Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Conrad Murray's Phone Records--An Analysis

The following blog is basically a stream-of-consciousness narrative concerning the best-known/developed time line of Conrad Murray's phone call records the day Michael Jackson died. Now, this time line has been composed by an array of sources. There is no intentional copying of information from anyone or any web site so if anyone sees information that is familiar please feel free to site the similar source for reference. Also, please feel free to submit corrections/conflicting information so every detail/scenario can be examined for thoroughness. No one source available is completely accurate given no one, except authorities, apparently have the actual copies of Murray's cell phone records.

Please keep in mind Murray had at least two cell phones with him that morning, possibly more though any additional phones have never been mentioned or accounted for at this time. He had an iPhone through AT&T and a phone through Sprint and was using both that morning.

I will state the time line then give commentary. My commentary may be rather biased compared with other blogs I have written and I will not have much proof, if any, to back up a few of my statements either. However, I feel my assumptions are logical and certainly possible. We must all do some rational and educated thinking to someday piece together what happened to Michael. The world deserves the truth and Michael does, too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conrad Murray's Phone Records' Time line:

5:54am - (AT&T iPhone) email from Bob Taylor (London insurance broker) specifically inquiring about Michael's health and requesting confirmation Murray was the only doctor who was being consulted; had records back to 2006 and requested release of those medical records

6:31am – text to/from Texas

7:01am –(Sprint phone) call from Murray to Andrew Butler (patient/friend) in Nevada, 25 seconds long

8:36am - text to/from Texas

8:49am – (Sprint phone) call to Murray from Antoinette Gill (patient/friend) in Nevada, 53 seconds long

9:00 am – text to/from Texas

9:11 am – text to/from Texas

9:23am – (AT&T iPhone) call to Murray from Marissa Boni (friend of Murray's daughter) in Nevada, 22 minutes long

10:14am - (AT&T iPhone) call to Acres Home Heart and Vascular Institute in Houston (curious about this call since AHHVI supposedly closed sometime in 2008 due to debt; Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/6501143.html ); 2 minutes long

10:22am - (Sprint phone) call to Murray from Dr. Joanne Prashad in Houston regarding a patient and medications 111seconds long (Prashad said Murray was able to recall information swiftly from 2 months prior)

10:34am - (Sprint phone) call from Murray to Stacey Howe-Ruggles in San Diego (or to a San Diego phone number) giving instructions for a letter regarding the upcoming tour in London, 8.5 minutes long (the letter was to the London Medical Board notifying them of his arrival and asking what facilities would be available to him--I believe the answer should have been NONE since he has no medical license in the UK; Howe-Ruggles also stated he sounded normal/not distracted during this period of time when Michael was supposedly awake and demanding propofol; according to Murray's first account of events given to police the administration of propofol was either during or immediately after this phone call)

10:36am – text to/from Texas

11:07am - (AT&T iPhone) call to Murray from Stacey Howe-Ruggles in San Diego, 1 minute long

11:17am - (AT&T iPhone) email to Bob Taylor, London insurer, answering questions from an email received earlier about Michael's health refuting the stories heard and said he was denied authorization to disclose Michael medical records back to 2006

11:18am - (AT&T iPhone) call from Murray to his Las Vegas practice in Nevada, 32 minutes long

11:26am - (Sprint phone) call to Murray from Ms. Bridgette Morgan (topless dancer) in California, 7 seconds long (call occurred during the call to his practice in Las Vegas)

11:49am - (AT&T iPhone) call from Murray to Bob Russell (patient) in Nevada; left voice mail regarding treatment update and asking him to remain his patient although he may be away overseas, 3 minutes long

11:51am - (AT&T iPhone) call from Murray to Sade Anding (cocktail waitress) in Houston, 11 minutes long

12:03pm – text to/from Texas

12:04pm - text to/from Texas

12:12pm - (AT&T iPhone) call from Murray to Michael Amir Williams (security) in California left a voicemail, 1 minute long

