Der Murray Prozess (Fahrlässige Tötung) - Diskussion

[bvollmer13]

vielen lieben dank für die einstellung der anhörung liebe lena.
das war sehr klar und deutlich.ich finde die verteidigung wirkt
wirklich sehr hilflos.manchmal fast lächerlich-aber wie will man
auch vernünftige argumente gegen murrays schuld finden,wo
offensichtlich keine sind?ich denke auch,dass er eigentlich besser gefahren
wäre alles zuzugeben.das hätte ihm sicher auch bei der strafe geholfen,oder?

[Bernarda]

Hi Dreamdancer, diese Aussage hat der Sanitäter vor Gericht gemacht. Klatschreporter waren daran nich beteiligt.

Hi Courage
Die Verteidigung muß nicht Murrays Unschuld beweisen, um einen Freispruch zu erlangen.
Sie muß nur "Zweifel an der Schuld" des Angeklagten wecken. Das reicht für einen Freispruch.
Und genau das versuchen sie, und deswegen versuchen sie auf Teufel komm raus zu tricksen.
Das wird sich noch steigern.
Bei der Sachlage haben sie gar keine andere Möglichkeit, ihren Mandanten frei zu kriegen.

Bernarda

[cori79]

ich hoffe, daß Gericht sieht keine Zweifel und durchschaut dieses Spiel. Selbst wenn sie keine eindeutigen Beweise finden daß Murray für den Tod von Michael Jackson verantwortlich war, so muß er zumindest für den Gebrauch von Propofol
in einem Privathaushalt bestraft werden.
Ich kann daran einfach noch nicht glauben, daß Murray als freier Mann da herausstolziert und sich dann ausgelassen auf Hawai sonnt mit nem Drink.
Dann ist dieses ganze System korrupt für mich und bestätigt meine Vermutung, daß da im Hintergrund jemand seine Fäden zieht.
Vielleicht lese ich im Moment auch nur zuviel The Trials of Michael Jackson und meine Verschwörungsgedanken sind nur wieder intensiver geworden.

[Lena]

Ja die Aussage vom Sanitäter gibt es im Gerichtsprotokoll. An Klatschreporter hatte er sie aber auch schon unmiitelbar nach Michael`s Tod verkauft.
Ich glaube es ist die einzig negative, die in der gesamten Voranhörung zum Gesundheitszustand zu finden ist. Die Aussagen der Gerichtsmediziner geben anderes wieder.

Ich finde übrigens nicht das es schleppend läuft. Die Erkenntnisse gerade sind doch sehr interessant und aufschlussreich. Und zeitlich ist doch alles im Rahmen. Die nächste Anhörung ist der 8. August. Viele wird es nicht mehr geben bis zur Juryauswahl am 8. Sept.

Und ich glaube es dürfte fast unmöglich werden der Jury Zweifel an der Schuld von Murray unterzujubeln in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass nicht mal die absurde Selbstmordtheorie (also sollte diese nicht 100%ig auszuschließen sein) zur Unschuld von Murray führt.

[Hippolytos]

vielen lieben dank für die einstellung der anhörung liebe lena.
das war sehr klar und deutlich.ich finde die verteidigung wirkt
wirklich sehr hilflos.manchmal fast lächerlich-aber wie will man
auch vernünftige argumente gegen murrays schuld finden,wo
offensichtlich keine sind?ich denke auch,dass er eigentlich besser gefahren
wäre alles zuzugeben.das hätte ihm sicher auch bei der strafe geholfen,oder?

Was soll Murray zugeben? Und warum würde er dann besser fahren?
Murray bleibt dabei, Michael nicht diese Menge P. verabreicht zu haben, die bei der Obduktion festgestellt wurde. Wenn es eine Ausrede ist, dann um der Gefahr zu begegnen, dass der ihm zur last gelegte Vorwurf nicht nachträglich noch in „Totschlag“ verwandelt wird. Besser fahren würde er damit wohl nicht.


Wir alle "kennen" und "wissen" über Murray in etwa das Gleiche, und wir haben unsere ganze Weisheit nur aus dem, was uns die Presse lieferte.
Sagt, was Ihr wollt, aber ich kann mir den Murray nicht als so skrupellos vorstellen, dass er Michael da eine große Ladung P. verpasst und dann hormon- und triebgesteuert das Zimmer verlässt um mit dem Objekt seiner Begierde zu telefonieren.

Klar, er war hundertprozentig fahrlässig, und das wird kein Verteidiger der Welt kleiner reden können. Ohne vorgeschriebene Ausstattung Narkosemittel verabreicht und den Patienten unbeobachtet gelassen: Die Menge spielt dafür keine Rolle. Denn auch mit der von Murray zugegebenen Menge hätten mit den zuvor gegebenen Medikamenten Komplikationen eintreten können. Einen Gegenbeweis gibt es nicht, kann es nicht geben.

Und dafür wird Murray vom Richter seine Strafe erhalten und in irgendeiner Form in seiner ärztlichen Praxis-Zulassung eingeschränkt werden.
Für mich ist letzteres das Wichtigere.


Die Verteidiger würden zu Unrecht so heißen, wenn sie nicht noch das letzte Zipfelchen Unklarheit ergreifen und daraus einen übergreifenden Zweifel entwickeln wollen würden.

Das Ansehen des Filmmaterials hat das Gegenteil dessen, was die Verteidiger sich davon erhofft hatten, ergeben: Michael machte keineswegs den Eindruck eines hinfälligen und lebensmüden Menschen.
Vermutlich wird nun der Vortrag der Verteidigung anders lauten:
Gerade weil Michael ihnen physisch (und psychisch) keine Begründungspunkte für ihre Selbsttötungstheorie liefert, werden sie versuchen, die von Murray zugegebene P.-Menge als noch ungefährlicher kleinzureden versuchen.
Dem aber stehen die zuvor gegebenen Medikamente entgegen, und es steht dem auch entgegen, dass Michaels Gewicht im Obduktionsbericht festgestellt wurde mit 136 Pound
(und das sind exakt 61,688 kg).

