***Trial discussion...opening statements begin today

Flannagan, yes I agree, good but dickhead. That could actually go in favor of the prosecution if the jury doesnt like him and feels he bullies the witnesses. It is BS though, not to ask hypotheticals, but to go after a hypothetical answer the way in which he does. He so vigorously goes after the answers as if he is trying to turn the hypothetical into the truth, and I agree paulie the jurors arent going to remember that. They will remember answers most likely but hopefully if they dont like him and his approach, they will remember the way in which the question was asked:) One thing I have noticed is that some of the witnesses, when the defense does that, will sometimes repeat IF and HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, and stuff like that when answering the questions.

Dan Anderson's evidence today is starting to make it look like the only way propofol got into MJ, was via the syringe in the tubing, and not from the saline bag. I can't remember if MJs fingerprints were found on that syringe or not - anyone?

I don't believe MJ's fingerprints were found anywhere......not that I can recall at least. Just a print from Fleak and Murray (on a propofol bottle)

MJ's fingerprints not on anything!!

dareme wrote:

MJ's fingerprints not on anything!!

Right. so no demeroll/cocaine/marijuana/alcohol in MJ, no MJ prints on any medication - I think the defence case is about to collapse!

But again, why didn't they find Alvarez's fingerprints on the saline bag?

I could not figure out from all of the numbers toxicologist was throwing out there why they came to occlusion that it was acute propofol intoxication. All numbers looked small to me.

* conclusion

paulie the conclusion you can come to is that several people could have touched the saline bag which smears fingerprints and stuff. That is the problem they had. They only found one print and its Murrays and it was on the propofol bottle in question. The point is that none of Mcihaels prints were found on propofol bottles or syringes. And to my knowledge, it has not been said that Alvarez was printed. I would think he would be, but I havent heard that.

ksk the numbers look small but in the medical world they deal in small numbers so these numbers could be fairly large. And evidently it is where the propofol is concerned.

Alvarez also testified that he "carefully" removed the bag. Who knows....not everything a person touches leaves a legit print.

Where is Ed Winters? Is he going to testify? Or did he quit? Why did Flanagan said: "Where is Mr. Winters. He's nit here, is he?"

nit= not

Very true paulie! ksk I dont kow if he will testify. I think he will. It makes sense for him too.

So listening to Murray today just angered me at all the lies. I almost stopped listening. I'm kinda glad I missed part of it. Also glad that Flannagan and his stupid way of questioning got the smack down today! How ridiculous was that?? Well I thought his questioning was ridiculous anyway.

I did not hear the smackdown. What was it about?

I only heard judge angry when someone walked into the room.

What lies are you talking about, dareme? The tape of his "testimony"?

Yes Murrays recorded account. And the judge not allowing Flannagan to keep asking the same stupid question over and over. He kept sustaining the prosecutions objections. Thats what meant by smack down.

People have lied since 26 June 2009. It is the reason none of us can figure out what went on. Some swear MJ was addicted, some swear he was not. Some swear he had a great rehearsal on 24th and was excited about going to London. Others say he was in excruciating pain on 24th and came offstage saying 'we can't go on'. That he tried to cancel the concerts. Murrays girlfriend says Murray was with MJ 5 days a week. Murray (on tape) says he treated MJ every day for 2 months, and only stopped the propofol for 3 days. etc etc etc.

If anyone wonders why fans come up with conspiracy theories, it is because of all the lies. It is only natural that we make up our own minds, when there no facts for 2 years. and still the lies go on....

Well hopefully his lies will all be revealed.

Entire interview is on TMZ in PDF format.

Oh God, they are showing autopsy photos at the trial today. I'm having to listen on the net and block the live feed pictures!

The forensic guy from the coroner has said:

no milky liquid in the oesophagus or stomach (so no propofol)
no pills or capsules in the stomach (so MJ didn't swallow sedative pills)
70 mg of brown liquid (not yet stated what this was - was it Cola?)

He is critical of Murray administering the propofol without an IV pump to measure the amount of propofol, Murray not having any proper monitoring equipment. He says this is what led to him declaring it a homocide.

