Please enable JavaScript in your browser preferences and then Reload this page!!!

Michael Jackson Justice: Walgren says "This is Not Some Conspiracy"...Wanna bet?

God: Reconnect to Him

The Conspiracy against God is about "The Word", and the profaning of His Holy Name within us. Adam fell in the garden, breaking the direct connection to God. Jesus, the "last Adam" was a quickening Spirit, the Word made Flesh, and the only one with whom we can re-establish our relationship with God. Michael's story is still unfolding. He is the one who is, is not. But Jesus is the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. Many are trying to rewrite HIStory. We were given a help to instruct us. Learn more "here".

Friday, November 4, 2011

Walgren says "This is Not Some Conspiracy"...Wanna bet?

November 3, 2011
Day 23 Conrad Murray Michael Jackson Trial

Ruth 2:10-12
Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?  11And Boaz answered and said unto her, It hath fully been shewed me, all that thou hast done unto thy mother in law since the death of thine husband: and how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore.  12The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.

Oh heavenly sunshine!  Phone . . . all day phone.  Phonephonephonephonephone.  Does’t ANYONE pay attention to the trial anymore?  Geesh!!!!  Mom, more mom, Micheline (not complaining, just stating), mom again.  Then Dinner time State Capital calls my husband (they want his vote), then Micheline, then while I’m on the phone with her the “call-interrupt”, in order, were:  Mom, Ed’s cousin, Ed’s sister.  So after Micheline and I were done talking, I took my “messages notes” into my husband and said, “here . . . call your cousin, call your sister because after that I have to call mom”…

I miss our cell phones.

But don’t worry, most of this took place in the evening (as I am trying to write this up) and I did get the testimony today.  I am sitting at my desk on a rather balmy November evening, window is open, the air feels downright therapeutic and I have a hot cup of tea by my side and the dishwasher running (finally got dinner cleaned up too.  Phew!)  On, and for all you living in the north . . . I’m wearing SHORTS . . . in November.  (I’m a novice “Southern Living” lady, so try to ignore my glee).

Below, I have posted as much detail as I could get on the closing arguments.  I have commentary at the bottom of each section with little observations in parenthesis in the corresponding bullet points.

Over all I thought both sides made good points.  I had a pro and a con for each side’s argument.  My  mother thinks Walgren is good looking and for me he probably would be if he wasn’t a lawyer (and arrogant).  Truth be told Chernoff probably appeals to me more because he’s sarcastic and he has an easy to read face. But both of them were good today.

Closing Arguments

Judge Pastor is reading a lengthy instruction to the Jury before closing arguments begin.  First notice was that he said “Michael Joseph Jackson” during his instructions to the jury.  So this is how we started off the day.  :o)

The Prosecution

- Walgren is using the projector with power points to support his closing arguments.  His point that he is trying to make is that Murray acted not with intent to kill Michael, but with criminal negligence that caused the death, or act of failure to perform a legal duty causes death.

- Walgren says that it only needs to be proved that Murray acted in a remote matter for him to be considered guilty of manslaughter.  (This is later refuted by Chernoff below, stating there has to be direct cause for conviction).

- Walgren states that the defendant must have foreseen the consequence of the factor that caused Michael’s death and could only be considered innocent if the circumstances were unforeseeable and extraordinary.  (Agree, this is part of the Judge’s instruction).

-Walgren says Murray was conscious of guilt because he failed to share information with paramedics and doctors at the ER of the administered Propofol. (Murray did admit to this, saying forgot to mention it but did tell about the other meds).

- Neither of the other parties signed Conrad Murray’s employment contract (AEG, Michael Jackson), was of the understanding he would be getting 100K a month, wrote to his patients/clinics that he was leaving medicine.  (This is true via Murray’s signature on contract.)

- Walgren remarks about the two months of orders of Propofol and Lorazapam to the apartment (not clinic) of Nicole Alvarez. (not sent to a clinic – I agree)

- Walgren addresses May 10th recording of Michael slurring speech (why would Murray make such a recording?  This is on a Sunday.) Walgren addresses that Murray made this recording on his Iphone and keeps it for some unknown reason. (Not sure why Walgren added that.)

- Walgren starts repeating parts of the recording, states “My show”, “It’s amazing”, “I’ve never seen anything like this” . . . “build the greatest children’s hospital in the world”.  Walgren frames it in “he says this in a vulnerable state.  Murray sits by his side and records this on his I-phone”.  (The repeating of Michael’s statements on that tape center around “My show” and “I’ve never seen anything like this” sound more like a veiled message then a fact necessary to convict Murray.  Then Walgren adds that Murray taped this “while Murray sits by his side…” which actually presents a carrying Murray.  Odd and unnecessary information to include as a point to try and get a conviction).

- Walgren says two days later he orders another shipment of Propofol and Midazolam. (Now we’re back to normal argument!)

- Walgren touches on Ortega’s testimony about Michael being excited about the Illusion, and talking to Kenny Ortega about “the illusion the next day”.  Walgren repeated the word “Illusion” three times.  (Again, this has nothing to do with proof of guilt – another veiled message?)

- Walgren seems to be giving clues by putting both Ortega’s and Phillip’s statements up there, accentuating the Illusion and Michael’s statements “You got me this far, I can take it from here”.  (Why such emphasis on these statements?  None of this has to do with Murray.  Walgren did also mention Murray stating to Ortega that he is the director and He was the doctor and should leave Michael’s health to him.  I also thought it was odd that Ortega used the term “he left the building” . . . Elvis left the building?).

