who couldn't afford his care.


No Avatar


Conrad Murray is both an Admiration Junkie (narcissist) who inappropriately makes "friends" of his patients, and a Sex Addict who has girlfriends and babies all over the place even though he's still married. (Virtually all narcissists are also sex addicts, because narcs have no boundaries. They can't. They have to be ready to grab every crumb of Attention that might come their way.) All that takes Big Money, which explains why he would sell out to somebody like Michael Jackson.

When a narcissist/sex addict desperate for money to support his extremely selfish lifestyle meets a drug addict with big money - that's a match made in the ninth circle of hell. One is dead and the other will not be punished nearly enough. Murray's wife and all of his fatherless kids will suffer the most, as will Jackson's kids who are also now fatherless.

This is what narcissism looks like - somebody who will cross any boundary, from marriage boundaries to patient/doctor boundaries, just to soak up more and more and more and more attention and admiration. The destruction they leave in their wake is unbelievable.

Murray was crying in court again today - crying when his patients were admiring HIM for being such a wonderful friend and doctor. He just sits there stone-faced and dry-eyed whenever his own children or Jackson's children are mentioned. I rest my case. That's a 100% narcissist.

Casey Anthony is another narcissist. Nothing matters but how much attention and sucking up they can get. Anybody who gets in the way gets kicked to the curb (or the swamp), even their own children.

If you have ever been around anybody who behaved this way - spouse, parent, friend, co-worker, anyone - well, now you know what to call it. It's just another addiction and is every bit as destructive as being an alcoholic or a crackhead. Narcissists are just a lot more charming, because that's what they use to get their drug. Beware. If somebody seems too good to be true - THIS is why they almost certainly are.

1093 days ago


You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. - Abraham Lincoln

1093 days ago


“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

- Sir Walter Scott

1093 days ago


Five witnesses testify that Conrad Murray was caring man, not motivated by money.

Wasn't it money that made the "QUACK" abandon his senior citizen patients and give up his medical practice???

1093 days ago


Third, Mr. Jackson not only seeks an acquittal in this case, but also vindication in a public trial. Our federal and state Constitutions guarantee the accused of his due process right to a fair trial before the public.

The recent “leak” of the Grand Jury transcripts is evidence of this unfortunate reality. The Prosecution says that “the international media attention focused upon this case will reach historic proportions” and that this case may be “the most reported criminal trial to occur in our lifetimes.” This proclamation is instructive. The “leak” has unquestionably inflamed the international community and poisoned the jury pool.

The vast majority of the people in our local and. international communities still does not know how the grand jury proceeding in this case took place. They do not know that the Prosecution, in essence, had a “field day,” in that they were able to do whatever they wanted. There was no defense lawyer or judge. No independent body was present to monitor and control any irregularities in the proceeding. It was a purely one-sided and unfair proceeding in which Mr. Jackson was not able to confront and cross-examine his accusers.

With the power of the Prosecution, the power of the Police and the power of those affiliated with and operating under these governmental bodies, one must ask himself or herself whether Mr. Jackson can ever obtain a fair trial.

Fourth, the real victim in this case is Mr. Jackson.

Over the years, Mr. Jackson has had to suffer and endure the pain of being falsely accused of the crimes he did not commit. He has had to bear treacherous accusations and undergo the horror of the Government’s invasion of his privacy, dignity, and integrity. No one will ever understand and appreciate the gravity of the harm the Government has inflicted upon Mr. Jackson unless and until he, too, has been a victim of the Government’s domination, abomination, brutality and abuse of power.

Remarkably, the Prosecution now says the two teenage accusers must be “protected” from the public. The assumption is that these two accusers are ‘•vulnerable,” “delicate” and “sensitive.” The irony of this plea, however, is that the two accusers are, in fact, seasoned con-artists, well-trained by those more experienced at doing what they are best at doing, i.e., lying.

More interestingly, the plea is coupled with a suggestion that the public and media may hear the testimony of these accusers through an audio/ visual feed. One must only conclude that such a request is, at best, disingenuous. How is it possible to “protect” these teenage accusers from the public when the public will hear everything they will say? The Motion is utterly unmeritorious.

Mr. Jackson is entitled to a public trial under the United States Constitution and California Constitution. He is entitled to confront and cross-examine his accusers, teenagers and adults alike, as well as to be vindicated in a public trial. Anything to the contrary will result in a total miscarriage of justice.

Mr. Jackson respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion and Order the testimony of these two teenage accusers take place in a public trial.

Way to go, Mesereau! I couldn’t have said it better myself. He is 100% correct on everything he mentioned. I’m glad that he repeatedly invoked MJ’s constitutional rights, because those rights were designed to protect the accused from being railroaded to jail. The most pertinent right that is applicable to this situation is the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution, which provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.

In fact, Michael wanted to confront Gavin even BEFORE the trial! In an interview with journalist Charles Thomson, MJ’s former manager Dieter Wiesner said the following about MJ’s reaction to finding out his accuser was Gavin:

Two days after the Neverland raid Jackson’s depression turned to anger. When it emerged that the boy behind the accusation was none other than Gavin Arvizo, the boy whose hand Jackson had held in the Martin Bashir do***entary, Jackson decided to fight.

“You know, when it was clear that this allegation was because of the Arvizos, then he started to really fight the situation,” says Wiesner. “Michael told me, ‘Dieter, you know what, they should bring this young boy into a big place, invite all the press and he should look me in the eyes and tell me that I did this.’ So he was ready to fight.”

I know you guys are probably asking yourselves “What did the media have to say about the possibility of Gavin testifying in private?” Well, it depends on which media entity you look at. The big networks (NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, USA Today, etc.) filed a motion to oppose Sneddon’s request based on their First Amendment “rights”, as well as the lack of any observable benefits to having them testify in private. Here’s an excerpt:

The District Attorney seeks to close the courtroom during the testimony of the alleged victim and his brother apparently to protect their anonymity and respective reputations. The District Attorney concedes, however, that the identities of both minors are widely known to the public. And the closure sought by the District Attorney would do nothing to mask either the identity or the substance of the witnesses’ testimony, given the District Attorney’s “suggestion that the interest of the media and the public can be served by an audio-only feed provided to an overflow courtroom during the testimony of these two witnesses.” There are no benefit created by eliminating the public’s ability to observe the proceedings, and thus the strict standards promoting openness under the First Amendment and California law dictate that the testimony of both of these witnesses must be held in open court.

One thing you’ll notice if you read the entire 13-page do***ent is that there is no mention whatsoever of MJ’s rights to confront his accuser in court; its merely a regurgitation of their rights to cover the trial and report on it. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, considering that they tried desperately to have the trial televised!

Fortunately, there were some members of the media who were fair to MJ throughout the trial, and one of them is a true legal analyst who I have already praised in an earlier post named Jonna Spilbor. She wrote an article titled “When The Key Witness Is a Kid: Preparing Prospective Jurors in the Case Against Michael Jackson”. Here’s an excerpt:

As noted in Jackson’s Opposition, Jackson – like every criminal defendant has a right, under the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, to “confront” his accuser in a public trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that, under some cir****tances, this right can be compromised when child sex abuse victims testify, on the ground that they may find it too traumatic and terrifying to face their accuser.

Accordingly, the California Penal Code provides that, in any criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with certain sex offenses against a minor under the age of 16 years, “the court shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, conduct a hearing to determine whether the testimony of a minor shall be closed to the public…” And that is exactly what Judge Melville did.

Here, the prosecution said closure was necessary was to “preserve the witness['s] anonymity, and allow [him] to testify about sensitive sexual issues without a courtroom packed with reporters, sketch artists, and zealous fans of defendant.” But these arguments are not persuasive.

First, the accuser is no longer truly anonymous. His name can easily be found on the Internet, and through his mother, he agreed to appear in a 2003 do***entary entitled “Living with Michael Jackson.” (There, he appeared quite comfortable, resting his head on Jackson’s shoulder, while residing at his Neverland Ranch.)

Second, the suggestion that the witness will be unacceptably traumatized by having to testify in front of strangers is not in line with the facts. He is a teenager, not a young child. And, as the Jackson defense has pointed out, he has testified previously and extensively, before the grand jury, and (also under oath) in depositions.

Moreover, the details of his grand jury testimony were leaked to ABC News and recently disclosed, in part, on a number of its news shows – meaning that the public already knows the essence of his story, and he knows that the public knows.

Under the cir****tances, while it likely will still be somewhat traumatic for the accuser to testify in an open courtroom with the public present, the judge still made the right decision to require him to do so.

The accuser’s testimony, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, will put Jackson in prison for years. Jackson is entitled to ask that the accuser believe in his own claims strongly enough to look Jackson in the eye, and state them publicly, for all the world to hear, and for the jury to consider.

I could have lied to you guys and told you that those were Mesereau’s words, and you guys would have believed me! That’s how strong and factual Spilbor’s support was for MJ in 2005. Her articles were amazing, and I compiled them in this post from last year which refutes the lies of Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin. Make sure you check it out when you get the chance!

5. “How she said she was abused in the court papers, her divorce, and on and on and on, and that whole JC Penney shoplifting thing, and they touched her, and they didn’t touch her, oh, it’s crazy.” The summary of how Janet conned JC Penney into settling her frivolous lawsuit is too long to be copied here, so I will suggest that you read the last section of this post to view that summary, which includes details about the $100k book deal that she was offered prior to the trial, her diagnosis of schizophrenia, her threats against the legal assistant to whom she confessed to lying about JC Penney, and how she made her kids memorize a script for their JC Penney deposition!