Sie werden nun vielleicht stärker auf die Möglichkeit einer dritten Person insistieren.

Und sie werden einige Ungereimtheiten anführen, die auch wirklich zu Fragen Anlass geben.

Warum sich das jedoch auf Murray mildernd auswirken könnte, kann ich nicht nachvollziehen.

[geli2709]

TwitLonger
GiGi (@gatorgirl277)

Posted Monday 1st August 2011 from Twitlonger

**Did Conrad Murray pull out the IV paramedics were using on purpose to delay the administration of resuscitation medications?**

Though I firmly believe just about all of Murray's actions prior to paramedics' arrival show a flagrant intent to harm his patient, I see no evidence that him pulling out the IV line was to delay aid. At this time Michael was deceased (no pulse, eyes fixed and dilated, lividity had begun and his limbs showed evidence of prolonged anoxia (being without oxygen because he was not breathing)). So, why delay aid on a deceased victim? Furthermore Senneff said the line was "compromised" which likely means it had clotted off or something similar to that--regardless it was not viable for medication administration anymore. Senneff initially changed IV port on the leg from a system that had to use a needle to one that was needle-less then began to use the IV but after two rounds each of atropine and EPInephrine the line was deemed compromised or unusable. Murray pulled out the line though ideally he should have waited until another line was placed even though that line was compromised--at least a line was in at that time. Another line was placed only after multiple attempts to place a line in both arms, all over the arms, failed. A successful line in the neck was placed by Senneff. Senneff also tried to hint that perhaps Murray pulled out the line because he was used to a needle system though a needle-less system is easier to use, assuming Murray had ever used one. Senneff made no indications that Murray was trying to delay aid though Murray's refusal to call 911 or have someone call 911 as soon as he found Michael (which according to Anding he found him at about 12:05 pm--paramedics did not arrive until 12:25 pm--20 minutes later which coincidentally add ups to the estimated time of death according to Senneff) in distress is the greatest delay anyone could cause to someone else in need of emergency care. If Senneff was correct in his estimation of death (20 minutes before arrival) then that means Michael was alive when Murray found him and his refusal to call 911 or have someone downstairs call immediately, beyond all the other things Murray did, that one act made death imminent and unavoidable. Senneff said 20 minutes was his estimation but said it could have been longer but he had not been deceased "for hours". Regardless, Murray's refusal to call 911 should have sent a red flag to prosecutors, even toddlers know to call 911 upon finding someone down, but apparently it did not signal anything suspicious to them or they have chosen to ignore it.

Begin reading at "You had mentioned then initially there had been an IV already in place in the patient's leg?" You can do "Ctrl+F" and type in the sentence above to do a quick location of that sentence.

http://teammichaeljackson.com/p-vcm-richard-sennef

http://tl.gd/c3k5c9 · Reply
Report post (?)
get twitter followers

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/c3k5c9

[toolate]

Danke liebe Geli,

Q : I asked is he taking any medications?

A: What did Dr.Murray tell you,if anything?

Q: "No,none, he is not taking anything" und nach nochmaliger Frage antwortet der gerissenen Murray:
.............."just a bit Lorazepam "....................

Sowas macht einen so sauer.....................na klar, der Kerl wusste, dass da mit einer ehrlichen Meinung seinerseits auch nicht mehr geholfen werden konnte........also versuchte er (vorläufig) seinen eigenen Ar*ch zu retten.

Armseliger Hanswurst!!

[Dreamerdancer]

Ich sehe es auch nicht ganz so negativ, daß es sich so lange hinzieht. Mir zeigt es, daß beide Seiten die Sache sehr ernst nehmen und alles abklopfen was möglich ist. Na klar, aus Murrays Sicht wäre es nicht nachvollziehbar, wenn er zugibt, daß er Mist gebaut hat, er wird jeden Zipfel greifen der sich ihm bietet. Was mir komisch vorkommt, wie kann ein Sanitäter eine solch krasse Aussage machen, die vom Gerichtsmediziner derart abweicht.Sanitäter sind doch auch geschultes Personal oder wollte der sich nur wichtig machen, die Story erstmal an die Presse verkaufen und es vor Gericht hat er es nur wiederholt um nicht als Idiot da zustehen, da war doch noch ein zweiter Sanitäter, hat der eigentlich auch was ausgesagt?Ich meine, wenn die das sagen, daß da ein total abgewrackter Kranker im Zimmer lag, würde das doch eher die Verteidigung von Murray unterstützen.Dem steht der Gerichtsmediziner und der Autopsiebericht gegenüber, die davon nichts sagen/schreiben, ihn eher in einem guten Zustand beschreiben. Wer ist hier glaubwürdiger und welche Rolle spielen die Aussagen des Sanitäters vor Gericht, wenn er denn aussagen sollte.Aber da er die Story so schnell der Klatschpresse gegen Geld erzählt hat, ist er für ein geldgeiler Typ, der nur rumlabert, den würde ich als Richter oder Geschworener abschießen. Ist nur so ein Gedankengang von mir.
Es erinnert mich so ein wenig an Strauss Kahn, wo das vermutliche Opfer jetzt durch die Medienlandschaft tingelt, ihre Story für Geld erzählt. Es gab und gibt noch nicht mal einen Prozess, wie glaubwürdig erscheint sie der Staatsanwaltschaft unabhängig davon, ob ihre Anschuldigen wahr sind oder nicht.Oder bin ich die Einzige, die so etwas nicht versteht.