- At 4:30 Walgren says that Murray says Michael is complaining about not sleeping. (a screenshot of the powerpoint below on Murray’s timeline given to police).

- Brazil looks back toward where the Jackson’s may be and smiles and looks away.

Powerpoint Murray’s Statemet

- Walgren makes a point about intent on Murray’s statement that Murray decided to give him the Propofol when Michael stated they would have to cancel the rehearsal so he could sleep past noon.  Walgren’s argument was that Murray’s INTENT was that he intended for Michael to sleep longer once Michael said he would have to cancel the rehearsals and could sleep past noon.  (I did not agree this was proof, this is speculating).

-Walgren plays the recording again of Murray telling detectives that he only left Michael to go to the bathroom. (Murray – too much information about what HE had to do in the bathroom using the words “to relieve myself . . . of urine”  (What else would he possibly relieve himself of?  Geesh!)

- Murray said Michael had a heart beat but was not breathing when he came back.  Murray did not call 911 immediately.  Calls Amir Williams at 12:12 pm.  Admits he didn’t tell Amir to call 911 when he left a voicemail.  Said he would want to know what it was about (Walgren makes a good point he was leaving voicemail and could have used that time to call 911).

- @9:23am Murray is talking to a Chanel Murray.  (???) screen shots of emails on his phone in exhibit, etc…

- This is all going on during the time Murray says Michael is complaining about not being able to sleep.  (Chernoff addresses this in his argument).

Screen shot

Walgren states Murray was doing what he was told, as an employee, not as a doctor to a patient but as an employee to an employer.  (I  thought this was a good comparison to make, I agree Murray should have said no, but I don’t believe Michael is an addict either.)

- Walgren talks about Anding’s testimony that 5 minutes into phone call she is getting no response from Murray, hears coughing and muffled voices. (time of call proves proof of sign of trouble and when).

Amir Williams

-Walgren recounts that Williams states Murray tells Alvarez to grab saline bag (the one with the bottle in it) but never grabs the other one.  (No prints from Alvarez on this bag, Chernoff addresses below).

- Mentions Fleak’s picture of the bottle outside the bag, saying she took it out for the purposes of photography.  (Nice try but that was incredibly sloppy).

- Walgren states that Murray didn’t call 911 until after, Alvarez says, Murray has Alvarez put medicine bottles and the saline bag and bottle in the medical bag.

- Walgren says “what would possess a medical doctor, not to call 911 other than to put Dr. Murray first and Michael Jackson and his life, last?  (Chernoff addresses this below.  He is also rubbing his forehead a lot.  I think he needs a facial message to get rid of that headache, poor guy).

- Senneff takes Michael to the ambulance then returns upstairs to retrieve his equipment.  (???  Ambulance, sense of urgency?  There are four other people coming out of that house and none of them can get the equipment?  It’s not exactly a two-second dash into that huge house, up the stairs, across the landing, through the foyer and into the bedroom area to collect the equipment and then back down through all that!)

Photo of Murray with cargo pants

- ER doctors said Murray told them he only gave Michael Lorazapam and Midazolam and “overlooked” the Propofol.  (I don’t trust at least two of those doctors, but this isn’t a cause of death since Cooper stated he was already clinically dead when he got there).

- Alvarez and Muhammed state Murray wanted to go back to house to recover “cream” Michael didn’t want to the world to know about.  (This is what THEY said and Chernoff offers another explanation below.)

- Walgren says Murray was concerned about finger prints and medical bags with equipment.  (Chernoff addresses below).

- States Murray told police about the bags up in the cabinet, but Walgren suggests Murray only told them because he assumed that police had already been there (assumes?  This is not proof and it is not cause) t o get “ahead of the story”  (As I jury I would have to disregard this as evidence because it is complete fabrication).

- Steinberg, Kamangar, Shafer experts for the prosecution said they would never have done what Murray did.  (White also said this, it shouldn’t have been done.)

- Walgren states because Propofol should be used in this setting (shows hospital emergency room) not in this setting (shows pic of Michael’s bedroom).  (agreed or at least a clinic with another medical professional present and monitoring equipment.)

- Walgren states setting is the direct cause of Michael’s death. Criminal gross negligence.  (That is not the direct cause but a contributing cause.)

- Study on Propofol for sleep post-dated Michael’s death and experts stated it was just an experiment, not standard of care.  (this is false information.  There have been other studies, but the only evidence that was submitted – Sleep specialist testified it is given in intensive care for patient comfort and mild to moderate sedation for people on ventilators – was given to Michael by other doctors to Michael for sleep, but this was not submitted into evidence except by witness statements).

- Walgren goes through standards of care breeched, including lack of monitoring equipment and abandonment of patient.

- Walgren makes a good point bringing up Dr. White’s mention of variables, which is why you take the precautions because every patient reacts differently. Adds the lack of medical records (What did Fleak collect from him then?)

- Propofol bottle found in saline bag (allegedly) that the hanging tab was not used, has the spike hole and Murray’s fingerprints (but there is no propfol residue inside bag, no spike in bag, spike would not fit through both and the second infusion tubing is missing).

- Walgren talks about Witnesses testifying to Murray treating them but points out that Murray was treating them in a hospital or clinic for what Murray was trained in, hearts.  (I agree with this, good point by Walgren, however Murray IS CERTIFIED in moderate anesthesia for PROCEDURES.)

- Walgren says that Metzger testified no amount of money would convince him to give Michael Propofol.  Walgren said no doctor had until Murray . . . Immediately after that he played a portion of Cherilyn Lee’s testimony that Michael told her that doctors had given it to him, and told him it was safe (Walgren contradicts his own witness.  And I have my suspicions on Metzger thanks to Jermaine’s page 324).