6. “Maybe they’ll let Sneddon just go on and on with his goofy self. Glasses hanging off his head and stuff. Crazy.” This rarely seen article contains a photo of a very “goofy” Sneddon smiling for the camera, with his glasses hanging off of his head! On August 23rd, 2000, he and his buddy Sheriff Jim Thomas travelled with other Santa Barbara dignitaries to a mountain in the Canadian Artic. Led by a veteran mountain climber, they scaled the mountain to raise money for charity.

It’s too bad that Sneddon and Thomas didn’t fall off of that mountain!

The Matt Drudge Show : March 6th, 2005
It’s gonna be interesting to see Diane Dimond, whose been covering the Jackson case so aggressively against Michael Jackson, she’s under book contract, right? What do you think the excuse is gonna be if he walks, and I think even at this point cour*****chers are wondering “What has Sneddon done with this case?” You’ve got the daughter, the sister of the accuser saying “yeah, she lied about the case”1, and it looks very cir****tantial at best, we’ll see, we’ll see, but if Jackson walks, and Jackson plays it big, and we’ve been reporting here at Drudge that if Jackson wins, he’s gonna play The World Cup, not play in the World Cup but perform at The World Cup next year, which is the biggest TV audience outside of The Super Bowl on planet Earth. Even more than you, Chris Rock, at the Oscars!

Now if he walks, and walks big, and it turns out the prosecution was full of hot air, and Sneddon lost his way somewhere at a Santa Ynez winery, how is Diane Dimond going to spin that in her book? She’s probably going to say that “well, it was his fame that got him off, or they couldn’t get a jury……”, and all the rest. But even she is now, I was reading her column in the New York Post, Dimond has been writing a weekly update. She was even talking about some cour*****chers were wondering if this family has it all together, this family that’s accusing, when everything that’s coming out, and they have this bombshell video that they showed in the courtroom, where they show the family was PRAISING Michael Jackson at the very time they said they were being held hostage and Jackson was molesting Gavin2. At the very moment they’re making this wonderful video, and they said they were coached, the problem is the guy making the video was German, and he barely spoke English! How did he coach them for an hour and tape the whole thing? This is a disaster! Sneddon is a disaster, as far as I can tell. And you can say “Why do you care so much about this Drudge? What’s in it for me? Why should I be worried about Michael Jackson? Every time I see his face I get creeped out, the music sucks, maybe if he gets back with Quincy Jones we’ll listen again”, you know, that whole rap. Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!3 And this is the story of the Michael Jackson case, in my opinion. 100 search warrants. Photos of his genitalia and his arse. And I know many of you don’t want to think of Michael Jackson in those terms. But Sneddon photographed his privates! Sneddon did! And if he did it to Michael Jackson, he could do it to you! Think about that!

And then you couple that with a media establishment that wants to see you fail! Who is mocking you because you are mockable, but still in cahoots, almost like a weird dynamic, a weird merger of government and media yet once again, and you can say “Well, this happens all the time”. I always get this feeling whenever I see Tim Russert of GE there on “Meet The Press”, standing next to the Pentagon secretary, or with Albright, Madeline Albright, he used to get the shivers because it’s the marriage of big media and big government. The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case4. Not necessarily because I care about Michael Jackson that much, although I probably do think he’s more talented than the average Joe out there, or Justin Timberlake, or Usher, or any of these new generation wannabes, they’re all living in the shadow of the Guinness Book of World Records holder, even Don Headley, even Fleetwood Mac, they’re all living in the shadow of his record, and I don’t know if they’re gonna be able to touch it. Maybe one day someone’s going to come along and top it, and it may not be in our lifetime. So here he is, and then you’ve got the prosecutor, you have the government, who has the authority to tear your life upside down. Now I don’t understand why that question hasn’t been presented to prosecutor Sneddon: “Sir, will you prosecute the accusers if it turns out they were lying, and exaggerating, and misrepresenting. Will you prosecute THEM?” And I would think the answer would probably be “No”, because then he’d have to look at the man in the mirror himself. Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?5 Did he ever consider the pros and the cons? Did he ever do any of this? It doesn’t appear that he did. And that is what scares me, and what should scare you also is the finger pointing, and the accusations, and the whisper campaign, taken to a government level with authority from 100 search warrants and photography of your private parts! Because somebody said something.

And in the ‘93 case apparently the description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!6 That’s why that case was never brought. Don’t believe for a second it’s because the boy settled, don’t believe for a second. That was a private affair! What did that have to do with the government? He would have been compelled under law to testify! Sneddon could have called the ’93 boy accuser in there and say “Tell me what you know, you’re under oath, tell me what you know, tell me what he did to you!”, but he never did that because the penis didn’t match! I’m sorry to be so graphic, but Sneddon and that whole crowd up there has turned it into this! Do we have photos of Sneddon’s…………..and wait for this to leak on the Smoking Gun! We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.7 That’s what happens when the government gets your business, they leak it out. The government has no right to have photographs of your private areas. Because somebody said something, or somebody whispered something. Because somebody took a payoff. Or somebody wanted to look for a mark, as Jay Leno said, of this family. Of this “Janet Jackson” Latina. How dare Sneddon even………….why isn’t Sneddon the laughing stock of Santa Barbara right now? Why aren’t they turning on him?

Now honestly, if I really thought that if Michael Jackson was a danger to society, and he really was ripping people up to shreds, and he’s made a lot of mistakes here, the way he discards people along the way is frightening, I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup. At some point here, somebody’s gotta say that “Michael Jackson is not a danger, and where is the evidence?” And when they got the girl to admit, when Mesereau got the girl to admit, under oath, that “Yeah, I’ve lied about this case, and I didn’t always tell the full story because I’m young, but I didn’t know it was wine, I assumed it was wine, it was in the wineroom”. It could have been some of Madonna’s Kabbalah wine! Crazy! We want Sneddon’s photographs of his peepee! I’ll post those! I’ve got a website that’s not owned by Warren Buffet! It’s Drudge on Sunday night.

1.” yeah, she lied about the case”: The entire Arivizo family was a complete disaster for the prosecution, and their testimony was the most exculpatory of all of the evidence presented to the jury at trial! Davellin’s testimony was no exception. It was filled with more holes than swiss cheese, and since I can’t possibly summarize all of her lies in this post, I’ll have to point you in the right direction to see the others posts that do. For example, in this post I summarized how she claimed that she saw MJ giving her brothers alcohol while on the witness stand, but forgot to mention it to the investigators during her July 2003 interview with them! (Read bullet point #6 at the bottom.) Here is MJEOL’s summary, which is aptly titled “Sister Testimony Dismantled, Family Not Coerced on Video”. And here is a short excerpt of her testimony, where she describes how she didn’t know she had been molested until her mother told her so!

17 Q. Do you recall your mother ever telling the

18 Los Angeles Police Department that David had

19 molested you.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you recall Gavin ever making any

22 allegations of molestation before.

23 A. Gavin never made any to David. What that

24 was, was that the Judge — the detective had asked

25 my mother, “Is there anything you want to get off

26 your chest.” And she said, “Well, one time when she

27 was younger,” and I know, because I was there when

28 the detective came. But that court proceeding had 870

1 nothing to do with this. The detective just asked

2 her, “If you wanted to get anything off your chest.”

3 Q. To your mother.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you recall Gavin making any allegations

6 before this case.

7 A. Never did.

8 Q. Did you ever hear anything about that.

9 A. He never did. He never has.

10 Q. Do you ever recall — did anyone ever tell

11 you that they had heard Gavin had made an allegation

12 against your mother.

13 A. He never has. He never has made any

14 allegations against anybody.

15 Q. Okay. Do you know if he‟s ever made them

16 with anyone with the Department of Children & Family

17 Services.

18 A. He never has.

19 Q. You‟re sure of that.

20 A. Yes, I‟m sure.

21 Q. Were you there when they interviewed him.

22 A. No, but I know him.

23 Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, you‟ve

24 never heard anything about Gavin ever making any

25 other allegation about molestation against anybody.

26 A. No.

27 Q. Okay. Never.

28 A. Against my parents, I‟ve never heard him say 871

1 any allegations.

2 Q. My question is this: Have you ever — has

3 anyone ever told you, regardless of whether you

4 think it‟s true or not, that Gavin ever made an

5 allegation against your mother before.

6 A. No. Never made an allegation against my

7 mother.

8 Q. Okay. I‟m not asking if you think he did it

9 or not. I‟m asking if anyone‟s ever told you they

10 had heard that he had.

11 A. No.

12 Q. You don‟t know anything about it.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Were you ever interviewed by the Department

15 of Children & Family Services during the 1990s.

16 A. One lady had came over to the East L.A.

17 apartment.

18 Q. Do you know approximately when that was.

19 A. No, I don‟t.

20 Q. Okay. Were you interviewed.

21 A. I don‟t remember if I was.

22 Q. Do you know if Gavin was interviewed.

23 A. I don‟t remember if any of us were. I know

24 she spoke to my mom; but I don‟t know if we were

25 interviewed. I don‟t remember.

26 Q. Did you ever talk to your mom about that

27 event.

28 A. No. 872

1 Q. Ever discussed it with your mom.

2 A. No.

3 Q. You don‟t know what happened.

4 A. I don‟t remember.

5 Q. Okay. Now, at some point you reported your

6 father to the Los Angeles police, right.

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. Okay. Did you ever discuss with your mother

9 in advance what you were going to say to the police.

10 A. No, I didn‟t.

11 Q. Never talked about it at all with her.

12 A. I kept it to myself for a couple days,

13 because I was scared.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. Still scared of him. And then I told her

16 what happened. And then she told me we should tell

17 the police.

18 Q. Okay. And did you call the police.

19 A. She called the police, and then the

20 detective came over.