[ILSardinia]

Es erinnert mich so ein wenig an Strauss Kahn, wo das vermutliche Opfer jetzt durch die Medienlandschaft tingelt, ihre Story für Geld erzählt. Es gab und gibt noch nicht mal einen Prozess, wie glaubwürdig erscheint sie der Staatsanwaltschaft unabhängig davon, ob ihre Anschuldigen wahr sind oder nicht.Oder bin ich die Einzige, die so etwas nicht versteht.

Als der "Fall Strauss Kahn" bekannt wurde, klingelte es bei mir gleich und ich sah Parallelen zu den Missbrauchsvorwuerfen, denen Michael ausgesetzt war. Scheinbar hat die amerikanische Justiz immer noch nichts dazugelernt. Vielleicht mal vorher recherchieren ueber angebliche Opfer, bevor man Ruf, Existenz bzw. Zukunft eines in der Oeffentlichkeit stehenden Menschen ruiniert..........
Sorry, das wich jetzt ein wenig vom Thema des threads ab, musste aber mal raus

[Memphis]

Dann ist dieses ganze System korrupt

nee, da hast du etwas falsch verstanden: ab eine gewisse preisklasse, gibt es ein anderes rechtssystem. dieses gesetz wird auch in deutschland öfter angewandt, bei ackerxxxx & co
bei den normalen gesetzt ist es so:
wenn da einer drei kekse "klaut" wird er entlassen und bekommt eine sperre beim arbeitsamt
bei den gesetz, der luxusklasse, ist es so:
einer "klaut" 15 millionen, muss 2 millionen strafe zahlen, und darf den rest legal behalten

zu den michael-prozess:
sicherlich hat dr. murray fehler gemacht, wofür er sich verantworten muss. aber man sollte ihn auch eine chance geben, da keiner von uns wirklich weiss, was passiert ist. ich persönlich glaube nicht an die mordtheorie.

[TrueCrypt]

zu den michael-prozess:
sicherlich hat dr. murray fehler gemacht, wofür er sich verantworten muss. aber man sollte ihn auch eine chance geben, da keiner von uns wirklich weiss, was passiert ist. ich persönlich glaube nicht an die mordtheorie.

...nun ja, das Ares Theorie aufgehen wird, daran glaube ich auch nicht.....nur denke ich das CM nicht allein war.....das steht aber auf einen anderen Blatt...eine Chance....vom Gedanken, schwer ganz schwer mir vorzustellen....das Herz spricht anders---Warten Wir es ab....Recht wird gesprochen!
Nur ob es gerecht ist.....das werden Wir dann sehen....

[geli2709]

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Martin Blount's Hearing Testimony--01/06/11

January 6th, 2011




MARTIN BLOUNT-- L.A. FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC


Mr. Blount has been a firefighter for 20 years and a paramedic for 11 years.

DIRECT EXAMINATION: MR. WALGREN

Blount and the rest of his team were escorted through the gate at Carolwood. They subsequently drove around the pond to the front doors of the residence. Blount and his team went through the front doors of the residence--they were then directed to go upstairs. Blount was towards the back of the team when entering the bedroom. He and his team entered into a foyer area and then into the bedroom. The following is Blount's recollection of what he saw once entering the bedroom:

Blount: I OBSERVED A MALE LYING ON THE BED VERY PALE, VERY THIN AND AT THAT TIME, THE NEXT TIME I SAW HIM WAS WHEN THE GUYS IN FRONT OF ME GOT HIM OFF THE BED AND PUT HIM ON THE FLOOR.

Walgren: OKAY. WELL, WHEN YOU SAW THE PATIENT, WAS HE ON THE FLOOR?

Blount: NO, SIR. HE WAS IN THE BED.

Blount remarks that besides his team being in the room he also saw Conrad Murray.

Blount: HE WAS SWEATING PROFUSELY AND HE WAS VERY ANIMATED. HE WAS LIKE, "HEY, YOU NEED TO HELP HIM. HE'S NOT BREATHING."

Walgren: AND YOU NOTICED THAT HE WAS SWEATING PROFUSELY AT THAT TIME?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Walgren: WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE, DID YOU TELL THEM THAT YOU'D OBSERVED THE PATIENT ACTUALLY BEING ON THE FLOOR AT THE TIME YOU ENTERED THE ROOM?

Blount: YES, I PROBABLY DID BECAUSE ONCE I ENTERED THE ROOM, THE GUYS ALREADY PUT HIM ON THE BED -- PUT HIM ON THE FLOOR. I'M SORRY.

Walgren: THAT IS MY QUESTION.

Blount: YES.

Blount agrees that once he entered the room Michael was on the floor. Previously he stated that the "guys in front of him got him off the bed and put him on the floor." This contradicts that earlier testimony that Michael's security had moved Michael to the floor before paramedics had arrived.

Blount recalls that the IV stand was "over on my left-hand side of the room, on my left-hand side when I walked in".

Michael was moved to the foot of the bed onto the floor.

Blount states that he is the driver and also considered a "patient person" meaning he is hands-on with the patient once he gets to the scene. He also states that he is typically one of the last ones to get to the scene because he has to open the back of the gurney, grab the gurney, grab his monitor and trauma box which contains things like needles and drugs. The monitor is called a "Life Pack 12" and is a defibrillator.

Blount then states that his position requires him to be at the head of the patient--which he assumed once in the room.

Walgren: DO YOU HEAR THE DEFENDANT, DOCTOR MURRAY, BEING ASKED IF ANY DRUGS HAD BEEN GIVEN?

Blount: YES. WE ASKED HIM, HAS THE PATIENT, IS HE ON ANY MEDICATIONS, HE TOOK ANY RECREATIONAL DRUGS AND THE ANSWER WAS NO.

Walgren: WHAT YOU HEARD WAS NO?