12:15pm - (AT&T iPhone) call from Michael Amir Williams to Murray, 1 minute long

12:53pm – text to/from California

1:08pm - (Sprint phone) call from Murray to Nicole Alvarez in California, 2 minutes long (while in the ambulance)

1:23pm – text to/from Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts on this Time Line:

Murray supposedly gave 2 milligrams of midazolam (Versed) at 7:30 am--no phone activity has been reported at 7:30 am but midazolam was not pharmacologically active (not sedating him because the concentration found in his body was too low) when Michael passed away some hours later. So, it is hard to know if Murray really did give Michael this medication at this time or not. Midazolam sedates someone for about 2 hours but sometimes can sedate up to 6 hours--dosing and metabolism are factors in how long the effects will last. Murray had no business giving this particular benzodiazepine for insomnia because of its potency and method of administration (it is given IV or intramuscular). Many of the same warnings concerning propofol apply to midazolam, too.

However, more notably, Murray claims he last gave lorazepam (Ativan), 2 milligrams, shortly before the email sent to his iPhone from Taylor (approximately 5:30 am). The last administration of lorazepam at 5:30 am is a lie as is the administration of 2 milligrams of this medication--Murray gave much more than 2 milligrams of lorazepam to Michael as toxicology reports do not lie. Michael's blood level for lorazepam was 162 ng/mL and 169 ng/mL (heart and femoral blood, the actual numbers in the autopsy report are recorded as 0.162 ug/mL and 0.169 ug/mL--I converted micrograms into nanograms for consistency). Sources state that 2 milligrams of lorazepam taken orally gives a peak blood concentration of 20 ng/mL in about 2 hours. When it is given IV the peak blood concentration is slightly higher and achieved faster--in about 10 minutes rather than 2 hours. Doing the math--if 2 milligrams gives you 20 ng/mL then 169 ng/mL gives you 16.9 milligrams of lorazepam/Ativan being administered--at minimum--because the likelihood of these numbers being "peak" blood levels are slim. These levels were likely either on the rise to a peak or on the downhill slope from a peak. Think of a mountain--you are more likely to be on one side or the other and not right on top since there is more land on the sides--same is true of medication peaks and troughs. We have yet to know if Murray gave lorazepam directly into the vein (IV) or into the muscle so we do not know what time Michael's blood level should have peaked nor do we know how many times Murray really gave this medication that night and into the morning hours.

I am not sure what the typical blood concentration is when respiratory depression is seen with lorazepam but according to this source (http://tinyurl.com/4lo9vah) it can be seen in doses as small as one milligram (this is giving the drug IV and not orally). Almost certainly Murray gave Michael lorazepam before he gave the propofol due to the high level or lorazepam in his body. The lorazepam had had time to circulate in his body before death.

If Murray's claim is this class of medication were not sedating Michael (diazepam, midazolam and lorazepam are all benzodiazepines) then why did he not try to give more of one of these medications before giving propofol? He had the antidote for benzodiazepine toxicity on-hand (flumazenil) in case he gave too much and eventually the medications should have sedated Michael--you do not become completely immune to their effects. There is no antidote for propofol other than to mechanically breathe for the patient until the drug wears off and Murray did not posses means to mechanically breathe for him. I cannot help but think Michael had slept (or moreover been heavily sedated given the condom catheter and bed pads being used) on midazolam and diazepam and very possibly lorazepam but remained sedated or was re-sedated on lorazepam shortly before the propofol was administered--without Michael's asking or knowledge. So why would someone give both lorazepam and propofol to someone given the risks of being unable to breathe and thus dying? It would not be to sleep in their bed at home--that much is certain.