21 Q. Okay. You told the police that you were

22 being abused five times a week — five times a week,

23 right.

24 A. We were abused every day, more than once, by

25 my father.

26 Q. Okay. Were you there when your mother was

27 interviewed.

28 A. I — I don‟t remember if she was 873

1 interviewed. I just remember the detective coming

2 to the East L.A. apartment.

3 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of

4 falsely imprisoning you.

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, did your

7 mother accuse your father of falsely imprisoning

8 her.

9 A. Not that I remember.

10 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of

11 terrorist threats.

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. Did your mother accuse your father of

14 terrorist threats.

15 A. Not that I remember.

16 Q. All right. And you accused your father of

17 willful harm to a child, right.

18 A. I don‟t know what that is.

19 Q. Okay. Okay. But were you present when your

20 mother told the LAPD that your father had molested

21 you.

22 A. No, but I had heard when he had asked her,

23 “If you want to get anything off your chest,” and

24 she said, “Yes,” and that‟s when they went to the

25 kitchen area of the East L.A. apartment.

26 Q. But when you were interviewed by the police,

27 you never told them your father had molested you,

28 did you. 874

1 A. Because they weren‟t asking me about that,

2 and I didn‟t know. I was very young.

3 Q. Okay. Okay.

4 Have you ever discussed with your mother

5 what your father did to you.

6 A. They were both present that day.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. He had — she had said, “Well, I never told

9 Davellin that.” And he says, “Well” — he said,

10 “Well, she doesn‟t need to know anyways.”

11 It was just a horrible experience for me to

12 find out that he did that to me when I was young.

13 Q. And you found that out through your mother.

14 A. From both of them. Because he had agreed to

15 it when I was standing right there. Because they

16 were having an argument, and my mom screamed it out

17 at him.

18 Q. And your father agreed he had done that.

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. Do you want to take a second.

21 A. I‟m fine.

22 Q. Do you want to wait one second.

23 A. I‟m okay.

24 Q. Ready to go.

25 A. Yeah.

2. “Jackson was molesting Gavin.” Notice how in the first episode, he didn’t name by Gavin by name because he had to respect his privacy as an accuser, but now he’s naming him with no hesitation! This is a clear indication that he has absolute doubt towards Gavin’s allegations! I guess Drudge was right; he has no shame!

3. “Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!” This is probably the most on-point message that he gave to his listeners throughout this trial. Many people just assume that what happened to MJ was an aberration, but malicious prosecutions take place all of the time in this country! The prisons are filled with innocent people who were wrongly convicted because of crooked cops who plant evidence, disreputable prosecutors who allow perjury and falsified evidence, and who also fail to inform the jurors of all of the exculpatory evidence found in their investigations. (Fortunately, there is legislation that is being proposed that will help curb this wrongful practice.) A perfect example of normal, everyday citizens who were unjustly prosecuted are the three Duke lacrosse players who were wrongfully accused of rape, but exonerated by the Attorney General of their state after a thorough investigation into the practices of the District Attorney. (Their case was discussed in detail in this post that refutes the notion that MJ’s settlements were signs of guilt. I used their case as an example of non-celebrities who are maliciously prosecuted.)

As you can see with this article, Sneddon isn’t the only malicious prosecutor in California! But can you blame prosecutors for putting convictions ahead of justice? There’s a certain former prosecutor who now has one of the highest rated shows on cable television, despite her past reprimands for misconduct, and you guys already know who I’m talking about!

4. “The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case.” Here is a quote from Malcom X, one of the greatest, yet most underrated civil rights activists of the 20th century:

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

He took the words right out of Drudge’s mouth! The media is so powerful, they can make you look guilty even before you’ve been accused of committing a crime! For example, in this video a 4 year old black boy was interviewed by a news reporter while at the scene of a recent shooting in his neighborhood, and he said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that he wanted to be a cop when he gets older, and he wants to own a gun. But when his interview hit the airwaves, the reporter excluded his comment about wanting to be a cop, which gave viewers the impression that he’s going to grow up and emulate the violence he sees around him. “Oh great. Just what the world needs; another young thug. They’re getting younger and younger, eh?” This is a perfect example of how the media distorts quotes for their own purposes, especially when it comes to painting African-Americans in a negative light. Do you think this would have happened in a white upscale suburban community?

5. . “Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?” Are you kidding me? Sneddon, actually questioning any accusation of molestation against Michael Jackson? Are you insane? He probably jumped for joy and high-fived his assistants when Stan Katz reported the allegations to them in May 2003! Here’s a rundown of some of Sneddon’s shena****ns: he altered the dates of the allged molestations and added the conspiracy charge after realizing that his initial timeline conflicted with the DCFS investigation, he attempted to falsify evidence by having Gavin handle the girlie magazines without gloves at the grand jury hearing, he requested that Gavin be allowed to testify in private, solicited other “victims” to testify against Michael soon after his arrest, he changed the law to prevent future accusers from suing MJ in civil court before the disposition of a criminal case, he not only ignored Janet’s schizophrenia, but tried to suppress it from the jury and defense, and the icing on the cake is when he claimed that he did an “excellent” job in his prosecution! (See the video below in bullet point #7.) I can go on and on and on, but I’ll stop there.

For those of you who would like to know more about how Janet’s schizophrenia was ignorded by the prosecution, please read my good friend Sean Chai’s “The Untold Story”. She is one of the foremost experts on the allegations in the world, and I enthusiastically recommend her new blog, appropriately titled “Smoke Without Fire”!!

6. “The description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!” Anyone with any common sense should know that those photos didn’t match! Even without the Linden report, or the January 1994 USA Today article, the mere fact that MJ wasn’t arrested and was allowed to make his videotaped statement a few days later should prove it didn’t’ match! In order to arrest someone, you must have probably cause. The search warrant that Sneddon obtained was to establish the probable cause needed to arrest MJ, and since he walked away without his prized possession, that should tell you something. If you listen to hater’s speculation, they would have you think that somehow MJ paid off Sneddon, the same way he paid off the two grand juries who refused to indict him in 1994, the jury who acquitted him in 2005, and the FBI, who found no evidence of wrongdoing in over 10 years!

We have debunked that “Jordan’s description matched” nonsense numerous times on this blog, including in this post, and this post (which is the 1st of a 3 part series.)

7. “We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.” Well Drudge, it’s been 6 years, and you’re still waiting, huh? That’s because those photos are NOT going to leak, now or ever! According to Sneddon, neither he nor the Sheriff’s department has the photos in their possession, and you know what? I actually believe him! Because if he had them in his possession, they would have leaked before the trial! Sneddon was willing to do ANYTHING to dirty up MJ and convict him in the court of public opinion! The tabloids were offering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for those photos, and if someone had access to them, they would have taken the money for sure! If Sneddon and his team didn’t mind leaking the grand jury transcripts –which was totally illegal, by the way – then he surely would have leaked those photos, which would have been perfectly legal!

In this video, he talks about his “excellent” prosecution, how “great” and “courageous” Gavin was, his not having said a word about MJ in 10 years (which is total BS – here is a list of his comments, listed under the “Sneddon’s Obsession with Jackson” section), and how he needs 2 signatures to access the photos. If they haven’t leaked by now, they’ll never leak!

And did you guys notice the terrible, softball questions that Rita Crosby threw at him? I mean, come on! Asking him what he would say to MJ if he saw him walking down the street? As if ANY of us would ever see MJ “walking down the street”! The summer interns at MSNBC could come up with better questions than that! She should have asked him about the conspiracy charge, the changing timeline, and specific quotes from the Arvizo family’s testimony!

8. “I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup.” July 2005, Feldman did an interview with the New York Times, and he describes how he was duped by a certain British journalist who is good at getting people to trust him:

Meanwhile, Mr. Feldman says he now tries to stay out of the tabloids, but it has not been easy. In February he made news in an interview with the British journalist Martin Bashir, in which he said that he had come to a sickening realization that the molestation charges against Mr. Jackson might be true. Mr. Feldman, who had a falling-out with Mr. Jackson in 2001, says that he was shocked by the verdict. But he sounds even more upset at Mr. Bashir. “Bashir approached me with doing a 20/20 retrospective about my career,” Mr. Feldman explained. “He said he would ask about Michael, but it would only be a small portion of the show. We shot 36 hours of footage, and it was a 20-minute Michael Jackson piece. Tricked again.”

“I’m gullible,” Mr. Feldman says. “The world needs a scapegoat, plain and simple. Somewhere, there was an electoral ballot, and I was nominated.”

That should put away any doubts about how conniving and deceptive Bashir really is, as if there was anyone reading this blog who still had any doubts! Gee, I wonder what Bashir did with the other 35 hours and 40 minutes of footage?

In part 2 and Part 3 of this series, I will analyze the final two Matt Drudge shows that I currently have in my possession. I am also trying to get any additional episodes, including the post-acquittal episode!

Share this: StumbleUponDiggPrintFacebookEmailRedditTwitter
.108 Commentsfrom → Do***ents, transcripts, original texts, videos, REAL friends to Michael Jackson, THE 2005 TRIAL, The MEDIA, The SOCIETYResolution, Understanding Forgiveness and a Happy Move Forward
August 6, 2011
by lynande51
.Hi everyone,

Some of you may be wondering if you are seeing things as some comments are missing from this post. After thinking long and hard about the direction of the comments, we were faced with a decision that was both unprecedented and necessary.

While this blog is all about free and open discussion, we felt that the tangent the comments took over the last few days was beginning to overtake the true purpose of why we are all here.

The vindication of Michael Jackson and the restoration in the public consciousness of the truth of Michael’s innocence and integrity remains, and is, our paramount concern and aim. We felt that the misunderstandings and some of the statements on the blog were counter-productive to our focus on this.

