lazycrockett said:

N who is this Jane Velez-Mitchell woman on HLN, cause shes an evil bitch.

You've never seen her before? I don't know who's more dramatic and annoying her or Nancy Grace...I can't stand either one of them.

musicjunky318 said:

babybugz said:

They don't. The only way he will get off is if the jury is a bunch of idiots.

That will never happen.

To be quite honest, it'll be worse for him if they don't put him in jail.

Maybe. Nothing surprise me anymore i'm just watching.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

That will never happen.

To be quite honest, it'll be worse for him if they don't put him in jail.

Acquitted or convicted, everyone will know he killed Michael Jackson. He can't shake that off.

Which is exactly why if they don't throw him jail all hell will break lose. He wouldn't be safe on the street either.

Just the way the media and others put michael through hell for years there is some doubt in my mind.. I would be pleased if this doctor get what's coming to him.

babybugz said:

Just the way the media and others put michael through hell for years there is some doubt in my mind.. I would be pleased if this doctor get what's coming to him.

dag said:

to Mr. Steinberg.

Mr Steinberg is hot...he can come and check my chest anytime!

Timmy84 said:

lazycrockett said:

N who is this Jane Velez-Mitchell woman on HLN, cause shes an evil bitch.

I see you're not aware of that ho that was always on CourtTV (truTV) talking shit about Michael.

I didn't know that, but she seems impressed with the cardiologist's (Steinberg) testimony. My first time watching the trial.

if the defense's main argument in their opening statement was that mj took the fatal dose of propofol himself, and now they've taken that out of the mix, where do they go for reasonable doubt? what 'lot of stuff' could they have on their side? that's wishful thinking.

how are they going to raise reasonable doubt in the face of murray's massive LIES? jesus christ on a cracker, the man claimed that mj made security pee at a non-existent gas station in his interview. what jury would believe a word that comes out of his or his counsel's mouths?

for the record, the l.a. times ran an article talking about the massive debate between the d.a. and the lapd about whether they could go for 2nd degree murder v. involuntary manslaughter. the d.a. made the call, much to the disappointment of the lapd. clearly the detectives thought the evidence met the standard for a higher charge.

[Edited 10/12/11 17:22pm]

catpark said:

dag said:

to Mr. Steinberg.

Mr Steinberg is hot...he can come and check my chest anytime!

He sort of have the same looks as the cardiologist I once had in NY: salt and pepper hair, in his fifties, tanned, and nice looking. I kid you not. I was being treated for irregular heartbeats.

angel345 said:

catpark said:

Mr Steinberg is hot...he can come and check my chest anytime!

He sort of have the same looks as the cardiologist I once had in NY: salt and pepper hair, in his fifties, tanned, and nice looking. I kid you not. I was being treated for irregular heartbeats.

Did you flirt and flutter your eye lashes at him? I would of done just for the fun of it

Pass the cute looks I hope he sorted out your problems for you tho.

catpark said:

dag said:

to Mr. Steinberg.

Mr Steinberg is hot...he can come and check my chest anytime!

He is SEXY!!!!! Totally shocked my heart with his charm

catpark said:

angel345 said:

He sort of have the same looks as the cardiologist I once had in NY: salt and pepper hair, in his fifties, tanned, and nice looking. I kid you not. I was being treated for irregular heartbeats.

Did you flirt and flutter your eye lashes at him? I would of done just for the fun of it

Pass the cute looks I hope he sorted out your problems for you tho.

I have never flirted with doctors that way because my first petrified thought is my health. He has been very helpful, and nothing life threatening. Thank God.

Yeah it's really not my thing either at all in real life, but I do get sensitive if you know what I mean though it has nothing to do with attraction

Timmy84 said:

^ I've seen people with bodies as thin looking as Michael's that were indeed healthy. In fact, Michael was skinny his entire life. He was always lanky. It seemed he probably lost a bit of weight prior to his death. Even with clothes on, his appearance in the autopsy photo don't differ much from how he look during the This Is It rehearsals.

[Edited 10/11/11 23:42pm]

This is how I would describe the body in the photo. That person did not look like he was starving or had anorexia or wasting syndrome.

Just look like someone of "slight" build.

lazycrockett said:

N who is this Jane Velez-Mitchell woman on HLN, cause shes an evil bitch.