The therapeutic range for lorazepam (safe blood level that gives an effect) is between 10-300 ug/L (or ng/mL). Anything over 300 ng/mL is considered to be an acute overdose so Michael's level was not an overdose--it was just extremely high especially for someone who was being given the medication for insomnia. However, the maximum dose recommended for bedtime is 4 milligrams (to be given orally in a patient who can swallow and take oral medications--Michael should have been given oral medications only)and should render a blood level of about 40 ng/mL, maybe a bit higher, but not 4 times that amount. Even though blood levels are not considered toxic until approximately 250-300 ng/mL I see no dosing for lorazepam over 8 milligrams and 8 milligrams is used either for status epilepticus (seizures) or rapid tranquilization of an agitated patient--not insomnia. There is no excuse for Murray giving Michael this enormous amount of lorazepam for insomnia--it was also very dangerous and inexcusable that Murray was using the IV formulation and administered this intravenous medication in a home with no means of respiratory assistance. Remember, one milligram of IV lorazepam can cause breathing problems and those problems would be even more likely in someone with chronic lung issues--like Michael--and Murray should have been well-aware of these lung issues as Michael was a former patient of Murray's and he should have examined his lungs before giving him any medication, especially a medication that can cause breathing problems or the complete absence of breathing. The autopsy report stated Michael had chronic (always present, not sudden like an infection) lung problems and he had probably had this problem for some time.

I am not sure if Michael became tolerant to lorazepam/benzodiazepines to some degree because of Murray's regimen but if he did there is only one person to blame for that--Conrad Murray. Michael had lorazepam tablets at his disposal since April and he refrained from taking them in excess (the same goes for other benzodiazepines found in the house)--Michael could not control what or how much Murray was administering to him at night since the medications made him unconscious. I do not think Michael had become so tolerant/dependent to benzodiazepines that over 17 milligrams of lorazepam was like water to him. Yes, you can become dependent on lorazepam for sleep and yes, you can build some tolerance to your dose over time but 17 milligrams over a span of a few weeks? No way. I am not buying it until proven otherwise. Plus, Murray claims Michael slept on midazolam and lorazepam the night before with no problems. We do not know how much was administered on the 24th or even how it was given but whatever Murray supposedly gave on June 24th was apparently enough to help him sleep throughout the night--and survive--and I do not think in a day's time that benzodiazepines would no longer have sedated Michael.

The following are gaps in time, as in time where Murray was apparently not on either phone, be it texting, emailing or on a call.

Gaps in Time:

Apparent gaps from phone usage for the 10am hour:

10:00am - 10:13am

10:17am - 10:21am

10:25am - 10:33am

10:45am - 11:06am--this is the biggest gap in time after 10:00am apparently. I do not think Michael died before 10:00am. The 10:45am to 11:06am gap directly corresponds to when Murray says he administered propofol (at approximately 10:40am), monitored Michael for 10 minutes, went to the restroom for no more than 2 minutes, then came back to find Michael in distress at approximately 10:52am. This was Murray's first story given to police--it has since changed multiple times but I find it important his first story correlates with this time frame. What is even more telling is he was apparently not on the phone until 11:17am, minus a 60-second call from Stacey Howe-Ruggles at approximately 11:07am. So, what is his excuse for not monitoring Michael during this critical time? He not only should have been monitoring him constantly by eye and equipment (most of which he did not have or chose not to use effectively if at all) but he should have been checking on Michael because propofol only lasts so long and both drugs--lorazepam and propofol--can both make someone stop breathing on their own. The effects on breathing are amplified when drugs of this nature are given together. The side effects of propofol are seen immediately after administration not as it is wearing off. Murray should have seen Michael stop breathing in those first two minutes and not 10 minutes later especially if the lorazepam was not working as Murray claims. Murray insists the benzodiazepines were not sedating Michael but if they were then there was no reason to have given propofol to him and then intent becomes highly questionable (like it is not questionable already). Both the amounts of lorazepam and propofol found in Michael's body are alarming to any health care professional especially when you consider Michael had no means for breathing assistance provided to him by Murray.

We know Murray claims he only gave 25 milligrams of propofol. This is a lie based on the levels found in Michael's body. Even if Murray gave 200 milligrams (a 20 mL vial) that would have only sedated Michael about 10-20 minutes. It has yet to be determined whether or not Murray was bolusing Michael (using the syringes found at the scene, drawing up the medications via the syringe then pushing the contents directly into the IV tubing) or if he made some sort of gravity-based IV system. I tend to lean toward Murray bolusing Michael (which I will debate in my next blog) but if Murray used some sort of gravity IV system (which he should have known would be lethal as it is NEVER given this way) then he still should have been watching Michael for imminent breathing problems.