Lynette and Deborah spent time today cleaning up the board, leaving the comments that remained true to our focus of vindication here. We would be grateful and deeply appreciative if no further comments addressing the issues of recent days could be posted. Of course, feel free to post your replies as usual in relation to any of the comments you now see on this page and in response to Helena’s original post.

We would both like to assure everyone here that all your contributions are hugely valuable and important to the flow of information and exchange of ideas. We are happy to say the recent conflicts have now been resolved with everyone concerned and we are now looking forward not backward.

Our deep regards to all of you.

Deborah and Lynette.

Share this: StumbleUponDiggPrintFacebookEmailRedditTwitter
.2 Commentsfrom → UncategorizedAn angry talk about Michael Jackson’*****ers and the general public under their spell. THE SHOW MUST GO ON?
July 28, 2011
tags: children, Diane Dimond, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's childrenby vindicatemj
.This was supposed to be only an answer to a reader’s comment but developed into an angry cry at Michael’ *****ers and those people who have not yet woken up to reality.

Ares: “i really believe that when it comes to MJ, people, even the most sane ones, lose their common sense and their ability to think straight.”

Absolutely. When it comes to Michael Jackson people seem to lose all sense of proportion. They allow themselves the unthinkable – like bringing his underwear into the TV studio and showing it to the public as Diane Dimond did it (or making it look like it is his, which is essentially the same). This episode is only one of the instances of mass public craziness in mistreating Michael Jackson – and if some people have not yet realized how low they have fallen in accepting this type of behavior let us imagine a similar thing done to Diane Dimond or Tom Sneddon, for example – I mean their underpants examined in the studio by the hosts of some popular talk shows (Larry King?).

Since no such thing is possible to imagine you will agree that the above situation is incredibly low, vulgar and even unreal, however it did happen to Michael Jackson when Diane Dimond trashed him on TV over some underwear found in some storehouse, which was probably not even his. I am sure that Michael was the only person in the world who was ever publicly humiliated by anyone in such an unspeakable and shameless way.

And the general public accepted it.

Of course the major part of the damage was done to Michael through the media’s malice and unfounded accusations in horrible crimes (which were never and couldn’t be proved as there were none), however it seems that the terrible disrespect the public displays for the man can also be the result of his life being turned into a sort of a reality show – people were allowed so much intrusion into his privacy that they crossed all possible and impossible borderlines. They were literally taken into his bed, were made near witnesses to his strip search via detailed reports from the scene and were encouraged to have a lively discussion of whether he was cir***cised or not.

With so much familiarity with his body and intimate details it was only natural that the public was driven to a point when each and everybody began thinking that they could decide for him every aspect of his life – where to live and in which tone to speak, what pets to keep and how to spend his money and even (publicly) discuss whether he had sex with his wife or not. Even now that Lisa Marie Presley has made it clear to the whole world that they had a passionate love affair for many years even after their marriage some people say they are not convinced and they have their own opinion about Michael Jackson and know better who and why he slept with.

Everyone is an expert on Michael Jackson’s private life. Everyone thinks he has the right to go on TV and dwell on it on every public forum – though all these people know is the nasty media gossip and their own fantasies and dirty thinking projected onto the man.

Is it normal behavior? I doubt it very much indeed.

And now this incredible type of behavior is being spread on Michael’s children – people find it normal to publicly decide whether they are his or not, and whose they are, and who is the best candidate for a father and so on and so forth. If it goes further this way we can expect public demands of the children’s blood tests made – because the public wants it and has the right to know! THE SHOW MUST GO ON, you see?

People have become addicted to the show the media turned Michael’s life into and are simply unwilling to press the shut-off button. And there are some who accuse others of drug addictions… It is them who are drugged and addicted, it is them who are still hallucinating and don’t want to wake up to reality. All they need to do is a little bit of reflection on the absurdity and ruthlessness of their own behavior, however they are absolutely unwilling to look at their ugly selves – all they know is that they are bored and want to be entertained further … And what could be more entertaining than new lies, new speculations and new nasty jokes about the guy who devoted his whole life to bringing joy and happiness into the lives of these people?

When it comes to Michael Jackson the public has developed double standards – good manners and civility are reserved for their dear selves and crude barbarity is left for the guy who has been found innocent inside out and several times over but is nevertheless regarded not as a human being, but as an animal and at best as a toy everyone wants to toss about, break into and look what’s inside.

Between themselves the public thinks they are decent and well-behaved people possessing “morals” and values in life. They respect other people’s rights and would never allow themselves to violate someone else’s privacy (God forbid intrude on their neighbors!). No, how could you think of them that way? They are civil people and know how to behave themselves!

But when it comes to Michael Jackson their mouth suddenly waters and they allow their most awful animal instincts to take over. The worst part of it is that it is a kind of a mass and universally accepted game where everyone is allowed to vivisect the guy, make unjustified comments, get away with horrendous innuendos, salacious stories and downright lies – and all of this is done to the man they know absolutely nothing about but harass in a most barbarian manner equal only to Nazi war criminals torturing their victims…

What’s wrong with you, guys? You think it to be normal?

Have you lost all sense of proportion? What imaginary world are you living it? What hallucinations are you seeing? Why do you consider yourselves better than a ragged Middle Ages crowd who relished the sufferings of someone accused of “witchcraft” and burned alive? Don’t you remember that you are dealing with the life of a human being? And not a fictional character of a show or an animal in a zoo? Even animals are not allowed to be treated like that, let alone humans! And in addition to all that you are doing it to a person who has proven by all his life achievements, aspirations and ideals he staunchly adhered to to be the pride of your nation?

And if this is not enough for you now you are starting a similar sort of treatment for his children? You throw them into the center of your circus, abuse them with your repulsive remarks and still think that you are respectable human beings?

Does it need other nations to explain to you that you are highly delusional if you think that way?

Ares: “I was watching the other day a video where Dimond was invited in a news program and she was talking about MJ’s kids and at some point she stated that those kids are 100% not his. And the news host listened to her without even questioning the things that she was saying…He just listened to her and was nodding along.” And i was there watching at this disgusting thing, thinking to myself, i must be in the twilight zone. Those two people at that point were doing exactly the same thing that MJ was accused of. They were abusing his kids.

Exactly – they were abusing his kids right after Michael’s death, a month or so after he passed away, when the wounds were still very raw – and in their total insanity did not even notice what they were doing. The comparison to a twilight zone is very much to the point here. The people who allow things like that are indeed living in a different reality where everything is turned upside down and where nastiness is taken for civil talk, lies are presented as truthful facts, and insults are masquerading for objectivity.

Ares: On the other hand, lets say that those kids are not biologically his. So, what? Lots of Hollywood stars have adopted kids from all over the world. Elton John and his boyfriend adopted a baby in order to raise it. Why MJ didn’t have the right to have kids, whichever way he had them. He raised them perfectly well. Why this double standards with him? Why MJ and his kids are being treated like circus freaks?

Because in their desire to humiliate Michael and have fun at his expense the public has not noticed that they have turned into freaks themselves. They didn’t notice that they had lost all those qualities which make a human being human – they lost their ethics, decency, reason, the ability to reflect and a desire to sometimes look at themselves in the mirror and correct something in their demeanor.

I hate to say it but will probably have to – and these people want to be respected by the rest of the world?

1093 days ago


I don't give a darn how many patients he treated for free or whatever, he was wrong in how he treated Michael Jackson! He may have treated people for free but he obviously need the money or he wouldn't have left these patients that claim he was there because of his father. Money shouldn't have changed that principle in him.
He was treating these people as a heart doctor. He was treating Michael as Anesthesiologist, not his field. I can't be an Office Manager, but then do a brain surgery because someone is paying me a lot to do it. I am responsible once I crack open that head. I have no qualifications to operate but I know my profession and I am good at that. Same thing with Murray, but he still lacks no common sense. Who the heck does not know to call 911 and you are a doctor? They teach preschoolers that along with their address! He treated his patience in a medical facility and in an operating room. He treated Michael in his bedroom! Other than these people coming forth to talk for him, nothing else is in his favor and they defense knows that. All that matters is what he didn't do for michael jackson that caused him his life. I will be glad when this whole thing is over. Murray is still gonna basically get a slap on the wrist no matter the outcome. It won't ever bring Michael back.

1093 days ago


Conrad Murray trial week 4. LORAZEPAM theory. The brilliant DR. STEVEN SHAFER
October 18, 2011
tags: Dr. Steven Shafer, lorazepam, Michael Jackson, propofolby vindicatemj
.This is a place to collect all information about week 4 of Murray’s trial.

Monday, October 17, 2009

Learning the news that the trial was put on hold due to the death of Dr. Shafer’s father made me recall that I didn’t say a word about Dr. Shafer testimony which began on Thursday, October 13 and was to be continued today. Poor thing, how is he going to testify after such an event which is so hard on any human being?

Most of what Dr. Shafer said on the first day of his testimony had to do with his credentials and methods of work.

Dr. Steven Shafer is an anesthesiologist, Professor and Associate Professor of three universities and a leading expert on propofol. Twenty years ago he was hired by the company producing propofol for figuring out the correct dosages for administering this drug.

The doctor specializes in the area of pharmaco-kinetics which has to do with mathematical models to determine the appropriate doses of drugs and providing doctors with correct numbers which they later use in their work.

Dr. Shafer is editor-in-chief of the largest medical journal on anesthesiology and together with the editorial board of 17 leading anesthesiologists reviews thousands of articles annually. The articles arrive from all over the world which gives them an opportunity to have a broad exposure to the latest studies and trends.

He is not a pupil of anesthesiologist Dr. White, who is going to be one of the experts from the Defense side, as the defense claims but has known Dr. White since early 90s when they co-authored an article.