You should've seen back in 2005. She, Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, and Gloria Allred cover the previous case and they ALL appeared on each other's shows.....wearing the same outfits and hairdo

Timmy84 said:

L4OATheOriginal said:

lol daq. yeah he seems 2 know his standard of care procedures like he wrote it! lol

hmmm he found SIX violations on murray tho!

something tells me tho if anyone is a hospital under care and the nurse comes with prophofal ..we might get scared for ourselves or family members..

Propofol is scary anyway. I definitely wouldn't trust a nurse or doctor prescribing it!

Given with proper supervision and monitoring it is a good tool. If your heart goes into a funky rhythm and you need to be shocked to restart heart in better rhythm.... YOU WILL WANT PROPOFOL.

it is VERY painful (cruel and unusual) to do a cardioversion without it.

Just don't let anyone "prescribe" it for sleep.

bboy87 said:

lazycrockett said:

N who is this Jane Velez-Mitchell woman on HLN, cause shes an evil bitch.

You should've seen back in 2005. She, Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, and Gloria Allred cover the previous case and they ALL appeared on each other's shows.....wearing the same outfits and hairdo

I do watch them from time to time but jane is too animated for me in this trial smh.

prodigalfan said:

Timmy84 said:

^ I've seen people with bodies as thin looking as Michael's that were indeed healthy. In fact, Michael was skinny his entire life. He was always lanky. It seemed he probably lost a bit of weight prior to his death. Even with clothes on, his appearance in the autopsy photo don't differ much from how he look during the This Is It rehearsals.

[Edited 10/11/11 23:42pm]

This is how I would describe the body in the photo. That person did not look like he was starving or had anorexia or wasting syndrome.

Just look like someone of "slight" build.

prodigalfan said:

Timmy84 said:

Propofol is scary anyway. I definitely wouldn't trust a nurse or doctor prescribing it!

Given with proper supervision and monitoring it is a good tool. If your heart goes into a funky rhythm and you need to be shocked to restart heart in better rhythm.... YOU WILL WANT PROPOFOL.

it is VERY painful (cruel and unusual) to do a cardioversion without it.

Just don't let anyone "prescribe" it for sleep.

I take it from some of your comments that you might work in the medical field. It is very enlightening to read comments from someone with a medical background. I take it propofol might be the same drug used in procedures such as a colonoscopy? If so, I have taken it as a patient and I would never consider using it at home even with medical personnel in attendance for a sleep disorder...and I do periodically suffer from bad insomnia. The information in this trial is very enlightening from medical experts on the prosecution's side.

BTW--just a silly thing I noticed-- the last doctor I saw on the stand today reminded me of Norman Bates, sorry to say, with all the grimaces, hand gestures, and slicked-down nerdiness. It didn't take away from his testimony but I found him a little creepy. I'm not sure of his name--I came back to the trial for snippets of the testimony as I was doing other work.

lazycrockett said:

All the defense has to do is prove reasonable doubt. The case isnt air tight and we will just have to wait and see where the defense tries to pokes holes in to it.

[Edited 10/12/11 16:32pm]

I'm with you Crockett. I never thought Casey Anthony would get off but she did.

Sorry Michael weight didn't sit well with me in This is it .

Timmy84 said:

Musicslave said:

Wow that's a major concession! I wonder what's next a plea deal or is it too late for that?

A plea deal could happen. I wonder if the defense is now gonna say Murray didn't know Michael had died from his (Murray's) dosage??? They just put their boy deeper in the hole with this semi-white flag giving up decision.

Changing tactics mid-trial is huge! The defense is in serious trouble. A plea deal might be their best bet the way this is going, but remember, the prosecution does not have to agree to a plea deal.

L4OATheOriginal said:

PatrickS77 said:

Yeah!

That fucking lawyer is so clueless and annoying and grasping at straws

if i was the prosecution i wouldn't even recross this witness he's basically said in so many ways and times that i'm using your own clients words against him, he fucked up

The defense screwed up by asking too many questions requiring an explanation. He should have confined it to yes or no questions because the guy already showed how well he explains things.

I've seen public defenders do better.

Timmy84 said:

This is just funny. The defense's case already falling apart on day one. They might as well just rest!