Blount: YES.

Walgren: AND WAS THERE ANY MENTION BY THE DEFENDANT REGARDING A SALINE I.V. BAG OR TREATMENT WITH AN I.V. BAG?

Blount: NO. IT WAS NOT MENTIONED UNTIL WE ASKED.

Walgren: OKAY. AND WHAT WERE YOU TOLD?

Blount: HE SAID THAT THE REASON WHY THE PATIENT HAD THE I.V. BAG ATTACHED TO HIS LEG WAS BECAUSE HE REHEARSALED THE NIGHT BEFORE. HE WAS EXHAUSTED.

Blount also states that Murray said that Michael was also dehydrated.

Walgren then asks Blount if he heard Murray say how long rehearsals had been the previous day. Blount says he cannot recall. Walgren then asks if he recalls telling police he had heard "16 hours" from Murray. The defense objects based on recollection and leading and the objection is sustained. Blount also cannot recall if someone asked about the health of the patient.

Walgren: WERE YOU EVER TOLD ANYTHING BY DOCTOR MURRAY REGARDING THE PATIENT HAVING RECEIVED A PHYSICAL?

Blount: YES, I REMEMBER.

Walgren: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU IN THAT REGARD?

Blount: THAT THE PATIENT HAS GONE TO HIS PRIVATE PHYSICIAN PROBABLY LIKE A WEEK PRIOR TO THIS EPISODE.

(Side note--who was this physician and why did Michael see him?)

Walgren: NOW WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN DOCTOR MURRAY WAS ASKED HOW LONG THE PATIENT HAD BEEN DOWN?

Blount: YES, SIR, I WAS PRESENT.

Walgren: AND WHAT DID YOU HEAR DOCTOR MURRAY SAY IN RESPONSE?

Blount: HE SAID, DOWN FOR ABOUT A MINUTE PRIOR TO CALLING 911.

Walgren: OTHER THAN THE I.V. STAND, DO YOU RECALL SEEING ANY MEDICAL EQUIPMENT UPON YOUR ENTRY INTO THE ROOM?

Blount: YES. I SAW AN O2 (oxygen) CYLINDER ON THE STAND.

Walgren: ANY TYPE OF HEART MONITORS? ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?

Blount: NO, SIR. THAT IS THE ONLY THING I SAW.

Blount saw no pulse oximeter or EKG monitoring device. He recalls a nasal cannula being attached to Michael's face, to his nose. He states that when a patient has on a full mask they get more oxygen, however with a smaller device like a nasal cannula the patient may get "maybe like 2 milliliters of air going inside".

Walgren: DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING, ANY OTHER, ANY TYPE OF MECHANICAL VENTILATORS, ENDOTRACHEAL TUBING, ANYTHING ON THE FINGERS, ANYTHING AT ALL AS FAR AS MEDICAL EQUIPMENT THAT YOU OBSERVED?

Blount: NO, SIR.

Blount's primary duty is to try and establish an airway in the patient. Blount was able to place an endotracheal tube down Michael's trachea. He said it took him about 20-30 seconds to intubate Michael. Once the endotracheal tube is placed air was then delivered to Michael via a physical hand pump. Blount says other team members are doing compressions, looking for IV access, etc.

Blount then remarks that he and his team see the IV in the leg and notice it is "not patent, it was not flowing properly". Paramedic Mark Goodwin begins looking for an IV site in Michael's arms. Blount states Goodwin was having a hard time finding an IV site which resulted in multiple punctures. Walgren then asks Blount if he was able to feel the temperature of Michael's skin. Blount did and remarks he was "cool" and states that to him this means "it seemed like he's been down for awhile". Blount remarks that the entire time his team was there Michael had no viable heart rhythm, that Michael was "asystole the whole time".

Blount is then asked if while he was intubating the patient if rounds of drugs were being given him at that time. He states they were not at that time. He states he first began providing air to Michael once he got the endotracheal tube secured while his team was looking for an IV port. Once they found the one in the leg and saw it was not patent he began to debate on administering drugs down the endotracheal tube which is an approved method of administration in emergency situations. However, paramedic Senneff was able to get a good stick in the jugular which was then used for drug administration. Senneff remarked in his testimony that he did give two rounds of atropine and epinephrine to Michael through the IV in the leg.

Blount remarks that the patient's eyes were fixed and dilated. He said to him this means the patient "had been down for quite awhile".

Blount then states that in his opinion Michael was dead despite his treatment efforts.

Walgren: NOW AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO PARAMEDIC SENNEFF FINDING AN I.V. SITE IN THE JUGULAR, DID DOCTOR MURRAY HOLD UP A NEEDLE OR SOMETHING THAT ATTRACTED YOUR ATTENTION?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Walgren: CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT WAS SAID AND WHAT DOCTOR MURRAY DID AT THAT POINT?

Blount: IT WAS, I THINK IT WAS A HYPODERMIC NEEDLE HE CAME OUT WITH, AND IT WAS LIKE A BLUE COLOR. AND HE SAID, "YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THIS HERE." AND I THINK WE ALL SAID, NO, THAT IS OKAY.

Walgren: OKAY. AND WAS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT THAT STRUCK YOU AS ODD?

Blount: YEAH. I THOUGHT IT WAS ODD BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE ASKED HIM HAS HE BEEN USING ANY DRUGS OR HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY DRUGS. AND HE SAID NO. OKAY. AND SO THE FACT THAT HE THEN PULLED OUT A HYPODERMIC NEEDLE WAS ODD TO YOU?

Blount: IT WAS KIND OF ODD, YES, SIR.

Blount says that the blue color means that it was a small-gauge needle--22 gauge (the larger the number the smaller the gauge).