Dr. Shafer took part in establishing the current dosages for propofol. Since the time he worked out the mathematical model for using it the dosages have never been revised or disputed. Actually the text of the current insert accompanying a propofol vial contains the recommendations worked out by Dr. Shafer.

Dr. Shafer has published 19 articles on Propofol and it was his first article which was written in cooperation with Dr. White. The contribution he made to that article was the mathematics of it and working out the program for determining the correct doses.

This was about all I could make out of the highly technical and very specific information Dr. Shafer provided on the first day of his testimony.

TMZ learned of Dr. Shafer opinion of this case which has not yet been voiced at the trial:

A prosecution witness will testify … Dr. Conrad Murray committed “multiple egregious and unconscionable violations” in his treatment of Michael Jackson the day he died … this according to do***ents obtained by TMZ.

Prosecutors filed the do***ent because they want to shoot down the defense theory that MJ may have orally ingested the fatal dose of Propofol.

According to Dr. Steven Shafer, “There is a zero possibility that the propofol was orally ingested.”

Dr. Shafer believes, “There is almost nothing in Murray’s care of Michael Jackson that reflected the actions of a trained physician.”,20368.0.html

However the ever-changing Defense of Conrad Murray recently declared that they will no longer claim that Michael Jackson took the propofol orally. Now they are focusing on Lorazepam allegedly taken by MJ in addition to the IV injections Murray gave him twice during that night. says that the Prosecution has asked for a new test to be made to determine the amount of Lorazepam and its metabolite in Michael’s stomach:

Trial will not be in session again tomorrow because of a new issue having to do with a new test done on Michael Jackson stomach content.
Judge Michael Pastor has ordered jurors to call the court tomorrow afternoon at 3 to find out if the trial will resume on Wednesday or not.
Attorneys are ordered to appear tomorrow at 1:30 pm to further discuss the new test prosecution ordered on Michael Jackson’s stomach contents
After Dan Anderson testified last week, prosecutor Walgren ordered a new test to quantify how much Lorazepam was found in MJ’s stomach.

Defense had ordered the test through a private lab and concluded there were the equivalent of 8 Lorazepam pills on MJ’s stomach.
But prosecution reordered the test through Dan Anderson with results showing the amount of the drug and its metabolite.
There’s discrepancy between the results for both sides. Besides that, defense claims Anderson testified he couldn’t test the drug’s metabolite .

On the other issue, Prosecutor David Walgren said he spoke with Dr. Steven Shafer and he said he would be available to come back tomorrow.
However, Judge Michael Pastor said he did not want to put extra pressure on Dr. Shafer and his family and make him feel anxious to come back
With the new issue to be ironed out, the extra day off will probably work better for Dr. Shafer’s family issue.

Defense attorneys spent most of the hearing this morning asking for more time to be able to address this new study with their experts.

Prosecutor Walgren said he’s going to address the results of the new test during Dr. Shafer’s direct examination.

Walgren says the result of his test is significantly different from the defense test. “An inflated number was presented to the jury”.
Walgren said the real amount of the drug Lorazepam found in Michael Jackson’s stomach is “inconsistent with oral consumption”.

Let me remind you that the quantity of Lorazepam in Michael’s stomach was so small that it wasn’t determined in the original Coroner’s report. The additional Coroner’s lab test showed the amount which was equal to 1/43d of one 2mg Lorazepam pill.

As far as I understand it the Defense does not dispute this quantity but claims that some pills were digested orally on the basis of the blood tests which showed the level of 0, 169 ug. How they came to the number of 8 pills out of that is beyond my understanding but the Coroner Dr. Rogers made some brief calculations during his testimony and did say that achieving that blood level required 8 pills. Only all of them seemed to forget that Murray gave 4 mg of Lorazepam IV and this quantity should also be there in the blood.

In short in matters like these all we can rely on is a good and sound expertly opinion, so let us wait and see.

This article says that when the trial resumes Dr. Shafer is expected to testify for a whole day:

The test made by the defense showed 634ng or micrograms (o,634milligrams) of Lorazepam in the stomach contents (click to enlarge)
The judge in the Murray trial has announced testimony will resume Wednesday.

Shafer, who briefly testified before Thursday’s session was concluded, was slated to testify Monday that Murray’s use of propofol was negligent in his care of the late King of Pop, using scientific explanations to support his idea.

When Shafer returns from his father’s funeral, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren said, his testimony will last a day.

After Shafer testifies, defense lawyer Nareg Gourjian said, the defense will begin their presentation.

The article below provides more detail and mentions that the defense claims Michael Jackson took Lorazepam while Murray was away.

Lorazepam was neatly placed on the left of all other medication on the night stand
Even if Murray was out of the room for 5 minutes this theory is totally crazy as it implies that Michael was to have woken up, taken 8 pills from a bottle which was on the far end of the night stand (behind all other medication), then carefully placed it back and immediately went into a coma – though the pills still need time to be digested in the stomach.

Considering that there were no pills found in the stomach at all and the amount of Lorazepam in the gastric contents was 1/43d of one pill the scenario described below is totally crazy:

1093 days ago


Trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor postponed

By Martin Kasindorf, Special for USA TODAY

The manslaughter trial of Michael Jackson’s personal doctor, which was shut down Monday because of a death in the family of a prosecution witness, was further postponed until Wednesday.

Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said he was putting off trial testimony for two reasons: giving Steven Shafer of New York, the witness, more time to handle family matters, and allowing defendant Conrad Murray’s lawyers to obtain experts’ response to a new toxicology test the coroner’s office performed for the prosecution.

At a sometimes ill-tempered hearing with Murray and the jury absent Monday, defense lawyers Ed Chernoff and J. Michael Flanagan objected to prosecution plans to present the new test on Jackson’s stomach contents when they resume questioning Shafer, an anesthesiologist.

Pastor gave the defense more time to find its own expert opinions to support cross-examination of Shafer. The judge scheduled another hearing for Tuesday afternoon to discuss the status of the defense’s preparation.

Murray, 58, is accused of negligently causing Jackson’s death in 2009 through an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol, which, according to the coroner’s autopsy report, combined with the sedative lorazepam to stop Jackson’s breathing.

Murray, a cardiologist, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of involuntary manslaughter. His lawyers say Jackson ingested lethal doses of drugs himself when the doctor was out of the room.

Prosecutor David Walgren said Monday that his office had requested that Jackson’s stomach contents be retested for lorazepam. This, he said, was in response to a defense-commissioned toxicology report on lorazepam that Flanagan presented to the jury last week during cross-examination of the coroner’s toxicologist, Dan Anderson.

The defense’s lab report enabled Flanagan to say there was enough lorazepam in the singer’s stomach to prove that he had swallowed eight 2-milligram tablets of lorazepam, “enough to put six people to sleep.”

By contrast, the new report that Walgren ordered says there was much less lorazepam than the defense claims. In addition to questioning Shafer on the coroner’s latest test, Walgren will recall Anderson to testify to his office’s new report, he said.

The hearing grew tense after defense lawyers accused the prosecution of violating a September 2010 court order forbidding new tests on medical evidence without specific permission from the judge. Walgren said the order related only to syringes and other medical supplies, not to “biological evidence” such as stomach contents.

The defense ultimately agreed and apologized. “We’re sorry, David,” Chernoff said in a tone of sarcasm. “You did not violate a court order.”

The judge interrupted. “His name is not David,” Pastor said, implying that Chernoff should have addressed his opponent more formally.

Pastor ended the spat by saying, “There was an allegation the facts do not support, and there’s an apology by the defense.”

Chernoff said that having until Wednesday to study Anderson’s new report “may rectify the problem.” He had suggested not allowing Walgren to offer the report until the prosecution’s rebuttal case, which will follow the presentation of the defense’s expected 15 witnesses.

Pastor said he would prefer that the lorazepam evidence be introduced this week during the prosecution’s main case.

New lab test forces new delay in Conrad Murray trial
By Alan Duke, CNN

updated 2:22 PM EST, Mon October 17, 2011

Los Angeles (CNN) — Dr. Conrad Murray’s involuntary manslaughter trial has been put on hold at least until Wednesday to give the defense time to study new lab test results the prosecution contends show Michael Jackson did not ingest a fatal overdose of sedatives.

Testimony was suspended last Thursday afternoon to allow the prosecution’s anesthesiology expert to attend a medical convention, and again Monday because that witness’s father died. The trial, in its fourth week, is still expected to conclude with the start of jury deliberations next week.

The Los Angeles County coroner tested Jackson’s stomach contents for the level of the sedative lorazepam last Wednesday at the request of the prosecution, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren revealed at a hearing Monday.

The testing was ordered after Murray’s defense contended that Jackson swallowed eight tablets of lorazepam, a sedative, in a desperate search for sleep the day he died. The results show “a much smaller amount of lorazepam in the stomach that is totally inconsistent with oral consumption of lorazepam tablets,” Walgren said.

The coroner ruled that Jackson’s June 25, 2009, death was from “acute propofol intoxication” in combination with several sedatives, including lorazepam.

The defense complained that the coroner should have done the test two years ago, not during the trial.

“It’s about the time,” defense lawyer Ed Chernoff said. “It’s about the fairness issue.”

Dr. Steven Shafer, an anesthesiology expert, is crucial to the state’s effort to prove Jackson’s death was caused by Murray’s gross negligence in using the surgical anesthetic propofol to help the pop icon sleep.

Shafer began testifying Thursday morning before the judge recessed for the weekend so he could travel to a medical convention. He never made it there because of the death in his family, Walgren said Friday.