According to his call records he was not on the phone during this time. Assuming Murray left Michael, which should constitute patient abandonment, he should have gone back to check on Michael as soon as possible to a) make sure he was breathing and b) to administer more propofol since 200 milligrams does not sedate beyond about 10-20 minutes. If Murray somehow administered 1000 milligrams (a 100 mL vial) via a drip he could not have expected Michael to survive as Michael would never have had a chance to breathe on his own because of the quantity being delivered and lack of controlled dosing from the absence of a manual IV pump. If Murray left the room and then failed to go back and check on him within seconds it would certainly appear as if he assumed he had died and thus did not need to go back and check or tend to him if that was the goal. Murray was busy the rest of the 11 am hour as if he was done dealing with Michael.

One may ask, if Michael died around 11 am why would Murray not use this time to clean up if he intended on killing Michael instead of making phone calls or what not? That makes this look accidental. Well, if you want something to look accidental, especially to look like the patient inflicted the final medication blow to himself, then you cannot "clean up" before others see the patient otherwise things would look even more suspicious. Murray was also making himself look busy on the phone while Michael supposedly killed himself. Murray's attorneys have denied he cleaned up so perhaps what appears to everyone else as a "clean-up" is being considered part of the attempt to resuscitate him (removing the old IV line, clearing the area for paramedics). Whether Michael died at 11 am or 12 pm Murray had ample time to put things away himself.

Apparent gaps from phone usage for the 11am hour:

The only breaks from phone use were from 11:00am - 11:06am (continuing on since 10:45am) and 11:08am - 11:16am. From 11:17am and until noon he was on a phone the entire time. So Murray obviously kept himself occupied--or so he wants others to assume he got tied up thus Michael, someone anesthetized without assisted breathing, fell off Murray's radar and killed himself. Yeah right. The phone did not prevent Murray from being able to be at the bedside or prevent him from administering medications, either. With Michael being given propofol he would not have been able to wake up from even the loudest of sounds--he was put in a coma, not sleeping. Murray could have stayed in the room. Murray was supposedly on the phone this entire time yet he expected Michael to stay sedated on the propofol while making calls? Especially 25 milligrams? That makes no logical sense--200 milligrams sedates about 15-20 minutes, maximum. Murray should have anticipated on Michael awaking (assuming the 17+ milligrams of lorazepam was null). Just my opinion but seeing this time line, seeing these calls, one after the other after the other during the 11 am hour it appears Murray intentionally neglected Michael, be it by leaving the room and choosing not to monitor him or witnessing him die right there in the same room while apparently being on the phone.

Notice how the concerned call to Sade Anding (which was supposedly made "out of the blue"), the call where it sounded as if something was wrong with Murray before he discovered Michael's body, took place not even less than a minute after calling patient Bob Russell and leaving a voice mail which revealed a normal Murray with no apparent stress or concern in his voice.

12:04pm - 12:12pm--If Michael had not passed away sometime during the 11:00 am hour then this time would have been the most critical time in saving Michael's life. Murray claims Michael had a weak pulse when he found him. A call to 911 should have occurred here or earlier since according to Sade Anding Murray discovered Michael at about 11:55 am yet he kept her on the line to hear "coughing and mumbling". He could have also used his other phone to dial 911. I guess help for Michael was not the first objective on his mind. At one time Murray's attorney said "Murray did not immediately call 911 because there was no house phone in the room where Jackson was and he could not leave his patient to make the call." Really? He had not one but two cell phones with him, fool. (Source: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TheLaw/gma-exclusive-conrad-murray-lawyer-ed-chernoff-speaks/story?id=10294040&page=1) CPR protocol states to start CPR on an adult and then call 911--there is no excuse for not calling 911. A paramedic stated in hearing testimony Michael had, in his opinion, been dead at least 20 minutes to an hour (they arrived on the scene at 12:26 pm)--if he had been dead only about 20 minutes then he would have in fact been alive when Murray found him and died sometime after talking to Anding but before placing the first call to security. Not placing a call to 911 defies all common sense. Even some toddlers know to call 911 if there is an emergency. If Michael was in fact alive at approximately noon then Murray allowed Michael to die in his presence by refusing him aid. The 911 call was not even made until 12:22 pm and it was made by Alberto Alvarez not Murray.