Blount recalls seeing 3 small bottles of lidocaine on the floor. He states that lidocaine is an anti-arrhythmic drug that is no longer used by paramedics. Walgren asks if it also an anesthetic--Blount says yes. Blount remarks that seeing the lidocaine struck him as odd because they had asked Murray if he had given any drugs and his reply was no. Though Blount observed the bottles of lidocaine he did not stop treatment.

Blount affirms he was aware UCLA had assigned authority and care over to Murray. Blount states that during treatment, before and after Murray assumed care, that he never felt a pulse on the patient and never saw a viable heart rhythm on the monitor.

Walgren: DO YOU RECALL AT ONE POINT THE DOCTOR, DOCTOR MURRAY INDICATING HE FELT A FEMORAL PULSE?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Walgren: OKAY. AND WHEN HE FELT THAT, WHEN HE TOLD YOU THAT HE FELT A PULSE, WERE YOU OBSERVING THE DEFENDANT DOCTOR MURRAY?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Blount recalls seeing a condom catheter on Michael. Blount agrees with Walgren that these are commonly used in surgical proceedings when a patient is unconscious. I personally have only heard of indwelling (internal) urinary catheters used during surgery.

Blount recalls that while preparing for transport to UCLA he saw Murray scoop the three lidocaine bottles off the floor and place them into a black bag. He never saw those bottles again.

Blount recalls that while on the way to UCLA Murray took out his cell phone and made a telephone call. The call was to Nicole Alvarez, the mistress which Murray was staying with in LA.

Once they arrived at UCLA Blount saw at least 9-10 doctors working on Michael--including Murray.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: MR. LOW:

Blount is asked if it is common for paramedics to attempt to get some type of medical history--he says yes and agrees it is to try and help decide what should be done to try and help the patient.

Low: OKAY. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU RECALL DOCTOR MURRAY BEING ASKED WAS ABOUT HOW LONG HAD THE PATIENT BEEN DOWN LIKE THIS?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: AND YOU RECALL THE ANSWER BEING ABOUT ONE MINUTE BEFORE 911 WAS CALLED?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE PATIENT, HE WAS ALREADY ON THE GROUND?

Blount: NO. WHEN I FIRST SAW THE PATIENT, WHEN I LOOKED -- LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I WAS LIKE THE FIFTH PERSON IN LINE. AND WHEN I SAW, LOOKED OVER BEFORE THE GUYS PUT HIM ON THE FLOOR, I SAW THE PATIENT IN BED.

Low asks how long Blount thought Michael had been dead and he says his reply was "for awhile". He further clarifies that by "for awhile" he means about 20-30 minutes.

Blount recalls that he spoke with LAPD about Michael's death. He states it was some time in the end of June. He also states that his statement was recorded and notes were taken.

Low: NOW AT SOME POINT, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE PARAMEDIC SENNEFF FOLLOW PROCEDURE AND GET ON THE PHONE AND CALL THE HOSPITAL?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: OKAY. AND AT SOME POINT DURING THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE HOSPITAL, THE DAY AT -- UCLA HOSPITAL SAID THAT HE SHOULD CALL IT?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: BUT IN RESPONSE TO THAT, IS IT TRUE THAT DOCTOR MURRAY SAID, "NO, NO, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT?"

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: IN FACT, HE WAS EMPHATIC. HE SAID, "NOT ONLY DO I NOT WANT TO STOP, I WANT TO TAKE OVER?"

Blount: YES, SIR.

(I find it intriguing Murray wanted to take over aid when paramedics arrived yet before their arrival he half-assed not only botched CPR but seriously delayed all efforts from even occurring by refusing to call or have someone call 911. What a sudden change in his demeanor.)

Low asks Blount if he personally asked Murray if the patient had taken any recreational drugs. Walgren objects on behalf of misstating the testimony. The court overrules the objection and Blount replies that he did not ask Murray, one of his team members asked Murray. Low restates the question and Blount repeats that Murray said Michael did not take any recreational drugs.

Low begins to question Blount about Goodwin's efforts to start an IV.

Low: DID HE HAVE TO ATTEMPT MORE THAN ONE TIME TO TRY AND FIND A VIABLE VEIN OR ARTERY OR SOMETHING IN ORDER TO PUT THAT LINE IN?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: TELL US WHAT YOU SAW, SIR, ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS AND THE STRUGGLE -- I'M SORRY -- THE NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS THAT THIS PERSON WENT THROUGH TO TRY TO FIND THAT VIABLE LINE?

Blount: AT LEAST THREE TIMES, SIR.

Low: AND WHAT PART OF THE BODY DID YOU SEE THAT ATTEMPT BEING MADE ON?

Blount: HIS LEFT ARM, SIR, AND ALSO HIS RIGHT ARM.

Low: OKAY. THAT WAS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: AND SIR, DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY IT MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THAT PERSON TO INSERT THAT LINE INTO THE PATIENT?

Blount: BECAUSE HIS VEIN HAD, HAD NO VEIN ACCESS. I MEAN, IT DIDN'T MATTER HOW WE TRIED, WE COULD NOT GET ANY VEIN ACCESS.

Low: PART OF THAT OR IS THAT BECAUSE, LIKE I, YOU SAID EARLIER, THE PATIENT AND HIS APPEARANCE WAS AS SKINNY AS HE WAS?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: AS UNDERWEIGHT AS HE WAS?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: SIR, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR AWHILE. YOU ARE WELL-TRAINED FOR NINE YEARS, TEN YEARS AT THIS POINT; IS THAT RIGHT?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: AND YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THOSE TEN YEARS, IS IT TRUE THAT IT'S BEEN YOUR -- WELL, THAT WHEN YOU FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER STRESS WHO IT TURNS OUT THEY ARE DRUG ADDICTS BUT SOMETIMES IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A VEIN WITH WHICH TO PUT YOUR LINE INTO?