Shafer, who is expected to give a detailed scientific explanation of how propofol is metabolized in the human body, will be on the witness stand for at least a day, according to Walgren.

Shafer’s testimony is expected to echo the opinions of a sleep expert and a cardiologist who testified that Murray’s treatment of Jackson was so grossly negligent that it was criminal.

The defense presentation would follow, lasting until Friday or the following Monday, according to defense lawyer Nareg Gourjian.

Along with two or three medical experts and a police officer not called by the prosecution, the defense has lined up several patients of Murray to testify about how he’s helped them, Gourjian said.

There is no indication Murray will take the stand to testify in his defense, which would subject him to intense cross-examination by Walgren. The jury already heard the recording of his interview with detectives two days after Jackson’s death.

Murray’s lawyers contend that Jackson used a syringe to inject the fatal overdose through a catheter on his left leg while Murray was away from his bedside. They dropped the theory pushed earlier that Jackson may have orally ingested the propofol that the coroner says killed him.

The self-administered propofol, along with the eight lorazepam tablets, killed Jackson, not the drugs Murray gave him earlier in the morning, the defense contends.

Murray should be found guilty even if jurors accept the theory that Jackson self-administered the fatal dose because the doctor was reckless in leaving propofol and lorazepam near his patient when he was not around, Dr. Alon Steinberg, a cardiologist testifying for the prosecution, said last week.

“It’s like leaving a baby that’s sleeping on your kitchen countertop,” Steinberg said. “There’s a very small chance the baby could fall over, or wake up and grab a knife or something.”

On Thursday, UCLA sleep expert Dr. Nader Kamangar testified that the combination of drugs Murray gave Jackson “was the perfect storm” that killed him.

“Mr. Jackson was receiving very inappropriate therapy, in the home setting, receiving very potent sedatives, including propofol, lorazepam and midazolam, without monitoring by Murray, and ultimately this ****tail was a recipe for disaster,” Kamangar said.

But Kamangar, testifying for the prosecution, said Jackson “clearly” suffered from insomnia that could have been caused by Demerol, a narcotic he was getting frequently from a doctor other than Murray.

Murray’s defense team contends Dr. Arnold Klein injected Jackson with 6,500 milligrams of Demerol during visits to his Beverly Hills, California, dermatology clinic in the last three months of his life, and that Murray did not know about it.

Jackson desperately sought sleep the day he died, worried that without rest he could not rehearse that night, which could force the cancellation of his “This Is It” comeback concerts, according to Murray’s interview with police.

If convicted of involuntary manslaughter, the maximum sentence Murray could face is four years in prison and the loss of his medical license. Source:

1093 days ago


Dialdancer has sent us the following video (thanks a lot!).

Ryan Smith, Matt Semino, Christi Paul and Mike Brooks on IN SESSION (10-17-11) discuss Murray’s gross negligence:

It is all about standard of care – GROSS NEGLIGENCE! This is a doctor who was present at the time his patient died. He was supposed to be there - not talking on the phone, not going to the bathroom – he was supposed to be there. Plain and simple!

* * * * *

Tuesday, October 18.

There are no trial proceedings yet. This gives us some time for a little discussion. Let me tell you something which I initially didn’t want to share not to give any suggestions to anyone. However I’ve checked on what Flanagan said to Dr. Nguyen on week 2 and see in which direction the events are going - so let me say it now to that we are more or less prepared for what the defense will say.

On week 2 Flanagan asked Dr. Nguyen what would happen if a dose of 20mg of Ativan (Lorazepam) was taken. She said that 20 mg would be a very large dose. Ativan does not cause directly respiratory depression – what it does is working on the brain and making the brain sleepy. And that brain would be so sleepy that it would not tell the diaphragm to breathe and therefore the patient’s respiration will stop, producing a respiratory arrest (not a cardiac arrest).

This is important as everything Dr. Steinberg said about Murray’s incompetent actions during a respiratory arrest will fully apply to the Lorazepam theory too.

Flanagan also asked a question “When you do Ativan by IV the effect is very quick and when you do it orally it the effect takes longer?” which was an obvious shot against Jackson and his first test of a hypothesis that he could have taken it orally and long before he died.

The Lorazepam pills defense theory is potentially dangerous and though it is false it will be difficult to refute it. Much will depend on the experts and the way they calculate the time of Lorazepam taking effect and being absorbed into blood.

The way I understand it the basic points of further discussion will be the following ones:

Generally speaking 8 tablets of Lorazepam are so powerful a dose that they will probably send a person into a coma within the period of an hour – two hours (?) depending on the level of individual built-up tolerance to the drug. So if Michael stopped breathing at 11 o’clock – according to Murray’s own interview with the detectives- under the Lorazepam theory those 8 pills were to have been taken at something like 9 o’clock in the morning.
However for two hours or so the pills could not have disappeared from the stomach yet. They would have left there a huge amount which could be detected at autopsy. And the autopsy did not show any significant amount of Lorazepam in the stomach. The recently made new test seems not to show it either.
Since Lorazepam was not found in the stomach, but was found in the blood (in minor quantities), the defense will shift the supposed self-administration to a much earlier time – let’s say the very beginning of the night, when Michael was only going to bed. This theory will say that from around 2.00 to 11.00 some nine hours passed, within which period Lorazepam should have fully dissolved and already went into the blood. (As far as I remember the defense claimed that the Lorazepam level was too high in the blood, and not the stomach).
But this means that firstly, Michael should have taken those 8 pills well in advance, when he did not yet know that he would not be able to fall asleep (which is absurd) and secondly, it means that for some reason those 8 tablets had an effect on him only 9 hours later.
So most probably the defense will shift the time of the supposed self-administration to the middle of the night, allowing only 5-6 hours for Lorazepam to go from the stomach into the blood. It could have as it is rather quick-acting, but at this point pharmacologists should have their say and determine whether it is possible for Lorazepam to totally disappear from the stomach during 5-6 hours.
In my humble opinion it is not possible, and its amount in the stomach will still be too big for the toxicologists not to notice it during the autopsy.
In short the discussion will be centering on two factors – the time and possible amount of Lorazepam taken. By comparing the amount with the time of its processing by the body criminalists are usually able to say 1) when the drug was taken and 2) in which way the drug initially came into the body – from the stomach into blood (in case of pills) or from the blood into the stomach (in case of an IV injection).

I hope that medical people and pharmacologists will prove that the defense’s theory is false. But even in the case they are not able to prove it, it it won’t change anything in respect of Murray’s non-stop cynical lies and a totally criminal way he was neglecting his patient during the crucial hours of June 25, 2009.

Murray was to have monitored Michael and it is clear that he wasn’t. He was attending to his own business.

So whatever is the case with Lorazepam he is still guilty like hell.

* * * * *

Here is some additional information on Lorazepam:

WIKI says :

Lorazepam is used for the short-term treatment of anxiety, insomnia, acute seizures including sedation of hospitalised patients, as well as sedation o****gressive patients. Among benzodiazepines, lorazepam has a relatively high addictive potential (Thank you Dr. Murray for introducing Michael to it).

Due to tolerance and dependence, lorazepam is recommended for short-term use, 2–4 weeks only. (And how long did Murray administer it to Michael?)

It has a fairly short duration of action (Venable and Aschenbrenner 2009). Withdrawal symptoms, including rebound insomnia and rebound anxiety, may occur after only seven days’ administration of lorazepam. (So administering Lorazepam for SEVEN days only can rebound in insomnia??? And anxiety??? What was this ignorant Murray thinking of?)

Lorazepam injectable solution is administered either by deep intramuscular injection or by intravenous injection. The injectable solution comes in 1 mL ampules containing 2 mg or 4 mg lorazepam. The solvents used are polyethylene glycol 400 and propylene glycol. Toxicity from propylene glycol has been reported in the case of a patient receiving a continuous lorazepam infusion ( I wonder if empty vials of solvent were found on the scene. After all we have only Murray’s word that he gave him Lorazepam intravenously. He could have given him pills!)

Intravenous injections should be given slowly and patients closely monitored for side effects, such as respiratory depression, hypotension, or loss of airway control. (So respiratory depression and loss of airway control may be the result of Lorazepam too if it is given IV!)

Peak effects roughly coincide with peak serum levels,which occur 10 minutes after intravenous injection, up to 60 minutes after intramuscular injection, and 90 to 120 minutes after oral administration, but initial effects will be noted before this. (So if taken orally the effect would be seen in approximately a hour and a half. This means that the pills were to have been taken at 9.30 in the morning, and at 11 o’clock the pills should have still been in the stomach!).

A clinically relevant lorazepam dose will normally be effective for 6 to 12 hours, making it unsuitable for regular once-daily administration, so it is usually prescribed as two to four daily doses when taken regularly (so this medication is relatively quick-acting as it has to be resumed every 6 hours).

Sedation is the side effect that most patients complain of. In a group of around 3500 patients treated for anxiety, the most common side effects complained of from lorazepam were sedation (15.9%), dizziness (6.9%), weakness (4.2%), and unsteadiness (3.4%). Side effects such as sedation and unsteadiness increased with age. Cognitive impairment, behavioural disinhibition and respiratory depression as well as hypertension may also occur. (A very nice drug to be given to Michael! Dr. Kamangar did say that it was totally inappropriate in his case.)

Potent benzodiazepines such as lorazepam have the highest risk of causing a dependence. Tolerance to benzodiazepine effects develops with regular use. Patients at first experience drastic relief from anxiety and sleeplessness, but symptoms gradually return, relatively soon in the case of insomnia but more slowly in the case of anxiety symptoms. (So after the initial relief Michael’s insomnia returned plus Murray could have formed a dependency on it!)