- Lorazapam is a controlled substance, should have been secured, locked up.  (I agree with this, but Michael had his own prescriptions in another bedroom.  Murray can’t control what Michael does with his own medications or where he keeps them).

- Walgren has the nerve to mention White’s “financial” motivation when he himself tried to lure White away from the defense before White had committed to the defense.  Calls White’s testimony “junk science” and “garbage”. 

(This is where he loses me because Walgren himself shows vindictive motive because White wouldn’t testify for Walgren who ORIGINALLY SOUGHT HIS EXPERTISE and was told no.  He’s attacking Dr. White in his closing argument– Who’s on trial?  Suddenly his closing argument is about Dr. White and not the man on trial, Murray.  He then turns around and agrees with Dr. White’s statement that he would never administer Propofol in a bedroom and would never consider it.  Walgren, in showing the clips of White’s testimony that HE wanted the jury to hear, effectively shortened White’s answers (and for that I thank him).

- Walgren continues on a “White-Rant”, Still attacking White on the Ornelas models on the urine concentrations. White points out that White was staying at Flanagan’s house while there to testify.  (And if he accepted Walgren’s offer probably would have stayed at Walgren’s house?  Maybe he should have stayed at Dr. Shafer’s since they USED to be friends).

- Still attacking White on the articles and Models that he did not put together.  (Defense should have brought in Ornelas – defense through him under the bus on this one. Chernoff addresses this below).

- Walgren points out White hedging on the question if an infusion line could be put in someone’s pocket, then shows a clip of White pulling an infusion line out of his pocket for Flanagan to use.  (However THAT infusion line didn’t have liquid in it and was in a wrapper. Did Murray have wet pants?  Maybe he should have stayed in the bathroom longer? Sorry, sarcasm).

- Walgren makes a good point in the Simon’s article.  Walgren states that the article Shafer came back to testify to  was written in 2002 and was not critical of Simon study but rather confirmed that Simon’s 1988 study lacked the sophisticated equipment to measure that they have today.  (Good point, I agree with this).

- Closing – Michael Jackson trusted Conrad Murray with his life . . . Michael Jackson paid with his life.  States Murray didn’t want to lose this job and did what he was asked, but that’s not what he should have done as a doctor.  (not comfortable with this . . . We don’t know Michael asked for this. We only know what witnesses said and there were only two that testified to Michael asking for this . . . Murray and Lee).

Closing argument from Walgren I thought was good, persuasive even though I don’t’ agree with all the points, the ones in regard to care of Michael and abandonment are hard to explain of a doctor.

Lunch break

Chernoff Closing Arguments

- Chernoff begins by attacking Walgren’s taking of quotes out of context and Walgren’s statement that you don’t have to show exact causal to prove guilt and Chernoff says “the disturbing thing is that is EXACTLY what he has to do.  (I agree with this. Walgren should not be confusing the Jury on the judge’s instructions and the law.)

- Said Walgren spent an hour and a half talking about negligence.  Says the prosecution had to show Murray killed Michael and the only thing that came close was reference to the baggy pants.  (I hope he’s going to use better examples than that.  There were much better points to make.)

- Undisputable facts – character and nature of Propofol facts first.

Timeline – implied what was going on during phone calls when no proof there was anything going on.  Michael was found in distress at around noon after phone calls were already made and he dropped that phone call to Anding when it happened.  (I agree only because there is no proof that Murray was out of the room when he made the phone calls.)

-Sade Anding’s phone call was 11:51 and she said she listened for about 10 mintues, that’s how they can determine this happened at noon.  (Agreed.  Anding testified to hearing coughing and noises and no one else was in the room according to Murray, besides he and Michael at that time).

- Never found Michael Jackson not breathing for those 42 minutes prior that Murray was on the phone.  (Not sure I agree with this other than the statement above.  In Murray’s police STATEMENT he says he “came back in” and Michael was not breathing, unless he called Anding on his way back in from the bathroom.)

- Experts say Propofol is a ten minute drug by injection.  To keep Propofol actually working is through a drip.  Only can be administered through IV injection or drip, not orally according to both doctors, it is not viable any other way. (I agree with this.)  If injected prior to 11:18, around 11:05 am then by the time Murray left the room at 11:18, he was off the phone when he gave the injections (except calling Anding.)  No matter what Murray was doing, there was no chance of harm based on what he knew he gave Michael.  Prosecution spent 6 weeks trying to prove a drip, because without a drip, what Murray gave him would not have killed him.  (this is all from Chernoff).

- Chernoff said Walgren didn’t talk about the testimony of Shafer, Fleak or Alvarez because they were trying to create a drip that never existed.  It’s is the only thing that would have/could have killed him.  (The bolus death was disproved on models because the amount needed to kill him would have had to have been injected rapid bolus, repeatedly and even a skilled anesthesiologist would have a hard time keeping up because of the way you have to extract the Propofol from the bottle/suction.)

- Chernoff says prosecution doesn’t want to tell you that they want to convict Murray for the actions of Michael Jackson.  (Whoa.  Now I’m livid!)

- Chernoff said, Alvarez testimony talked about how hard it was for him then you learn that Alvarez has been offered 550k for a story.  He compares Alvarez telling police in June that all he did is call 911.  Yet in August he testified to hiding evidence for Murray, comforted Michael’s children, tried to breathe life into Michael. Claims Alvarez is going to cash in . . . Alvarez waits two months to tell police about the bottle in the saline bag, and said it was due to scheduling, but he was unemployed and couldn’t get work because of his involvement with the Jackson case.  (Alvarez testifies to working for Jacksons for two months before getting let go, which could account for the scheduling problem).