Blount: NOT REALLY.

Low: NO. IT'S EASY?

Blount: IT'S -- SITUATION WITH ME, I HAVE BEEN IN THIS SITUATIONS WHERE I'VE GONE ON DRUG ADDICTS AND EVEN KIDS AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO FIND A VEIN. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A POINT WHERE I HAD ONE GUY WHO HAS BEEN A HEROIN USER FOR YEARS AND DOWN WITH TATTOOS, HAD THEM ALL UP AND DOWN HIS ARM. AND I WAS ABLE TO FIND A VEIN. SO.

Low: SURE. THERE ARE SOMETIMES IT IS EASY.

Low: BUT IS IT ALSO DIFFICULT SOMETIMES?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low: AND IS IT A FAIR GENERALIZATION TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE KNOWN DRUG ADDICTS THAT THEY CAN BE DIFFICULT TO FIND A VIABLE VEIN AND TRY TO PUT A NEEDLE IN IT?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Low then asks Blount why, if the patient appeared deceased, did he and his team try to revive Michael. Blount replies his team goes through a protocol which includes monitoring and the administration of medications. During that time of attempted resuscitation Senneff called UCLA to alert them of the situation, that the team wanted to call a time of death. Low again asks why Blount's team would even start to attempt to revive Michael--Blount replies that that is simply what he and his team do, they try their best to save a life. Blount goes on to state many times they have successfully resuscitated people who were not breathing and did not have proper cardiac function but knew that would not be possible in this situation.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION: MR. WALGREN:

Walgren: SIR, IF SOMEONE'S HAS NO VIABLE HEART RHYTHM, THE HEART IS NOT WORKING, THEN BLOOD WOULD NOT BE CIRCULATING PROPERLY THROUGH THE BODY; IS THAT RIGHT?

Blount: THAT IS TRUE.

Walgren: AND IF BLOOD IS NOT PROPERLY CIRCULATING THROUGH THE BODY, ONE RESULT OF THAT CAN BE THAT THE VEINS COLLAPSE MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO FIND AN I.V. SITE; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Walgren: NOW AT THE TIME THAT PARAMEDIC GOODWIN WAS TRYING TO FIND AN I.V. SITE, WERE YOU CONTINUING WITH YOUR CARE OF THE PATIENT?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Walgren: OKAY. IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU WERE NOT PRECISELY COUNTING HOW MANY SITES GOODWIN ATTEMPTED?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Walgren: OKAY. COULD IT HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THREE OR FOUR SITES?

Blount: FOR SURE, YES, SIR.

Walgren: OKAY. IN BOTH ARMS?

Blount: YES, SIR.

Walgren finishes and Low turns down his opportunity to recross-examine Blount.

http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/201...ny-010611.html

[Carehim]

Gibt es das vielleicht (auch verkürzt) auf Deutsch?

[geli2709]

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Bridgette Morgan's Hearing Testimony--01/07/11

January 7th, 2011



BRIDGETTE MORGAN

Before Morgan is called to the stand the Court, Walgren, Brazil, Chernoff, Low and Flanagan are in chambers discussing a motion in limine concerning Morgan and her testimony. The defense has various objections to the relevance of her testimony. Walgren states that the purpose of placing Morgan on the stand is to attempt to establish the timeline of phone calls (there was a 7 second call from Morgan to Murray at 11:26 a.m. on June 25th, 2009) and preserve relevant testimony as it relates to some of the individuals who either placed calls or received calls from Murray on June 25th, 2009. Walgren continues that the prosecution wishes to briefly establish the nature and purpose of the phone call from Morgan to Murray and to determine whether it was professional or personal. Walgren states he wants Morgan under oath to confirm whether or not she was able to make contact with Murray. Walgren states that regarding the character evidence he does not understand the objection by the defense. He states the phone calls are relevant in the prosecution's theory and show a distinct pattern by Murray to carry on personal social business when his attention should be on his patient.

Low begins his arguments for the motion in limine. He states there are two sources, one being the police report done on Feburary 2nd, 2010 when Morgan was interviewed and a tape recorded interview. Low is concerned that Morgan and Murray's relationship will be revealed as personal and not professional contact. He is also concerned about how Murray and Morgan's relationship began and Morgan's history as an exotic dancer in Las Vegas 6 years prior to 2009.

Brazil states the prosecution does not intend to ask Morgan about her occupation. However, they do intend on asking how Morgan and Murray met, as was done with Sade Anding. They wish to establish their relationship as social. Chernoff pipes in the prosecution knows they met at a topless club and it is prejudicial. Low begins to argue about why it cannot be stated they met "out of town" or "in public" rather than a club. Low also comments that Morgan is studying to become a nurse and she herself does not want this information out because of her business working in a hospital.

Low continues on saying police promised if she told him the truth he would not let out her history of being an exotic dancer. Low states Morgan was lied to and it the situation is not fair.

Brazil disagrees with Low on his characterization of what has occurred regarding Morgan.

The Court states he does not need to know she was working at a club or the nature of the club for the purposes of the preliminary hearing.

Walgren states the prosecution will limit their relationship to beginning at a club and establishing it was a social relationship.

Flanagan states the prosecution knows the call from Morgan to Murray was not completed. He states the fact someone made a call to someone else on the phone who does not answer has no relevance, nor does her state of mind have relevance, either.

Walgren states as the defense has indicated she is not necessarily cooperative. He again states that under oath they want her testifying whether or not the call was completed and whether she left a voicemail or not. He states she has told police that it went to voicemail but she has not said that under oath or in the hearing. The prosecution wishes to preserve her testimony as a social relationship, the nature of the call and that the call was made at the particular time listed.

Chernoff states that the prosecution wants to preserve Morgan's evidence in front of the press and they could have had it preserved via the grand jury as was done with Nicole Alvarez.