Why did Murray not tell chef Kai Chase that Michael was sleeping in and would not need breakfast that morning? Michael was typically up by about 10am. Murray was on the phone off and on during the 10am hour--including on a long call with one of his daughter's friends. Let's hope she is not a minor.

One cannot help but wonder if Murray was not trying to creating himself a "cellular alibi" by making himself look distracted through phone use, especially if Murray had anticipated on blaming Michael for his own death (recall Murray's insistence he gave nothing that should have killed Michael which is of course another lie). If Murray was out of the room or "distracted" he would not have witnessed Michael giving himself propofol, though a cell phone would not bar him from being in the bedroom. Maybe Murray did not know experts would clearly state in the autopsy report that Michael was virtually incapable of injecting himself with propofol. Perhaps Murray and his defense team are too ignorant to know that propofol renders no effect when ingested orally, not accounting for the lack of visible propofol in his stomach, too. Initially Murray's attorney Edward Chernoff said Murray just happened to walk in and see Michael in distress. Later on, Chernoff said Murray never left Michael. Compare "'he just came in to check on him, fortuitiously (sic),' Chernoff said." to " he denies leaving the singer alone after administering a series of sedatives to try to help him sleep". (Sources: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/6501143.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1208761/Michael-Jackson-lethal-levels-anaesthetic-body-died.html). Notice the error on the "Daily Mail's" graphic titled "One Night and a Cocktail of Drugs" that states emergency services were called at 10:55 am. WRONG. So--was Murray in the bedroom or not? If he was not in the room where was he? If he was in the room then what is his explanation for being within inches of a man dying directly under his nose?

The entire night Michael was supposedly awake and "demanding propofol"--odd there was no phone activity reported before 5:54 am as he should have been awake listening to Michael's demands and likely keeping himself occupied with his phone in some manner, possibly by texting others like his numerous girlfriends. But, what if Michael was asleep and Murray went to sleep during this time, too? Was Murray reportedly sleeping during the day? He had to sleep at some point. It is also odd Murray was able to chat on the phone with others during the 9 am and 10 am hours while Michael was supposedly awake and demanding propofol during this time as well (like someone would be demanding propofol for 9 hours and be okay with having to continue asking for the entire time). The patient, especially the $150,000/month income-producing patient would seemingly come first before some casual phone calls and texts, right? Did Murray ignore a "demanding Michael" during this time or was he making calls while Michael was actually sedated? The latter appears to be the more logical scenario. Michael had told nurse Cherilyn Lee she could leave the night she stayed to watch him sleep (per the Greta Van Sustren interview). If Michael was sedated on benzodiazepines that work for so many hours then why stay awake watching someone sleep? Benzodiazepines are typically safer than propofol though IV benzodiazepines have similar risks. But, it seems logical that if Michael was sedated on benzodiazepines then Murray probably went to sleep at some point, too.



Reportedly a picture of "Murray's Room" at the Carolwood home though he did not live there with Michael--no other adults lived at the home with Michael. This was not the room paramedics went to when they arrived to try and revive Michael. The bed appears to be poorly-made.

Questions:

Could the email sent by the insurance company been a catalyst for murder? Note the reply was sent some time later, almost 6 hours later at 11:17am immediately after a 30 minutes lack of cellular activity and during the supposed initial administration of propofol.

What was Murray doing on the phone while on a call to his office in Las Vegas (11:18am - 11:49am)? Who was he talking to or was he talking to anyone? Is there any record of what transpired during this call?