LOL! I think it's still the prosecution's case, they haven't rested yet. This is only defense cross examination.

babynoz said:

Timmy84 said:

This is just funny. The defense's case already falling apart on day one. They might as well just rest!

LOL! I think it's still the prosecution's case, they haven't rested yet. This is only defense cross examination.

Ah OK...

babynoz said:

Timmy84 said:

A plea deal could happen. I wonder if the defense is now gonna say Murray didn't know Michael had died from his (Murray's) dosage??? They just put their boy deeper in the hole with this semi-white flag giving up decision.

Changing tactics mid-trial is huge! The defense is in serious trouble. A plea deal might be their best bet the way this is going, but remember, the prosecution does not have to agree to a plea deal.

Right.

purplethunder3121 said:

prodigalfan said:

Given with proper supervision and monitoring it is a good tool. If your heart goes into a funky rhythm and you need to be shocked to restart heart in better rhythm.... YOU WILL WANT PROPOFOL.

it is VERY painful (cruel and unusual) to do a cardioversion without it.

Just don't let anyone "prescribe" it for sleep.

I take it from some of your comments that you might work in the medical field. It is very enlightening to read comments from someone with a medical background. I take it propofol might be the same drug used in procedures such as a colonoscopy? If so, I have taken it as a patient and I would never consider using it at home even with medical personnel in attendance for a sleep disorder...and I do periodically suffer from bad insomnia. The information in this trial is very enlightening from medical experts on the prosecution's side.

BTW--just a silly thing I noticed-- the last doctor I saw on the stand today reminded me of Norman Bates, sorry to say, with all the grimaces, hand gestures, and slicked-down nerdiness. It didn't take away from his testimony but I found him a little creepy. I'm not sure of his name--I came back to the trial for snippets of the testimony as I was doing other work.

Yes, the irony. I am a cardiac catheterization nurse.

I work with the "Dr. Murray's" every day performing the procedure described to the other patient that testified that Murray "saved his life".

He is not a surgeon... he is a Interventionalist Cardiologist. The top dog in his field and already capable of making TONS of money.

Our fellow doctors opt to go into cardiology because of the specialties... cardiology is one of the most lucrative fields. And to go even more specialized and become an INTERVENTIONAL cardiologist.... they are the creme of the le'creme. All doctors who want to be interventionalist will NOT be offered a fellowship to interventionalist. Only the best.

But let me just say this... he is not an Anesthesiologist. When he needs to put a patient totally out for a procedure... he has to get another doctor... one who has extensive and exclusive training in anesthesia.

Of course Dr. Murray is not that skilled in CPR. He is an older doctor and CPR is not his specialty. He probably only demonstrates his CPR skills once every 2 years when it is time to recertifiy.

When we have emergencies in the lab... the nurses are quickest and most adapt to respond to the emergencies.... if the Blood pressure goes into the basement... I already have fluids flooding and preparing Dopamine drip before the doctor even realizes that the b/p has dropped. If the heart rate slows to a crawl, I'm telling the doctor that the heart rate is 36 and before he can say "Atropine", I already have it in my hands.

A cardiac cath doctor works on a stable patient. and if the patient becomes unstable they call code blue. That is the extent of his expertise... the heart. he probably did a rotation in the ER and rotation in ICU but the bulk of his post medical school learning was strictly about the heart.

The nurses on the other hand has to have EXTENSIVE experience in critical care in order to even become a cath lab nurse... so the nurses are experienced with handling patients that are UNSTABLE because that is the type of patient in ICU... unstable patients.

So I just don't get this doctor Murray even attempted this setup. So foolhearted. smh.

purplethunder3121 said:

prodigalfan said:

Given with proper supervision and monitoring it is a good tool. If your heart goes into a funky rhythm and you need to be shocked to restart heart in better rhythm.... YOU WILL WANT PROPOFOL.

it is VERY painful (cruel and unusual) to do a cardioversion without it.

Just don't let anyone "prescribe" it for sleep.

I take it from some of your comments that you might work in the medical field. It is very enlightening to read comments from someone with a medical background. I take it propofol might be the same drug used in procedures such as a colonoscopy? If so, I have taken it as a patient and I would never consider using it at home even with medical personnel in attendance for a sleep disorder...and I do periodically suffer from bad insomnia. The information in this trial is very enlightening from medical experts on the prosecution's side.