They only showed 1 picture and it wasn't on the screen long.

That "rag" TMZ has the pic posted....boy they didn't waste any time.

It's all over the Internet.... Same picture everywhere... I wonder why it says August 25th on it. Is it really a mistake? And why is it from that vantage point? Is that standard way to take them from above??

I am just glad it's not very clear...

I think it's already clear enough. I was actually expecting something a lot more blurred. Not like this.

Yeah its pretty clear. It looks like the first picture they took before they moved him to the slab. You can see he's still in the sheet he was covered in for the helicopter ride. And I'm sure its pretty standard to get a full body shot like that. There are probably alot more with close ups of every part of his body before and after the autopsy. They generally log the marks on the body. Its hard to look at. Not that he looks bad, but that its him and its sad.

I agree with Ksk that it is a lil blurry. That vantage point was a lil weird for me too, but I agree it's him. It makes me sick to my stomach to look at that.

Some fans are already saying the autopsy photo is a photoshop, from In The Closet. Well, as it's MJ of course the face is going to look the same duh - but what about the rest of the body?
Others have said the whole photo is a composite. Whilst I'd love that to be true, I think they need to give it a rest.

Unfortunately, I have now seen the photo and can't unsee it.

The trial is a complete violation of the man's privacy.

I agree Vbond about the photo. Unfortunately these kinds of photos are used in courtrooms everyday. The only difference is that they are not shown to the world. I will say that at least my mind is at rest about the whole skeletal thing. He was skinny yes, but not at all skeletal. No ribs sticking out or anything. The way they were talking you would have thought he looked like someone from a nazi prison camp. That is literally the picture I had in my mind from all the reports. He didnt look like that at all. Not old, not bald, and not skeletal. Now that I have seen the photo, and like you said, cant unsee it, I would like to see the clearer version of it. Because I know there is one. This picture is a copy of a copy. I will probably never see it though and thats ok by me. I dont need to see a cleaner version to make up my mind.

Unfortunately, there are many people who are hanging on to anything they can. Denial is not a healthy thing, not to mention utterly ridiculous at this point. I say give it a rest already.....

I so agree with you Paulie, but I am in BIG TIME denial and I guess will just keep looking for any little thing until it's just pointless. :( I see the picture and I know it's him without question.. But for some reason I wont let my mind go there yet :(

Sorry Tracy.....hope you can find peace some day.

Lets please be careful about using the word ridiculous. It can be misunderstood as a personal attack against someones feelings.

Thank you

They just said before they broke that 4 fingerprints were identifiable on the cut saline bag but that they were not identified. I thought before they said it wasnt identifiable because the prints were all smeared or something? Anyway, did they say whether or not Alvarez was printed? I dont remember now. I mean whose prints were they? I guess it could have been handled by others not in the house.

I told you! Alvarez' prints were not found on that bag! That's why I am so confused!

dareme.....nah.....you guys are more "thick skinned" than that I would hope....lol. No personal attack intended.

We just want to make sure, especially since the autopsy picture is out, that we are sensitive to one another's feelings is all. We are VERY "thick skinned" in here, trust me! We have had our issues with a few people that got pretty radical and ruffled up our members, so it was just a friendly reminder. We know that it was not a personal attack. We have NO issues with talking about a video theory but when it comes to the members on here we just try to give the same respect to everyone no matter their beliefs. People have a right to their feelings... whether or not we feel it's ridiculous, it isn't to them. We don't want anyone afraid to post for fear of ridicule. I think you have been great, so no worries :)

Paulie, do you want to have an avatar? I didn't know if you didn't have one because you didn't know how or you just didn't want one.. If you do not know how I can walk you through that, or you can give me a picture and I can do that for you.

Yes paulie I know it wasnt a personal attack but misunderstandings happen and thats why I said be careful. Like Tracy said, just a friendly reminder.

I will not be here much longer anyway, so no, I do not need an avatar...thanks.

Aw are you leaving us paulie?

Why are you leaving us???

Hey, Trace...if I send you a picture, can you make me look like Sandra Bullock???? Ahahahaha!!!!!!