The call to Bob Russell--some doctors make house calls but most do not, at least, most I know. When testing is done (be it examinations, blood work, biopsies, etc.) typically doctors have a letter mailed out to the patient within a reasonable time, typed by their staff, stating everything was normal. When something is abnormal, typically a nurse will call and tell you there are abnormal results and give some sort of explanation. Sometimes the abnormality can be taken care of over the phone (like adjusting a medication dose) or sometimes a follow-up appointment is needed. To me, and this is very opinionated, I find it odd Murray called Russell that morning, especially right after calling his office and right before calling Sade Anding "out of the blue". It may mean nothing--or it could be something.

What really possessed Murray to call Anding? Is it to provide himself with an alibi and to try and bring an element of "surprise" to finding Michael in such a manner? Anding is currently defending Murray though she has no real understanding of what he did and did not do to Michael. She calls him a "good man" though he supposedly did not bother to tell her he was married AND seeing other women besides her and his wife. Does that really sound like a "good man" to you?

Murray never placed a call or email to AEG--why not? Should he not have contacted them at some point regarding either the email from Taylor and/or Michael being in trouble?

Where or which calls/texts were to LaQuanda Price and LaQuisha Middleton (the sisters that worked for Murray) who showed up at the storage unit in Houston at 11:22 am Houston time/9:22 am Los Angeles time. Recall they had conflicting stories about going to the storage unit. Why?

Conclusion:

You have heard enough from me--now I want to hear from you, hear your opinions and what else you can add to this. What other possibilities do you see based on what we think we know? What additional information can you provide? I cannot help but see everything concerning June 25th as sinister, especially when I try to place myself in Murray's mind frame and think of how Murray refuses to admit to any form of guilt. I cannot see his actions and non-actions being anything other than intentional and with purpose. Certainly we are far from the truth when it comes to knowing not so much how but why Michael Jackson had to die.

13 comments:

  1. Nikki, you ask for comments, so I will give you some. I've concluded that Michael did "sleep" from the excessive benzos and other junk Murray gave him; hence the mattress pad and condom catheter, person is "out"; can't get up to relieve himself. Big bottle of urine found at the scene. So, IMO, Michael was "out" when Murray induced the propofol. I've said it here and on other blogs; Murray was covering with the phone calls, no doubt about it. I hadn't thought about the email from the insurance guy being the catalyst for murder, but perhaps so. As to why Murray didn't text AEG that Michael was in trouble, maybe AEG already knew. Yes, Murray had to sleep at some point, where? At Alvarez' apartment? Or at Michael's house while Michael slept. Didn't Kai Chase say she routinely made dinner meals for Michael and Murray, and questioned why the meals she prepared the evening of June 24th were still in the frig, not eaten? If Murray had been giving Michael prop for five to six weeks prior, wouldn't Michael have not been able to eat prior thereto? I was under anesthesia for a procedure and was instructed not to eat for 12 hours prior, risk of throwup! There's no easy way to say this, but did Murray really give Michael prop for 5-6 weeks prior? Or did he give it to him all at once the morning of June 25th on top of the benzos while Michael was already asleep? How else would there be enough prop in Michael to anesthetize a whale. And so, the question remains, why did Michael have to die and who was involved? There were so many scurrilous characters surrounding Michael within the last year of his life, we may never know, but it was all greed, corruption, manipulation resulting in the death of an innocent man who could trust no one, as they all had a piece of him.

    Nikki, you have really called it correctly here, and I hope someone else, more medically qualified than myself, will post in more detail than I have. Oh, and by the way, I also do not believe the story of Michael's kids being "off limits" to him every night while Murray wielded his magic. I hope you get some good feedback here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi June, will get to your commentary soon!

    I wanted to add, according to Lexicomp the therapeutic range for lorazepam is 50-240 ng/mL. Just different numbers, most interesting is it lowers the therapeutic range to 240 ng/mL down from 300 ng/mL from the other source. So, anything above 240 ng/mL would be considered to be toxic, essentially.

    For anxiety and sedation it says one should take orally 1-10 mg/day in 2-3 divided doses with the usual dose being 2-6 mg/day in divided doses. This would be to keep a nice steady level going throughout the day for something like anxiety.