- Walgren addresses 911 recording that shows what Alvarez testified to helping Murray get Michael to the floor was impossible.  Alvarez testified to grabbing the bag but his fingerprints were not on the bag. The fingerprints were identifiable and they were not Alvarez’s.  No milky substance in bag, bag tested negative for any drug.  Michael Amir’s phone records reflect that Alvarez did not call Amir as no calls showed up on Amir’s phone.  (Good points here in Alvarez, all this is undebatably true.)

Alvarez’s timeline

- Chernoff reminded Jurors that he asked Alverez if he could do all that in 30 seconds.  Alvarez’s response was ‘I’m efficient’.  Says prosecution doesn’t care because the bottle in the bag is the genesis of their infusion theory.  (very good point).

- No notes from Fleak on the bottle in the bag – she just remembers it 18 months later.  It did not appear on her reports.  (This was one of the fishiest parts of the coroner’s investigation).

- Detective Smith said he did not see a bottle in the bag) and referred to his notes.  He even put in his notes that he found a Lorazam bottle in a bag that holds an IV bag, he was that thorough but never saw a Propofol bottle in the slit IV bag.

- April 2011, They bring Alvarez in about a conversation about his testimony and changes his drawing about what he saw.  (Alvarez completely unbelievable at this point and Walgren makes a good point about him being coached).

- Chernoff is stopping just BARELY short of accusing the prosecution of coaching the witness about the vial in the bag at that April 2011 meeting with Alvarez.

- Cheroff shows that even if they go with the theory of the drip, picture of the bottle shows that Murray didn’t need the bottle in the bag, it had a hanging tab on it.  (This is also a complete slip up from the prosecution. The fact that the tab is still intact, never used and Murray would go through the trouble of slitting a bag instead of simply hanging it using the tab makes the prosecution’s theory make no sense at all.)

(Murray looks like he’s wearing makeup)

- Chernoff on the two IV line theory – “why the prosecution did that was because the problem was there was no way to show it was one tube because the tubing they had in evidence had no Propofol in it, it was clear.”  Both lines were vented, just one had the flap broken off.  The one IV line was too long and there was no Propofol in it so they had to come up with a second IV line theory.  (Chernoff is good at pointing this out.  He’s good at pointing out inconsistencies.  Walgren is good at repeating accusations until they become “truth” in the juror’s minds.  Both skilled with different tactics; Chernoff is attacking the inconsistencies, Walgren attacks the character of the witness/defendants).

- Chernoff said prosecution didn’t hire Shafer until two years after the crime.  He is a computer modeler and anesthesiologist, not a detective, and said “this is what happened” not that they were possibilities.  (I agree with this to a point.  Shafer had some good points, but Chernoff is right about his mixing of apples and oranges to try to make something stick).

- Chernoff said he wants to defend White.  “Scientists tell you what is possible but they don’t take positions – good scientist don’t do that, Schafer wasn’t being a scientist, Schafer was playing the advocate.”  White didn’t do that, he stated he would never have done what Murray did and was honest, Chernoff said.  (Both opposing attorneys vying for the integrity of their perspective experts.  I can identify with Chernoff on this because White is retired and he was completely beat up on the stand, mostly with information that was really irrelevant to what they were trying to prove.  I don’t like bullies and when I see someone getting bullied I have a tendency to call foul and I will stand up for them.  That is my crucible – well, one of many crucibles)

- None of Shafer’s models had anything to do with the facts in the case – they were all simulations and opinions.  No evidence of six injections, multiple milligrams of Propofol dripped or rapid bolus but no evidence in the trial.  Nobody ever said happened.  ( I disagree with this – ALL MODELS were simulations based on opinions, on both sides.)

- Shafer on cross-examination testified that it was impossible to determine dose from concentration because there are infinite possibilities.  (I remember this.  But White’s mistake was trying to do that with the urine levels asking another doctor to work it up on a program he was not familiar with.)

- Shows Shafer’s model of 10 Lorazapam shots, reason he came up with this simulation because there was an empty Lorazapam bottle at the scene.  10 shots every 30 minutes.  This is the same chart that is absent the line for responsive to painful stimuli.  Shafer showed shots beginning when Michael was still at staples center, so the next Day Shafer brings in a new model showing 9 shots.  (that was a slimy stunt.  I have to agree with Chernoff on that.  It wasn’t even based on fact so why did Shafer go through the trouble?)

- Chernoff reminded jurors that free Lorazapam was in the stomach which means Michael swallowed Lorazapam. Said prosecution didn’t want them to know that even though prosecution said it’s only a 32nd of a pill or 138th of a pill.  Chernoff said, but tablets dissolve and the medicine in them goes into the body.  After all that, Shafer did not show one oral Lorazapam simulation.  He said White did, and Shafer did not say anything about that on rebuttal.

- Chernoff said it again . . . don’t be afraid to say it . . . “prosecution wants you to convict Dr. Murray for the actions of Michael Jackson.  If it was anyone else besides Michael Jackson, Murray wouldn’t be sitting there.”  (This is almost word for word what Mesereau said to Jurors in the Michael Jackson trial in 2005, only Michael was the defendant on trial, sitting there through shoddy, falsified and corrupted evidence.  In 2005 Michael was on trial because he was Michael Jackson.  In 2011 Murray was on trial because the patient that died on his watch is Michael Jackson.)

- Chernoff makes a point on Murray’s patients, they’ve been patients for ten years but was last treated in 2003 or 2001 for a procedure. 