Withdrawal symptoms can occur after taking therapeutic doses of Ativan for as little as one week. Withdrawal symptoms include headaches, anxiety, tension, depression, insomnia, restlessness, confusion, irritability, sweating, dysphoria, dizziness, derealization, depersonalization, numbness/tingling of extremities, hypersensitivity to light, sound, and smell, perceptual distortions, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, appetite loss, hallucinations, delirium, seizures, tremor, stomach cramps, myalgia, agitation, palpitations, tachycardia, panic attacks, short-term memory loss, and hyperthermia. (What a list!)

It takes approximately 18–36 hours for the benzodiazepine to remove itself from the body.

Lorazepam is not usually fatal in overdose, but may cause fatal respiratory depression if taken in overdose with alcohol. In cases of a suspected lorazepam overdose, it is important to establish whether the patient is a regular user of lorazepam or other benzodiazepines, since regular use causes tolerance to develop. Also, one must ascertain whether other drugs were also ingested.

Management is by observation, including of vital signs, support and, if necessary, considering the hazards of doing so, giving intravenous flumazenil. (So firstly, Murray was to monitor his patient closely – because of both Propofol and lorazepam he was administering, and secondly, he was to immediately give him flumazenil, which he heavily delayed).

Lorazepam may be quantitated in blood or plasma to confirm a diagnosis of poisoning in hospitalized patients, provide evidence in an impaired driving arrest or to assist in a medicolegal death investigation. Blood or plasma lorazepam concentrations are usually in a range of 10-300 ug/L (micrograms) in persons either receiving the drug therapeutically or in those arrested for impaired driving, and 300-1000 ug/L (micrograms) in victims of acute overdosage.

The above information is crucial in my opinion.

The summary toxicology report said that there was 0,169 mg of Lorazepam in femoral (peripheral) blood. Or is it even 0,169 MICROGRAMS judging by the headline? “Therapeutically” means a “normal dose which is enough to take effect”, while “an overdose” is everything which is above that level.

Michael had 0,169 milligrams (equal to 169 ug or micrograms) of lorazepam in his blood and this is well within a therapeutic dosage.

Or was it even 0,169 micrograms as the headline of the table says?

1093 days ago


Beth Karas’s TV report makes it absolutely clear that the Lorazepam theory is NOT valid.

She says,

According to the new test result Michael Jackson DID NOT swallow 8 pills.
Prosecutor David Walgren said that it was a deceiving number that M. Flanagan of the defense had been using to cross-examine the state witnesses.

Based on the new testing done – for the drug itself and its breakdown called metabolite – the number M.Flanagan was using does not represent the amount of Lorazepam Michael Jackson had in his body – it was much less. It was more consistent with the injections Dr. Murray says he gave Michael Jackson:

* * * * *

Day 13. Wednesday, October 19

This was an extraordinary day.

Prosecutor David Walgren and Dr. Steven Shafer were not leaving a single stone unturned and were not missing a single point in displaying Murray’s crimes against Michael Jackson. It was both breathtaking and extremely sad to see Murray’s behavior finally shown in its full monstrosity.

Hopefully no one will dare say a word of support for Murray now – he is not only a non-doctor but is also someone who is totally devoid of all human ethics.

First Dr. Steven Shafer made an outstanding demonstration of how propofol should be given to a patient.

it is a long process to draw propofol into a syringe
He started with showing how to draw propofol by a syringe from a propofol vial. The foil covering the rubber stopper is removed, the needle is inserted into the bottle and then … then you understand that a lay person will not be able to draw more than just a little bit of propofol into the syringe!

The bottle is made of glass and wouldn’t shrink as a plastic bag would when the liquid goes out of it. The va**** inside it will not allow the propofol to flow – so in order to fill the syringe you first have to push some air into the bottle (as a replacement for the liquid volume drawn out of it) and only then draw propofol into the syringe. You have to do it bit by bit, pushing air inside and drawing the liquid out of it, by multiples attempts which take quite a time.

When you see how complicated the process is you understand that Michael could not even possibly draw a 100ml vial of propofol into the syringe by himself (as a first step before supposedly self-administering it).

Then Dr. Shafer compared the mark left by a needle with the mark found on the 100ml empty propofol vial used by Murray. The needle mark was so small that it could not be even seen, and the hole on the vial he was using for demonstration purposes even self-healed.

People's 30 exhibit. The used 100ml vial of propofol had a mark from a spike (click to enlarge)
In contrast to the usual needle mark Murray’s vial had a big slit in the rubber stopper which could be left by a spike only – a much larger device to which an infusion line is attached. Dr. Shafer compared the two marks and said that “a needle would never do that” and “that’s the mark expected from a spike”.

The tubing attached should be very narrow – the entire tube should have no more than 1cc of propofol (not to impede the correct dosing process).

Dr. Shafer and David Walgren will surely return to that spike and its tubing, but first Dr. Shafer commented on the video made by another anaesthesiologist, Dr. Hun. The video showed all the equipment necessary for giving propofol and inspired in many of us awe for how responsible the work of anaesthesiologists is.

It also showed that Murray was either monstrously ignorant of what he was to do or was monstrously negligent as he allowed himself to administer propofol without a single of those totally indispensable devices .

Dr. Shafer says that what the main theme in administering anaesthesia is ensuring continuous movement of air into the lungs.

This is critical and anaesthesiologists have multiple systems for providing unimpeded flow of air to the patient – there is a tube to be inserted between the vocal cords and another “failsafe” system which pushes air inside the lungs through a mask without going into the wind pipe.

A third device with two tubes – called nasal cannula – is fixed to the nose so than one tube brings in oxygen, while the second one is used for measuring carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient, the absence of which is actually the first sign that breathing has stopped. There are some others too all of which make up part of a multiple system which has several stand-by variants in reserve.

The doctor is to verify all the equipment well before the procedure and make sure that everything is working. All the devices should be close at hand and be made available immediately – within seconds.

Suction is critically important
The anaesthesiologist should be ready for any complication. One of the gravest complications is acid aspiration – this is when the contents of the stomach accidentally goes into the lungs. Since the stomach contains acid it may be fatal for the lungs functioning so doctors take every precaution for this never to happen.

The time they have for taking action to remove the contents of the stomach from the airway is just a couple of seconds before the next breath – during which they will use a suction device which will remove everything alien before even a drop of it goes into the lungs. This is why patients are not allowed to eat or drink before sedation.

The above means that the doctor cannot leave the patient even for a second (before his next breath), not to mention several minutes of being in the bathroom let alone hours spent on the phone!

Propofol lowers the blood pressure so one of the possible complications is a drop in the blood pressure. To help to restore it to a normal level an injection of ephedrine is given IV.

a jaw thrust is a very simple maneuver which can restore breathing and save a patient's life
If the level of carbon dioxide drops this is a warning of another complication – the airway has been obstructed. The doctor lifts the chin of the patient and makes a jaw thrust which moves the tongue from the back of the throat and the patient starts breathing on his own again.

Dr. Shafer says that physicians are taught this simple maneuver during the first days of training, so it is does not even require any time for thinking.

In case of apnea (a prolonged period of not breathing which is often found during snoring) and the patient just lying there not breathing, the doctor should force air into his lungs using their “failsafe” device – the one which pressurizes oxygen through a mask.

If cardiac arrest takes place the doctor calls for immediate help and then a team of doctors attends to the patient within seconds – one is doing CPR, another forces oxygen into the lungs, and a third one is administering resuscitation drugs. These measures keep the patient alive long enough to fix the problem with the heart.

Dr. Shafer repeats that the main theme of anesthesiologists is to ensure an uninterrupted flow of air into the lungs.

The full syringe is placed into an infusion pump which takes care of the correct dosing
The actual process of administering propofol is as follows. After the propofol is drawn into a syringe through multiple injections of air into the bottle the syringe is placed into an infusion pump which is a device measuring its precise dosing.

Before the infusion starts certain parameters are fed into the computer which measures how much propofol will be administered depending on the weight of the patient, the level of the required sedation and other factors.

The weight of the patient and other parameters are entered into a computer
All throughout the process the doctor is beside the patient’s side monitoring him and filling in the chart, recording his blood pressure, heart rhythm, the pulse, etc. Dr. Shafer stresses that it is part of the therapy process and is an integral part of it.

It is the doctor’s fundamental responsibility to record every parameter at least every 5 minutes in order to keep track of the drug and how it affects the patient’s blood pressure, oxygen saturation and everything else which is vital for patient’s health.

It shows the history of what was given when and how the patient reacted which helps the doctor to take decisions while monitoring the patient further.

Before starting the procedure the doctor is to obtain an informed consent of the patient. This is not just a piece of paper, but a process of describing the foreseeable risks and providing alternatives to the proposed procedure. If the patient doesn’t have questions and agrees he signs the do***ent.

Dr. Shafer stresses that a verbal consent is not binding, doesn’t exist and is not recognized. A written verbal consent is so important that if at the last minute it turns out that the patient has not made it the procedure is put off (unless it is a life-threatening situation).

the other steps taken but not shown in the video
All these requirements apply not only to anesthesiologists but to all physicians (and nurses) who administer sedation. All of them are to follow these basic standards – which apply not only to propofol but also to sedatives of any sort.

Prosecutor Walgren asked if these standards would apply if just 25 ml of propofol were administered.

Dr. Shafer said, “Absolutely”. Considering that Michael Jackson had been given other sedatives, was dehydrated and exhausted from long exercise, had profound inability to sleep even 25ml of propofol mattered a lot.

The doctor explains that there is no such thing as “little anesthesia”. Every patient is different – one requires half the usual starting dose, and another requires twice the dose. Due to this variability even after 25 ml of propofol some patients may stop breathing – though they were given propofol before and no such complication previously arose. It is a doctor’s obligation to be always prepared for a worst-case scenario – he always has to assume that the patient will be at a new and unexpected edge of sensitivity.