BTW--just a silly thing I noticed-- the last doctor I saw on the stand today reminded me of Norman Bates, sorry to say, with all the grimaces, hand gestures, and slicked-down nerdiness. It didn't take away from his testimony but I found him a little creepy. I'm not sure of his name--I came back to the trial for snippets of the testimony as I was doing other work.

Oh and yes, Propofol may have been used in colonoscopy if you were completely out. I would bet though they used Versed and Fentanyl. Sort of like a twilight combo. Propofol is easy to use... but since it can only be given by an Anesthesiologist or Nurse anethestics... no one wants to wait for them to show up for your case. If you can keep the patient comfortable and sedated without propofol... then that is what you rather do.

Besides... Propofol has the potential for some tricky and deadly adverse reactions.... low b/p and respiratory arrest are the 2 big ones.

prodigalfan said:

purplethunder3121 said:

I take it from some of your comments that you might work in the medical field. It is very enlightening to read comments from someone with a medical background. I take it propofol might be the same drug used in procedures such as a colonoscopy? If so, I have taken it as a patient and I would never consider using it at home even with medical personnel in attendance for a sleep disorder...and I do periodically suffer from bad insomnia. The information in this trial is very enlightening from medical experts on the prosecution's side.

BTW--just a silly thing I noticed-- the last doctor I saw on the stand today reminded me of Norman Bates, sorry to say, with all the grimaces, hand gestures, and slicked-down nerdiness. It didn't take away from his testimony but I found him a little creepy. I'm not sure of his name--I came back to the trial for snippets of the testimony as I was doing other work.

Oh and yes, Propofol may have been used in colonoscopy if you were completely out. I would bet though they used Versed and Fentanyl. Sort of like a twilight combo. Propofol is easy to use... but since it can only be given by an Anesthesiologist or Nurse anethestics... no one wants to wait for them to show up for your case. If you can keep the patient comfortable and sedated without propofol... then that is what you rather do.

Besides... Propofol has the potential for some tricky and deadly adverse reactions.... low b/p and respiratory arrest are the 2 big ones.

This is the exact testimony that the second physician gave. He's a pulmonary/sleep specialist. He said that he has used propofol in the ICU, but there are restrictions in using it. Both doctors have agreed and testified that Propofol should have never been used in a home setting. You need supervision and proper medical equipment for it. A nurse like you for an example should have been by his side or any patient.

angel345 said:

prodigalfan said:

Oh and yes, Propofol may have been used in colonoscopy if you were completely out. I would bet though they used Versed and Fentanyl. Sort of like a twilight combo. Propofol is easy to use... but since it can only be given by an Anesthesiologist or Nurse anethestics... no one wants to wait for them to show up for your case. If you can keep the patient comfortable and sedated without propofol... then that is what you rather do.

Besides... Propofol has the potential for some tricky and deadly adverse reactions.... low b/p and respiratory arrest are the 2 big ones.

This is the exact testimony that the second physician gave. He's a pulmonary/sleep specialist. He said that he has used propofol in the ICU, but there are restrictions in using it. Both doctors have agreed and testified that Propofol should have never been used in a home setting. You need supervision and proper medical equipment for it. A nurse like you for an example should have been by his side or any patient.

At least 2 nurses like me... and all the monitoring equipment. Simply because if there was an emergency.,.. you need a second pair of skilled hands. You are fighting to save a life. You don't have time to describe what an ambu bag looks like... or how to connect it to an oxygen tank while you are trying to revive a person. The second person just needs to KNOW and DO.

I LOVE these 2 expert witnesses. I hope the jury was paying attention, becasue what I read about the testimonies... that was the real deal. Just like I have been saying all along. Funny how the doctors kept saying they have NEVER heard of Propofol used for sleep. I haven't heard or met anyone in my line of work who have heard of this before.

They don't even lock or count propofol at the hospitals. It is NOT a controlled substance.

You don't get high off of it, you don't get addicted to it.... It just has none of those affects. It just makes you go unconcious and then you "wake up". No rested feeling, you don't feel like you slept.

I am baffled... and the doctors are as well.

I didn't see the testimony live. did the doctors seem APPALLED that Murray would even do this? It

sounds like it from the article I read.