Questions Needed to be Answered to Convict

- Chernoff said the prosecution’s position is “Don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain”, that the doctors got up and looked down on Murray and said “I woudn’t have done that” and judge him without living in his shoes, but Kamangar, Shafer and Steinberg have never been in the shoes of Conrad Murray (this sounds just like Michael and what Michael would say.  I also could not believe Chernoff said “the man behind the curtain” and it really did not even fit into his statement with the rest of the sentence.  I marked it down as a veiled messageCurtain Call for Norma Jean).

- Murray’s greatest character flaw is his greatest strength.  He came into a situation believing he could help Michael, but he was wrong.  There was “too much going on in the background” and he was  “a little fish in a big dirty pond”.  (Michael is Murray, Murray is Michael???  Michael’s greatest character flaw is his greatest strength, according to Jermaine in his book.  OMGosh!  Parallels make it easier to look out the windows when traveling by train! That just made no doggone sense, did it?)

- Chernoff  - good point . . . “You’re a cardiologist trained in advanced life support, you come in and find our patient not breathing, eyes open and the first thing you do is call 911? Instead of reviving your patient?”  Even the other Dr.’s said they would take two to three minutes to revive.

- Chernoff says Murray tries to revive.  After 2 or three minutes administers Flumazenil the antidote for Lorazapam.  He runs downstairs and gets Kai chase, who knew something was wrong, because she tells prince that “something’s wrong with your father” and sends him upstairs, does NOT get security.  (That was cold.  I don’t ever want that woman near Michael again.  How could she?)

Where Murray was on stairs

- Kai only had to go out the kitchen door about 30 feet to the security trailer and she didn’t do it.  (didn’t catch screen of picture because MOM CALLED!!!)

- Chernoff shows picture of the ambu-bag on the floor . .. asks “if he didn’t use it, why is it out?”  No evidence he did not use it.  Said during his statement to police that there was sufficient ventilation.

- Chernoff says all prosecution witnesses on board with Murray doing everything wrong.  (wait until you hear what’s coming . . . )

- Chernoff admonishes the prosecution identifying Michael’s children showing their pictures.  Says they didn’t have to bring in Nicole Alvarez in, to show what?  That she received packages of medication?  We had fed ex and Applied pharmacy receipts for that.  (I agree that this seemed to be a backdoor way to show Murray’s “personal life” which was supposed to be off limits, but this witness was allowed and Walgren was “allowed” to ask Murray’s patient Ruby Mosley about meeting Murray’s “female friends”.  She told him though, LOL! I love her!)

- Chernoff states that prosecution tried to show Murray ran from the hospital when what he did was take the direct route to the west wing for the press conference, video shows him there at 5:02.  Murray was the only one there without transportation because he rode in the ambulance.  Amir said to lock down the house he was so worried and had Faheem lie to Murray, but never said that to police.  Chernoff says again, “everybody’s on the team” “everyone is willing to go for it” (Murray’s throat? Playing into conspiracy?)

- Cheroff plays voicemail . . . Frank Dileo.  Frank says he’s “I’m Michael’s manager, the short guy with no hair . . . I think you know we had an episode last night, he’s sick and we need to get a blood test on him, we need to figure out what he’s doing.”  (Neither Kenny Ortega nor Frank Dileo in the email or voice mail refer directly to Michael as the man who is sick.  Ortega refers to “the artist” in his email forward, and Frank identifies himself as Michael’s manager, but doesn’t name him as the one who’s sick, “HE’S sick” and “test on HIM” and “figure out what HE’S doing.”)

- Chernoff said, It’s not really what he’s doing, it’s what’s being done to him. (Cryptic statement – and LOADED).

- Says Jackson under enormous pressure from AEG and appearances, not JUST related to visits to Klein’s.  (Here we bring in reference and can match it up to Gongaware’s “believed Michael’s problems originated from something OTHER than medications”  This is the tip of the iceberg).

- Chernoff said he did not give Michael a controlled substance, he gave him a medication for a specific medical condition.  Describes the prosecution describing Michael was like “a baby on a counter” and said that was the most insulting thing he could say about Michael Jackson.  (and saying Michael’s actions are what killed him isn’t insulting???  He’s not stupid and he’s NOT AN ADDICT!!!)  Michael Jackson is a grown man responsible for his children. He’s not incapable and he’s not a baby.  Chernoff states that if you are going to hold Murray responsible, don’t do it just because it is Michael Jackson.  (Cheap shot, but I also saw the parallel in this to Michael in 2005 – Mesereau – If you’re going to convict, don’t do it just because he’s Michael Jackson.”  I’m not sure those are the exact words Mesereau used, but we all know why Michael was really on trial.  At the beginning of this trial, Chernoff told Jurors that we are going to find out who Murray REALLY is . . . so?  Who is he?)

Mid afternoon Break.

Rebuttal Argument by Walgren

- Walgren gets his last licks in and starts with failures to act and actions of Conrad Murray.

- Walgren drives into jury unconscionable, grossly criminal negligent behavior.  (I’m sure he wanted to add more adjectives but the stenographer was complaining . . . just kidding).

- Walgren says “Poor Conrad Murray – everyone is to blame but Conrad Murray.”  I can’t believe it!  Walgren actually used the word “conspiracy” three times!  (Michae’s words . . . THANK YOU Walgren).

- Walgren uses the words “bizarre” for Conrad Murray’s conduct.  (???) 
“Everything he did was bizarre”.  (Michael Jackson’s cross he has now?)