The Court states testimony cannot be preserved at a grand jury because there is no confrontation right. He continues on stating he is aware of the issues and the scope of the preliminary hearing. He states the testimony is relevant under certain guidelines set forth for the preliminary hearing and the defense's motion in limine is overruled. However, the Court states this will be a tailored process and he does not want character issues inflaming the court.

Walgren asks if Brazil can be given leeway to lead so Morgan does not blurt out "something else". Chernoff states Brazil has shown an ability to lead into objectionable territory thus he objects to Walgren's request. Walgren states they will ask open-ended questions. Low states he trusts Brazil to be given some leeway without abusing the right to such.

The Court states he does not want to be in situation where the defense are embarrassed because Low has one theory/tactic and his team members (Chernoff, Flanagan) disagree with him.

Low states Chernoff will tell him if he is wrong.

The proceedings end and open court resumes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION: MS. BRAZIL

As with some previous witnesses, Morgan identifies Murray in court.

Morgan states she met Murray in 2003 at a club. She states after meeting Murray she developed a social relationship with him. Morgan confirms her cell phone number in 2009 was (310) ***-9566.

Morgan agrees she called Murray on June 25th, 2009. She states they were following up on a conversation they had had.

Brazil has no more questions but then corrects herself. She asks Morgan if she actually spoke to Murray. She states no. She is asked if she left a voicemail. She states she cannot remember. Brazil states she has nothing further.

Low declines the opportunity to cross examine the witness. Morgan is excused from the stand.


The transcripts used to create these summaries were lawfully
obtained from www.teammichaeljackson.com.

http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/201...testimony.html

[geli2709]

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Sade Anding's Hearing Testimony--01/07/11

January 7th, 2011




SADE ANDING

DIRECT EXAMINATION: MS. BRAZIL

Anding states in February of 2009 she was working as a cocktail waitress at Sullivan's Steakhouse in Houston, Texas, located off Highway 59 and Post Oak Blvd. She had been working there the previous 6-8 months since February 2009. (Her exact words were "I was there for 6, 6-8 months" which sounds more like her length of total employment rather than how long she had been working there before she met Murray.) She describes Sullivan's Steakhouse as having a dining room, a lounge/bar area and a club in the back were bands perform. Anding states she met Murray at Sullivan's Steakhouse. She claims to have initially met him before Valentine's Day, then after Valentine's Day, then states she cannot recall. She says all she can recall about initially meeting him is she had only been working at Sullivan's Steakhouse for 2 or 3 months. She agrees with Brazil that it was likely at the beginning of March.

(Notice that the timeline of when she met Murray and how long she had been working at Sullivan's Steakhouse do not completely add up. From my view it seems she meant she worked at Sullivan's Steakhouse for a total of 6-8 months rather than she had been working there for that duration before meeting Murray. If I am correct in my assumption this would mean she likely began working at Sullivan's Steakhouse sometime in December 2008 or January 2009, assuming she met Murray in March, and then no longer worked for Sullivan's Steakhouse beginning sometime between June and August 2009.)

Anding states when she first met Murray he stated he was working in Houston, at his clinic. She says he told her about his clinic. She recalled striking up a conversation with him and receiving a large tip the first time they met.

A discussion at the side bar begins. The prosecution, Court and defense begin arguing about the relevance of Anding and Murray's financial and romantic relationship. The Court then states for the purposes of this hearing that the relationship is not significant. The prosecution (Walgren) states the nature of their relationship highlights the placement of Murray's priorities, that his priority that morning, specifically at 11:51 a.m. was making a phone call to Anding rather than tending to his patient. The Court remarks that Walgren has used the term "cocktail waitress" in a demanding manner--Walgren disagrees. The Court states the prosecution may explore the social relationship but there are limits on discussing financial arrangements since this is a preliminary hearing. The Court states at some other time Murray and Anding's financial relationship may be relevant. The defense (Flanagan) jumps in and states that nothing outside of June 25th is relevant in the case. Chernoff then says it is not a coincidence that Anding, Morgan and Nicole Alvarez are all giving testimony in the same day. He further claims their evidence is not relevant but rather is being used to create prejudice against Murray.

The Court states he is not going to spend the entire day dealing with the matter mentioned above. He states the bottom line is the parties are allowed to explore relationships within certain limits of the preliminary hearing.

Discussion resumes in open court. Anding states the first time Murray and she met he gave her his phone number. She returned the favor by giving him her phone number. Anding agrees that after their first meeting she saw him with some frequency. Anding states she was not Murray's girlfriend. However, she then states that he referred to her as his girlfriend. He purchased her gifts.

Anding agrees her phone number is (832) ***-3832. This is her cell phone number. She agrees that she received a phone call from Murray on June 25th, 2009. She was in Houston. She states she knows it was 12:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) because she was getting ready go to out. She agrees he called her on his cell phone.

(Please note this time does not reflect the correct time he called her--phone records indicate Murray called Anding at 11:51 a.m. PST which would mean he called Anding at 1:51 p.m. Houston/CST).

Brazil: WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN HE FIRST SPOKE WITH YOU ON THE PHONE ON JUNE 25, 2009?

Anding: HE TOLD ME IT'S CONRAD MURRAY, AND HE SAID, "HELLO, HOW ARE YOU?"AND I SAID, "FINE. HOW ARE YOU?"

Brazil: AND WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH HIM THAT DAY, DID YOU RECOGNIZE HIS VOICE BECAUSE YOU HAD SPOKEN TO HIM ON THE PHONE ON OTHER OCCASIONS?

Anding agrees.

Brazil: SO HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF, AND HE ASKED YOU HOW YOU WERE?

Anding agrees.

Brazil: DID HE TELL YOU HOW HE WAS DOING?