Sorry to hear you're leaving us, paulie. I know you and I didn't get to talk much, but I really enjoyed the times we did. Good luck and blessings to you and yours.

I haven't left yet....lol. When the trial is over.

Just figured I'd go ahead and wish you well. I have mush brain these days and do well to remember what day it is!!!!!

dareme wrote:

I agree Vbond about the photo. Unfortunately these kinds of photos are used in courtrooms everyday. The only difference is that they are not shown to the world. I will say that at least my mind is at rest about the whole skeletal thing. He was skinny yes, but not at all skeletal. No ribs sticking out or anything. The way they were talking you would have thought he looked like someone from a nazi prison camp. That is literally the picture I had in my mind from all the reports. He didnt look like that at all. Not old, not bald, and not skeletal. Now that I have seen the photo, and like you said, cant unsee it, I would like to see the clearer version of it. Because I know there is one. This picture is a copy of a copy. I will probably never see it though and thats ok by me. I dont need to see a cleaner version to make up my mind.

I never believed he looked old, bald or skeletal anyway. I think those descriptions were as a result of the 'he looked like a hospice patient' comment. I'm sure those comments were made up by some tabloid. If I remember correctly, someone asked the paramedic what he meant by that and he said because of the IV etc in the room.

I think what upset me most about the pic were the bruises all over his torso, and all the gauze taped to his arms.

Yes Vbond it was all tabloid garbage but still put that image in my head. I never really believed it either. For months I tried to convince people that he wore wigs but he wasnt bald. I couldnt understand all the talk about how he was unrecognizable and all that. Of course in the trial the one paramedic said he did recognize him so it was all lies. But still when you hear something over and over, even if you dont believe it, you cant help but get a picture of it.

Those bruises upset me to. He's so bruised up:(

Did anyone see the hearing today? Was there one?

I saw it on CNN live events schedule but they just took it down! Anyone knows what's up?

How was yesterday's hearing? I think it was good for Murray. He had that look as if he was enjoying, right? Especially during the drip demo... There was that look of total ecstasy on his face. I think he felt it.

I thought yesterday was horrible for Murray. Today the defense is cross examining and its not as bad for him today so far. I think the prosecution did better yesterday but the defense is getting in some good points today I think. They are on a break right now.

It worried me today.. By the end of the day, defense was sort of crackin' down on the prosecution.. They did bring up some valid points so now even I could see how reasonable doubt can be concluded. SHIT! It's not as cut and dry as I thought it would be. Maybe by Monday they will say something that will put things into better perspective for me so I no longer can see any doubt. To me he is guilty.. But damnit I can see where the doubt creeps in!

Of course they will say something! The prosecution will come back and let Schafer clarify everything the defense didnt. What exactly is going on with the defense team? I sensed something was off with Flanagan, and Tracy you told me Chernoff took over but it didnt click that it happened today til I saw something on Jane Valez Mitchell. She said that there is bad blood between Flanagan and Chernoff today. It happened just today?? Flanagan didnt look happy thats for sure!!

Unfortunately, I was only able to hear it and not see anything as I was at work.... but I did find it eventually shortly after I posted my previous comment.

When I said Murray was enjoying it I was being sarcastic... The prosecution and the witness was giving it to him and he was "enjoying" it to the fullest - NOT. At least that's what I gathered from CNN snippet where Walgren tore something off of the bottle, they said that Murray finally showed emotion... He was like deer in the headlights, he didn't like it and looked worried.

I could not follow much of what prosecution was saying today because Chernoff has that manner where he jumps from thing to thing and he does not act as professional as Walgren. Walgren is much easier to understand for me, which is good, I think. Hopefully, jury was as confused as I was today by what Chernoff was trying to do and points he was making. The only point I got that wasn't so pretty was when he asked the witness when he made his decision about propofol bottle being in the bag. And even then, even though doubt crept in, the witness was quite articulate as defending his theory.

I think everything is going OK for prosecution. So far the defense is not impressing me much at all.

Yes they are not impressing me either, though I thought today could have brought some worry to the prosecution but I know on re-direct( or whatever) they will slam dunk it. I hope.