- Walgren says, “It’s Michael Jackson’s fault”  “It’s everyone elses fault”  (This is exactly what music industry and media pundits said about Michael in regard to his album sales for Invincible – I can pull these up!)  Bizarre is used going on six times now. “Conspiracy” is used three or four times by Walgren.

- Walgren goes back to Alvarez and Fleak “just told you what they saw, this isn’t some conspiracy”  (but Fleak didn’t write it down in her report”  (He said this isn’t some “conspiracy” again).

- Walgren fumbled on his explanation of Shafer testifying that Michael could have reached up and loosened the roller clamp to resume Propofol drip, but followed up with “it is still the position of the prosecution that Murray committed criminal negligence, indifference.”  (how so if Michael did loosen roller clamps?  I don’t agree Michael did that, but we can’t have it both ways.)

- Walgren is saying Murray lied about suggesting the autopsy, lied about getting a welfare team together for the kids, that it was typical UCLA protocol.

- Walgren said “we cannot prove what happened behind those doors” . . . (if that is the case, you cannot convict – beyond the shadow of a doubt).  “If Murray cared so much for his welfare, actions speak far louder than words.”

Judge reads post trial deliberation instructions

Jury will deliberate tomorrow and we may actually have a verdict unless they are at it into next week.

I see some incredible parallel’s here to what Michael went through and what happened to him in 2005.  I also see a lot of veiled messages that are stuck in sentences that really do not fit into the arguments.

What I see, if I am right is this trial is a door to the next level.  I’m not sure if there is anything between here and September 2012 and the civil suit with AEG, but it will be interesting to see if there is an appeal of THIS case.

God Bless you  and goodnight.  I’m very done.


  1. Everyone, I am sorry. I just read through and saw some horrendous typos. I didn't get this finished until 3:14am and I was dead-tired. Too much at the house here today. I didn't get to any emails and I will address the necklaces and get some of those sent out this weekend.

    My husband says that Michael better not have another trial and wants me back. I told him be careful what he asks for, LOL! Anyhow, I will try to get in and fix those typos.

  2. Bonnie,
    Yes, I'm still waiting to find out who Conrad Murray really is. This trial certainly hasn't told me that. Chernoff was pinching his brow whilst Walgren was saying his last piece - he looked like he knew he's failed to clear Murray. Murray looked like he was half asleep.

  3. I thought Chernoff's argument was going well until he placed the blame on Michael. I couldn't believe it! I was so ticked off I stopped watching for awhile.

    Since then, I have been expanding my brain particles. Something lead me to something, which lead me to go back and watch Berry Gordy at the memorial. He was basically reading a speech, but he said something that makes me see Chernoff's statement differently now.

    I don't know how Gordy meant it, if it was just meant to be taken at face value. But, it means something more to me now. He said: "When he took the stage...he turned into another person; a master, a take-no-prisoners showman. It was like kill or be killed."

    And I thought...
    Michael Joe Jackson killed Michael Joseph Jackson, the King of Pop.

    Is (the fictional?) Conrad Murray standing in his stead?
    That goes with what you said, Bonnie: "Michael is Murray, Murray is Michael???"

    I'm thinking, hoping...
    Michael killed his strawman, separated himself from his artificially created fictional persona, thereby re-claiming his God-given freedom and liberties. (Him wanting to avoid a passport renewal comes into this.)

    Hopefully for the rest of us, this will all become a lesson on 'how to'.

    Michael the insatiable student long ago became Michael the wise and meticulously creative teacher. He literally believed he could accomplish ANYTHING, that we all have that capability. He proved it, many times over.

    I see your research coming together, Bonnie. I was just knocked upside the head with it!

    Until such time though, there is a possibility it ain't so...

  4. Hi Bonnie. You said, " ( What else would he possibly relieve himself of? Geesh! ) ". Number two/poo. ( Did you have to ask that question? Now I'm embarrassed.) Susanne

  5. Hi Bonnie. Dr.Murray's trial lasted about 5 weeks? MJ's trial lasted about 5 months? What did they do for so long during MJ's trial? 5 MONTHS?! Susanne

  6. I think Chernoff did a great job as defense lawyer. If anyone looks at the evidence presented so far with a neutral perspective, it is hard to say that Murray is guilty.

    Since the bedroom was so big, it could easily be possible for someone to hide there without the knowledge of Michael or Murray and waited for the right moment and killed Michael. Everyone is assuming that Michael and Murray were the only ones in that bedroom. This is my theory, if he had indeed died. All the fake testimonies by the security and the cook support this in a way. Especially Kai Chase who is not telling which security let her in that day.

  7. Bonnie said:
    "(Murray – too much information about what HE had to do in the bathroom using the words “to relieve myself . . . of urine”

    My questions:

    * Relieve himself of whose urine?
    * Was he carrying it inside or outside his person?
    * Into what did he make his deposit?
    * Do they DNA test urine during the investigation or assume a bag of urine found at the scene belongs to the deceased?
    * Is Michael's DNA on record?
    * Does sweat contain DNA?
    * How careful was Michael with his DNA?
    * Do they DNA test a body when they think they know who it is?

    Oh my!

  8. Princessglam said - "Yes, I'm still waiting to find out who Conrad Murray really is. This trial certainly hasn't told me that."

    ........... Unless he is proverbially Michael, I'm at a loss. I wonder how long it will take for the jury. I make a terrible court stenographer.

    Truth said - "I thought Chernoff's argument was going well until he placed the blame on Michael. I couldn't believe it! I was so ticked off I stopped watching for awhile."