Anding: NO.

Brazil: WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU?

Anding: HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS DOING WELL, AND THAT WAS IT. THEN I CUT HIM OFF, AND I STARTED TALKING.

(Side note--did Anding not just contradict herself? She says he did not tell her how he was doing then in the very next sentence she says he told her he was doing well.)

Brazil: WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CUT HIM OFF?

Anding: I CUT HIM OFF LIKE, I GUESS, HE WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. AND I WAS, I TOLD HIM, "WELL, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY DAY." ALL I HEARD HIM SAY, "WELL, I AM DOING FINE, WELL." AND THAT IS LIKE WHEN I WAS LIKE, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY DAY.

Brazil: SO YOU BASICALLY INTERRUPTED HIM, CORRECT?

Anding agrees.

Brazil: AND THEN YOU PROCEEDED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT?

Anding: WELL, JUST TALK ABOUT HOW HE WAS DOING, AND WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO GO DO. AND I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM IN AWHILE. AND THAT IS WHEN I REALIZED HE WASN'T ON THE PHONE ANYMORE.

(Side note--did Anding not just contradict herself again? She says she interrupts him then says they discussed how he was doing. I find it peculiar that she would decide to tell him all about her day and her well-being when it was he who initiated the call--as in, typically when someone initiates a call they are the one who has something to say initially.)

Anding says the last time she had seen Murray in person was May 23rd, 2009. They went to eat somewhere in Houston.

Brazil: SO YOU INTERRUPT DOCTOR MURRAY, AND YOU BEGIN JUST CHATTING WITH HIM ABOUT YOUR DAY AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR LIFE, CORRECT?

Anding: YES.

Brazil: AND WHAT DID HE SAY IN RESPONSE?

Anding: I DIDN'T HEAR HIM ON THE PHONE ANYMORE.

Brazil asks for clarification on what is meant by Anding's statement.

Anding: HE WASN'T ON THE PHONE NO MORE. I HEARD COMMOTION AS IF THE PHONE WAS IN A POCKET OR SOMETHING. THE NOISE WAS LIKE (SOUND) AND I HEARD COUGHING LIKE (SOUND) AND THEN I HEARD LIKE MUMBLING OF VOICES AND THEN I STAYED ON THE PHONE FOR PROBABLY FIVE TO SIX MINUTES AND I HUNG UP AND I KEPT CALLING AND CALLING AND TEXTING AND TEXTING, AND THEN I NEVER HEARD FROM HIM AGAIN.

Brazil: LET'S GO BACK THE POINT IN TIME DURING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH CONRAD MURRAY THAT YOU REALIZED THAT HE'S NOT SAYING ANYTHING TO YOU CAN YOU ESTIMATE FOR ME ABOUT HOW FAR INTO THE PHONE CALL FROM THE TIME HE SAID "HELLO" TO YOU UNTIL THE TIME THAT YOU REALIZED HE WASN'T THERE ANYMORE BECAUSE HE WASN'T SAYING ANYTHING TO YOU?

Anding's reply is 5 minutes.

Brazil asks Anding if she would have any way in knowing when Murray stopped listening to her. She says no.

Brazil: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING INTO THE PHONE. DID YOU EVER SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO, INTO THE TELEPHONE WHEN YOU REALIZED THAT HE WASN'T SAYING ANYTHING IN REPLY?

Anding: NO. I JUST REMEMBER SAYING, "HELLO, HELLO, HELLO. ARE YOU THERE? ARE YOU THERE? ARE YOU THERE?"

Brazil: AND WHEN YOU SAID ALL OF THOSE THINGS, DID YOU GET ANY RESPONSE BACK FROM CONRAD MURRAY?

Anding states no.

Brazil: WHEN YOU HEARD THE MUMBLING ON THE OTHER END, WERE YOU ABLE TO TELL IF IT WAS DOCTOR MURRAY'S VOICE THAT YOU RECOGNIZED THE MUMBLING TO BE COMING FROM?

Anding states no.

Anding agrees she tried to call Murray back and received no response. She also states she texted him and received no response either.

Brazil asks if it was unusual for Murray not to call back after being disconnected while speaking to each other on the phone. Anding states yes.

Brazil asks when Anding next spoke to Murray after June 25th, 2009. Chernoff objects. Court overrules. Anding states she last spoke to him when the L.A.P.D. came to her house after a baseball game (the Houston Astros). She could not recall the month but states it was in 2009. She states she does recall it was around 9:00 p.m. and she was in the car headed home. She states that at some point while she was at the baseball game she learned from her father police detectives wanted to speak with her.

She says that when she was notified that the detectives were at her house she called Murray and told him that detectives were at her house. She says he apologized and gave her the number to his attorney. He told her that if she spoke with L.A.P.D to have his lawyer present. She told Murray "okay".

Anding agrees that she called the attorney that Murray instructed her to call. Anding agrees she spoke to the attorney the next day. Throughout this discussion Chernoff is objecting to most of the questioning. Most objections are sustained.

Brazil completes her direct examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: MR. CHERNOFF

Anding states she is doing fine. She flew into L.A. "yesterday". She states L.A.P.D. paid for her airfare. L.A.P.D. paid for her hotel/motel accommodations the previous night but will not be paying for her to stay tonight. She states she will be flying out today.

Chernoff: NOW ALL THE THINGS YOU TESTIFIED TO TODAY, YOU TOLD THIS MAN, DAN MEYERS, DIDN'T YOU?

Anding agrees and states she did not add anything today that was different to what she told Dan Myers (L.A.P.D).

Chernoff ends his cross examination.

Brazil does not re-direct examine and Anding is excused.

The transcripts used to create these summaries were lawfully
obtained from www.teammichaeljackson.com.

http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/201...ny-010711.html