None of the above was done in Murray’s case and Dr. Shafer’s outstanding testimony proved that the “care” Murray provided to Michael Jackson for $150,000 a month was as far from the basic standard of care as the Moon is from the Earth.

1093 days ago

Tracy R    

Ruby cracked me up today. Saying that he's a knowledgeable person. That's hilarious. He's not as Knowledgeable as you think. Giving Propofol outside a hospital or having any medical staff to help and monitor. Doing CPR on a bed instead of the floor. Not calling for help immediately. AND his excuse of not calling 911 is that he didn't know the address. He's been coming to that house how long and you don't know the damn address. That's sum BS. Come on. How about shouting for help. No? Nothing? Ridiculous. That is far from responsible. Having his patients come and testify does nothing for this case and his defense. He was responsible for MJ, HE gave MJ the drugs, HE left the room. HE killed MICHAEL JACKSON!!!! That's it and that's all.

1093 days ago



1093 days ago

Hey Now    

Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn...

1093 days ago


Before we go on with Dr. Shafer’s testimony let me note that the doctor is not charging any fees for reviewing Murray’s case. Prosecutor David Walgren asked him why and Dr. Shafer explained that he was doing it for several reasons.

The primary one is not to compromise his integrity.
This is his general principle – he has no criticism for those who charge fees, but his choice is doing it pro bono (which means professional work undertaken voluntarily as a public service). In Conrad Murray’s case he had three more specific reasons for doing it this way.

The case has become so public that the reputation of physicians is questioned (so he is doing it for the sake of all medical community).
As an anesthesiologist Dr. Shafer also wished to present the proper way how an anesthesiologist approaches a patient.
And lastly, since he is first and foremost a practicing anesthesiologist he now hears patients say to him almost every day, “Are you going to give me the drug which killed Michael Jackson?” So Dr. Shafer wants to dispel the fear many patients have acquired after Murray’s case .
Dr Shafer has been an active practicing anesthesiologist for 25 years and regards his work in the operating room as the most important part of his professional life. In addition to that he is the editor in chief of Anesthesiology journal and is on the editorial board of several other journals. He himself published 160... papers and several books. Only this year he has spoken at various medical conferences some 10- 15 times all over the world (the locations were so many that I lost track while he was enumerating them all).

Many of his papers were devoted to finding an answer to a question – What is the influence of gender, weight and age of the patient on the effect of the drug? Numerous studies were made to get to a mathematical model of determining the precise dose depending on many variables and get the prediction of the drug effect for each specific case as accurately as possible.

Another part of the research was to work out models of administering propofol to patients in intensive care units who may stay sedated for very long hours (in contrast to those who are put into sleep for a short period of time during minor operations).

Dr. Shafer also conducted similar research in respect of Midazolam and Lidocaine. All those papers were published in Anesthesia & Analgesia journal for which he was an editor too.

* * * * *

Upon reviewing Conrad Murray’s case Dr. Shafer made a report registering numerous deviations from the standard of care. He found so many that they had to be broken down into three categories – minor, serious and egregious.

A minor deviation is something which is not consistent with the standard of care but would not lead to problems.
A serious one is expected to cause harm to a patient.
And an egregious deviation is something that should never happen in the hands of a competent doctor as there is a very high probability that it will bring about a catastrophic outcome. The dictionary defines the word is as “Conspicuously bad or offensive and outstandingly bad, flagrant”, so this is something really unheard of for a doctor to do.
In addition to that Dr. Shafer found several deviations not only egregious but unconscionable. This word is defined as “Not restrained by conscience; unscrupulous” and now that I’ve learned it I realize that this is the exact word we were looking for in order to describe Conrad Murray’s actions. These are UNCONSCIONABLE actions, where human conscience simply does not take part or where it never existed in the first place.

Dr. Shafer called Murray’s deviations from the standard of care unconscionable when they were the fundamental ethical and moral violations of Michael Jackson’s rights as a human being (which were the last drop in a huge violation of human rights Michael had to endure the whole of his life).

Here is the list of what Dr. Shafer found:

Lack of basic emergency airway equipment is an egregious violation.

Michael Jackson died because he stopped breathing. This complication is expected during anesthesia, and all it takes is to pressure oxygen into the lungs by means of an Anesthesia Breathing Circuit which they call their “failsafe”.

“No competent doctor will ever administer sedatives without this equipment – it should be there without question”, says Dr. Shafer.

The anesthesia breathing circuit includes a bag and a mask. An ambu bag serves the same purpose if it is connected to oxygen
“It was nice that the ambu bag was present”, he says. But from Murray’s own account (the interview with the detectives) it is clear that he did not use it. Instead he used a mouth-to-mouth method which is not as effective as it delivers expired air which has less oxygen – usually no more than 18-20%.

Murray never said he used an ambu bag which was lying on the floor
Murray says that he was away for 2 minutes.

What most probably happened during that period, says Dr. Shafer, is that the tongue fell backwards and obstructed the airway. If that was the case all that was required was to lift Michael’s chin and normal breathing would have resumed.

Lack of the tools which are capable of getting the tongue back in place was another egregious violation in that setting. One of the tools is

a laryndoscope which is something which should be prepared well before the procedure and should be accessible within seconds when the problem is detected.

Dr. Shefer has also made calculations of how much propofol was purchased and how much of it was delivered to Michael Jackson on a nightly basis.

Propofol - the total shipped
The total amount of propofol shipped was 130 pcs of 100ml vials and 125 pcs of 20 ml vials.

This makes 15,5 liters which is an extraordinary amount for a single patient.

If calculated in terms of the amount administered within the period of April 6 – June 25 from the date of its first shipment to the date of Michael’s death the daily consumption was to have been 1, 937mg, or around two 100ml vials each night (if the whole amount bought was used up).

The estimated amount of 1,937.5 mg of propofol given per day
Dr. Shafer drew our attention to a extremely important point.

Vials of propofol are an easy environment for bacteria growth once they are opened – so all leftovers should be thrown away 6 hours after opening the vial.

In these cir****tances no one would buy 100ml vials unless he wants to use them in full – otherwise he will have to throw away too much unused medication.

In short you buy 100ml vials only if you want to use 100ml vials.

Therefore the fact that Murray ordered 13 liters in the form of 100ml vials (130pcs) suggests that he was administering huge doses of propofol per night. Otherwise he would have predominantly purchased smaller ones.

Let me remind you that in his first shipment of April 6 Murray received 10 pcs of big and 25 pcs of small vials, but for his second shipment he ordered already 40 pcs of big (and 25 pcs of small) vials. And 40 pcs of big 100ml vials make up 4 liters of propofol delivered to Murray already on April 28.

Lack of the suction apparatus is a totally egregious violation.

the juice bottle on the night stand
There is no evidence that Michael Jackson was instructed not to eat or drink before going to bed and this put him at a greater risk than other patients. In fact I remember that there was some juice on Michael’s night stand, so he might have been drinking it!

And if my memory is correct the chef also cooked something for Michael to eat after the rehearsals and left it in the fridge, only that night that he didn’t take anything…

Lack of the infusion pump is another of egregious violations.

Without the infusion pump the rate of propofol delivery cannot be precisely controlled. In the absence of this equipment the danger of an overdose increases many times over. Dr. Shafer says that this factor widely contributed to Michael Jackson’s death.

David Walgren asked if it was possible to control propofol by means of a plastic wheel on the tubing. Dr. Shefer answered that the little roll which squeezes the tubing and stops the flow was extremely imprecise for propofol. The failure to have the infusion pump was a direct cause of Michael Jackson’s death.

Another egregious violation was the pulse oxymeter which Conrad Murray used.

this basic model is clipped to a finger only for quick measurements
This basic model was completely inappropriate for continuous monitoring of the patient. It is designed for a quick measurement of the pulse only. The models used in the hospital setting are supplemented by a sound device which accompanies each beat and even if the doctors don’t see it they can hear the beats slowing down – so they know what is happening just from listening.

this model could have saved Michael's life
In case of a respiratory arrest the oxygen starts dropping from the norm of 100%. By the time it reaches 92% the alarm starts off. This moment is simply impossible to miss and it requires an immediate intervention on the part of doctors to return oxygen into the blood.

Dr. Shafer says that a proper pulse oxymeter would have saved Michael Jackson’s life.

this model could have saved Michael's life
Let me add that the model used by Murray costs $275 while the models that could have saved his life cost $750-1500.

Murray and those who were to supply the equipment (AEG Live) were economizing on Michael Jackson.

Lack of a blood pressure cuff is another egregious violation.

Propofol lowers the blood pressure – everyone’s blood pressure. This is an expected event which is handled by anesthesiologists either by treating another drug (ephedrine for example) or by administering less propofol.

Considering that Michael Jackson was dehydrated from strenuous exercise (lacking enough liquid in his system) his blood pressure had a tendency to be low. Dr. Shafer explained a phenomenon which takes place when the blood pressure drops – the body closes legs and hands (that is why they feel cold) and preferentially sends the blood to vital organs only – like the heart, for example.

the blood pressure device looked like it was seldom used
But since propofol is circulating mostly to the vital organs it also becomes more potent and this is what physicians call “an exaggerated response”. It is an increase in the power of the drug simply due to a drop in the blood pressure – which in case of propofol may be crucial (any change in its concentration can involve a breathing arrest). This is why it is so important to have a blood pressure cuff fixed to the arm of the patient and monitoring his blood automatically and on a regular basis.

Murray’s blood measuring device was manual but even this was not in use – it was packed into a cardboard box and looked like it was seldom used

1093 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web