    ........... I know, I was shaking my head "don't go there, don't GOOOOO there!" I don't think Michael was perfect (more perfect than me though) but he was not a drug addict, I don't think he was irresponsible, and I don't think he was "trapped" or was in a position where he "had" to do concerts. He was living in a 100K a month house, he BOUGHT artwork the same month he allegedly died and he did it THROUGH AEG - a company people told us was so greedy that they didn't care if Michael died or not (which pretty much wipes out the greedy theory, not taking care of their meal ticket).

    On the "straw man", I very much agree with you.

    "Michael’s sacrifice was giving up his life, his livelihood, his first love and the only sense of security he had ever known. But he wanted his children and fans all over the world to know that he was not LEAVING THEM.

    We’ve only ever known him as the music man, the dancer, the electric concert performer. Why was Michael putting the “King of Pop” to rest?" Source

    Of course I didn't know about "The straw man" when I wrote that, or admiralty law.

    Michael putting the "King of Pop" to rest - if you look at it like that, you COULD SAY that "the prosecution wants you to convict Conrad Murray for the actions of Michael Jackson".

    "What profits a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?" Ruby Mosely just quoted this on T.V. "Dr. Murray is not that man".

  9. Truth said - "Hopefully for the rest of us, this will all become a lesson on 'how to'. "

    .......... How to. But people have to accept and be awake. It's like accepting that God is real in a sense, and you have to believe that anything is possible. Our problem is we want the freedom, but are afraid to break the security of the very bonds that hold us back.

  10. Hello Bonnie,

    Thanks vm for the detailed report. Whichever the verdict will be, this trial might certainly leave a bitter taste to the Jacksons & to the world fans : Murray innocent = "Michael responsible for his death" & Murray guilty = "Michael could still live today". Even if "we shall never know what happened behind those doors", IMO Conrad Murray is no innocent man for all the doctors either from the Prosecution or Defense's side confirmed Murray's strong deviations of medical standards of care.

    Was Murray above the law & procedure standards not to fill in regular medical records on his patient ? He did it on purpose. Did Murray just "overlooked" to first inform the Paramedics & later the UCLA doctors he had administered Propofol to Michael on 06.25.2009 & regularly before during 2 months ? It was on purpose. When Murray met with Chernoff & the detectives on June 27, 2009, IMO a plan was already thought by him alone or with his lawyer to finally admit overtly he had injected only a ridiculously low dose 25mg Propofol (for 10 mn sleep?) the rest being "Michael's responsible for his death". If we have to swallow it & eventually see Murray free next just because no one may prove Murray killed Michael, voluntarily or unvoluntarily, Murray is however guilty of strong malpractice : for that he should at least be condemned with a strong fine & annulation of his medical certificate, so that it also gives a warning to all concerned moron doctors who would intend to play with their patients' life in the future. Klein should be investigated as well. Metzger is probably guilty too but as a cold evil he is, he was smarter than that :o(

    The other conspiracies behind all this, well, as you said Bonnie, it is not over yet & we'll talk about Michael's story for long anyway.

  11. Susanne said - "Number two/poo. ( Did you have to ask that question? Now I'm embarrassed.) Susanne "

    .......... Why? Murray is the one that said it! :o)

    You said - "Dr.Murray's trial lasted about 5 weeks? MJ's trial lasted about 5 months? What did they do for so long during MJ's trial? 5 MONTHS?! "

    ............ Try to bury him. That's what they did for five months. I don't think the trial was every day, they probably had some days where they had a break, like this one. I didn't watch the 2005 trial. I only remember seeing a news clip of the one day where he was going into court wearing his pajamas. I wasn't a fan, but I still knew the charges were false. I just didn't know HIM back then. Had no idea the enormity of what he was fighting back then and it makes me cry that I took no notice of a such a beautiful human being back then.

  12. A POSSIBILITY that the thought of drives me nuts:

    What if this goes into appeal? Another trial? Would anyone see this as being possible?

  13. Hi Bonnie. I have thought about that too. If Murray is found guilty does he have the possibility to make an appeal? If he can and will do that your husband will go nuts for sure. Line types OMF a lot. What is that short for? Susanne

  14. HI Bonnie. If you haven't watched it already, check out the you tube video, Michael Jackson " A life with an icon", premiere Q&A. The video is about 20 minutes , Guest, Rebbie, Tito, Mesereau and Susan. Susanne

  15. The edge of my seat is now getting a lip on it . . . STILL WAITING FOR VERDICT. I had to run to the bank and sit my husband in watch for the verdict (and he really doesn't want to do this, but he will because HE doesn't want to run to the bank, I always do that). I get there with only seven minutes to spare . . . (there's that seven again, Susanne!)

    I get to the bank, then shoot over to the store to pick up some paper products (toilet paper, in memory of Murray and his bathroom trips) and paper towels. Standing at the check out, I hear (over-hear) a group of lady's talking and amongst the jumbled conversation, I hear the words "Michael Jackson" (this is in Walmart).

    I pay for my stuff and realize my driver's license is still at the bank . . . eeek! I drive back across the street which is now crowded with home-coming employed people.

    No, they don't have my license, I stuck it in my purse with the receipt but didn't put it in it's original slot in my wallet. I'm a retard, so I get back in the car and drive home. Get in the house and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO VERDICT YET.

    Personally, I'm hoping they don't have a verdict today . . . why?

    Because that snotty lady on HLN (not Mitchell, the blonde lady, her and Grace both) said that they will do a verdict today because it's friday. I just want them to eat their words for the umpteenth time. Make them wait! :o) (Wow! I think I just became a patient person. Even if slightly vindictive on the media)

  16. Jury is going home . . . just heard.

    I will have a blog up tonight, something that Truthbtold found for Michael (and other artists). I will add some commentary and post that tonight.