    The IV formulation of lorazepam should only be used for status epilepticus, amnesia and sedation--not for insomnia.

    For an ICU patient being sedated the highest recommended dose would be 0.1 mg/kg/hr or about 6 mg/hr for a 60 kg patient. I figure this would render a level higher than 60 ng/mL because of the continuous infusion of the drug.

    I wish someone could give us a scenario on when one should have a level of nearly 170 ng/mL in their body. It seems this should be a rare event--perhaps seen in the sedated ICU patient (who would be intubated). It does not seem someone who was only wanting to sleep should have such a high blood level.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi nikki, take a look here:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/MJJ20Girl#p/u/0/cVnFUzANWHA

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am so grateful to have this clear and intelligent analysis. I couldn't help but think from the beginning (after the autopsy report) that the catheter would prove to be positive for the prosecution. I'm glad you brought that up. I did hear some speculation on the radio during the preliminary hearing. Since I have little medical knowledge I wasn't sure if it could be true. This speculative commentary was eluding to the "fact" that the prosecution was positioning itself to present that CM was in some way attempting to "remove" traces of the drug levels in Michael's body via the catheter (but this type of catheter?) Is this even possible? It would certainly shed light on CM's intentions, thoughts, etc., as well as true/accurate dosing (since straight answers are so hard to come by).  Also, I just hate the way Michael was supposedly found; man, absolutely nothing was sacred for Michael.

    Even though I want this open, online information, at times I wonder if it could be being perused by the defense. You must admit, this is all very strategically relevant in terms of examining every angle and possibility.
    L.o.v.e.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nikki said: " It seems this should be a rare event--perhaps seen in the sedated ICU patient (who would be intubated). It does not seem someone who was only wanting to sleep should have such a high blood level."

    Nikki, I remember that the use of antidepressants in combination with benzodiazepines can potentiate the drowsiness... if that's true, MJ that night had to be sleeping much before the fatal dose of propofol , then lorazepam high dose and repeated doses of other benzodiazepines don´t make sense...well, nothing makes sense in this crazyness

    Thank you for this article.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey June!

    Great points!

    You said, "So, IMO, Michael was "out" when Murray induced the propofol."

    I, too, have thought this and apparently one of the witnesses at the hearing, an MD, thought so, too, at least, that Michael should have been sedated on the lorazepam (his guess is Michael received somewhere between 7 and 12 mg, I think). That being said--why would Murray give ANY propofol--not just any but a large amount to him, an amount seen in surgery patients? That is just sickening to imagine. I cannot go beyond thinking--malice. I guess if I were Murray I'd want to blame anyone else for doing something so cruel and heinous, too. Too bad the courts do not see it as cruel or heinous.

    :-(

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Skeptikos! Am I looking for anything specific on that person's YT channel? I see they are a beLIEver. :-/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Monica!

    Wow--interesting points! As for the catheter being used to remove traces of the drug, hmm, it makes me think about Murray possibly trying to dilute the amount of drugs in his blood by over-hydrating him with saline (which would then led to the urine output, etc.). I don't know how well this would work, though, concerning urine output but it could certainly affect how the lab results came back during the toxicology screenings. I wish an expert would hop in here and maybe expand further on your thoughts since I am speaking rather speculatively. I know one of the doctors who testified at the hearing explained that the results were likely under-reported for both lorazepam and propofol from an array of reasons. I wish I had quotes for this but do not at the moment. The one thing I just cannot shake from my head is Murray having the condom catheter in the first place for a able-bodied man. If mobility was a problem from the IV then Michael could have used a bedside urinal.

    In case people are not sure what a beside urinal is, here is a photo of one:

    http://www.allegromedical.com/personal-care-c532/plasic-urinal-patient-bedside-urinal-p192339.html

    But, to go to such extremes as to put a condom catheter on him at least tells me he had plans to over-sedate Michael, whether it was before that night, I am not sure. What I would like to know is was this set-up used prior to that night or not? A normal male adult who is being so sedated he is losing his urinary control is an adult who is also likely losing his ability to control his own breathing, too. Murray had to have known this, it is common medical sense.