  17. Susanne said - "If he can and will do that your husband will go nuts for sure. Line types OMF a lot. What is that short for?"

    .......... My husband will disown me. Last night I heard the speech, so if this goes into appeal (which I strongly suspect it might) he's going to have a hard time. I've been going full steam on this for almost two years (from date I started blog) and he's just tired. Michael doesn't know it but he sits at our dinner table ever night. He is THE TOPIC of discussion in our house. Everything around him, around the conspiracy, around God and his plan.

    However, I also feel at times that I am the front bird in formation in trying to keep the faith in this house. It's hard. It doesn't take but a few negative words to disrupt the flow. And this is where I really need to maintain some patience because everybody is in a different place on that same road.

    I don't know what OMF means. OMG is short for "oh my God or Oh my Gosh".

    I do have the link to the "icon" interviews, I just have not had a chance to watch it yet.

  18. Hi Bonnie. So you were running around like a maniac for nothing. No verdict. It's tragical. The only thing we know for sure about Dr.Murray is that he urinate now and then to relieve himself. When he told the police about that, he had no idea that the whole world would be listening to that Interview in the near future. Yeah, isn't it mysterious that number 7 pops up everywhere all time? It must be a significant meaning to it and no coincidence. But I feel good abouth nr.7 since you said that it is in the bibel. What about the seventh heaven? Why is it called that? Do the dead people live there? Susanne

  19. Wow - thank you so much for that - I was beginning to despair that maybe it was just me being contrary - I am really enjoying (shame) the techniques of both counsel - even the Silver Fox - but the mainstream see only what they want to see and see only flaws in the Def and none in the Pros - can't have an objective argument with anybody - more of a lynch mob than Innocent until Proven Guilty - I have issues with both sides - I think Conrad Murray keeps Michael's secrets and will still keep them no matter what happens - I actually think he was treating MJ for a Heart Attack not for Heart Failure due to not breathing - first a quick shot of the Flu?? in case - I dont know whether he thought MJ could have swallowed extra pills or if he thought he'd accidently overdosed him - & something about Advanced Life Support - where it said protocol / practice was for you (as a highly trained person) to perform / continue CPR as priority and call out "call 911" - anyway late here now & whole weekend to get my facts straight so I may have an opinion when it ends

  20. Anybody seen this.

    Were these ppl the ones before the NOI bodyguards ??

  21. Judge Pastor's instructions to the jury that they MUST come back UNANIMOUS says to me that deliberations will take some time. I don't see how "unanimous" will happen without pressure...from jury members who just want it to be over so they can go home and resume their lives.

    What about "hung" juries that prevent conviction? I don't understand why the instruction (order) for unanimous. To me, that prevents individual perspective and could, for example, potentially weed out "reasonable doubt" through pressure.

    Maybe the defense are hoping for conviction so they can appeal and submit evidence that was either not allowed or not submitted by design in the first trial? That would take us even closer to the end of "4 years to get it right".

    Although many people are using various means to take back their lives, I wonder what it's going to take for people to unite and re-claim their God-given rights.

    But what about the Occupy movement? If even a great portion of those people are uncorrupted and represent the rest of us, isn't that a start?

  22. @Anonymous -

    Quote from news source:

    "And Bill Whitfield added, "He (Jackson) would not step into another court room again. This trial brought him back into a court room. His character was back into question (sic)."

    The minders insist that Murray should not be singled out as the one doctor who made dangerous drugs available to Jackson, as the King of Pop battled chronic insomnia.

    Beard insisted, "It's way bigger than Dr. Conrad Murray."

    And Whitfield continued, "That courtroom wouldn't be big enough to hold everyone in it that we feel would be accountable (for Jackson's death).

    "If Dr. Murray may have helped Mr. Jackson sleep, we certainly believe there were certainly (sic) other doctors helping him to stay up (to perform during the day)."

    ............ Cherilyn and her "energy" drinks. Dr. Klein - and Kai Chase drugging food.

    Kai had said that she was concerned that Michael was "thinner" and that she asked if he "had been eating". She was working for him, let go, then hired back.

    Either she is one of them or she is "portraying" one of them to tell what happened to him.

    I will bet you - appeal. Not enough dots have been connected for the public yet.
    Truth said - "Judge Pastor's instructions to the jury that they MUST come back UNANIMOUS says to me that deliberations will take some time. I don't see how "unanimous" will happen without pressure...from jury members who just want it to be over so they can go home and resume their lives."

    ............. I agree. I don't think it can be unanimous. If he is aquitted, we could either lead into the civil case against AEG or if Murray is convicted, they could appeal. Either side could appeal that decision, could they not?

  23. Bonnie, I don't know if "The People" can appeal. Aren't the DA's office & judges kinda on the same side? Both are supported by public dollars, both are supposed public servants.

  24. Bonnie said:
    "Our problem is we want the freedom, but are afraid to break the security of the very bonds that hold us back."

    That is so true, for me too. I must work on that and that anything is possible.

    Ruby Mosely reminds me of something - I read an article about Murray and his practice awhile back, quite awhile ago. I don't know if I shared it here or if I even kept it. So, this is from memory...

    Murray took over from a previous doctor that was like his mentor, could have been his own father, I don't remember. What I do remember is it was a humanitarian mission, kind of like an old-time doctor that would treat his patients whether they could pay or not, even accepting acts of kindness as payment. That's what I remember, the impression it left upon me. I'll see if I can find it again.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.