    Michael was such a shy man and I hate to have to talk about matters like this but I try to justify it by saying it is being done to try and find out what really happened. Not knowing is like a knife in the heart to so many. At least it is being done as respectfully as possible.

    As for the defense--who knows. I would think they have experts who are looking at all avenues for them, even avenues that are bullocks. I cannot imagine them not trying to cover several angles and not matter how much we try and find out being the public, the defense will always know more because Murray knows more than anyone what really happened that morning and what his intent really was and why he did the things he did.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey meigadas! :-)

    Yes, you are right, antidepressants can amplify the drowsiness. He had the trazadone but I do not think he took this regularly. It was from April, he'd taken 12 tablets since then and was to take two a night as needed for insomnia. But, Murray supposedly giving diazepam and midazolam and nothing happening? Not buying that. Especially midazolam, that is potent! Murray said himself Michael slept fine on midazolam and lorazepam the night before--I think he really slit his own throat with that comment. An MD estimated the amount of lorazepam in Michael's blood equated to him being given 7-12 mg--that's huge for anything but especially insomnia, too huge! This is all crazy, too crazy to all be random acts of death, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reading your further comments, and I too hate to dwell on that catheter business; here's the thing: my father died from terminal cancer; during his last days he had a condom catheter as he was on morphine and completely "out". That catheter alone should speak volumes of common sense. The person is not awake to relieve himself, period. Question: were unused condom catheters found in the room, which would demonstrate their nightly usage, as Michael slept from the benzos, etc.? And I'm tired of hearing that Michael "begged" for propofol, both Murray and Nurse Lee (coincidentally) used those words. IMO one can't "beg" for anything if one is knocked out in a comatose state.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for sharing your personal story June, and I am so sorry to hear about your father. You are right, they are not awake and cannot awaken to know that nature is calling. Someone ill like your father, it is completely understandable that such a method would need to be in place but in a healthy man who was not terminally ill and when awake knew good and well when he needed to use the restroom, this being on him signifies a serious problem.

    I am not sure if other condom catheters were found--I have yet to see any evidence of other catheters being found (IV catheters were found, though, as reported in the autopsy report). I am also not sure if the catheter was actually attached to a foley bag or not, either, given urine apparently was contained in a "closed bottle"--now, I am not sure what is meant by "closed bottle" but I certainly cannot tie a bottle to being anything like a foley bag. Why was Murray keeping urine in a bottle, anyway? Why was this not flushed?

    What Michael was really begging for was a way to help him sleep like so many do each night, not the drug itself, but most people fail to realize this. Lee should know--she tried multiple methods to help him sleep and they failed (I wish we knew the time frame on this, I am guessing April). Now, one should keep in mind Lee specializes in holistic medicine so her methods were probably, how do I put it, not the most effective. This may have pushed Michael to ask for propofol after trying Lee's methods that failed him. I know Lee gave him IV vitamin C and had him inhale nebulized glutathione. I really do not see the effectiveness of either treatments, especially giving vitamin C intravenously because when taken orally you get rid of what you do not need by releasing the vitamin in your waste. I do not like anything being given IV unless necessary and vitamin C I see no reason to give IV, certainly not in Michael. Don't get me wrong, I do like some holistic treatments for certain ailments but I think perhaps Lee takes it too far.

    This brings me back to why was Murray ordering propofol on April 6th (and I think again on April 28th). Michael supposedly did not even receive propofol from Murray until early to mid May and Michael asked Lee about the medication on April 12th (Easter). I want to know why Murray ordered this when it seems Michael had not asked him for it and why did he order so much of it? He did not order IV lidocaine, however, until June. Something does not make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh June, meant to mention something about MJ not eating--normally if one is having surgery you would not eat 12 hours before, however, I doubt Murray would have enforced such a rule with Michael. You also should not eat so long after being sedated (depends on the type of sedation). That means Michael would have never been able to eat basically which certainly would not be okay.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please check out my new blog that kind of ties into this blog. I was going to post it as a comment but it became too long!

    ReplyDelete