I have a new finding that I would like to share with everyone tonight that was meant to be a comment to my previous blog posting but became too long. I was talking with a dear friend today and it occurred to me to examine Michael's urine output. I wish I did not have to cover this topic but is important because I think this further proves that Michael was sedated when Murray did in fact give the propofol to Michael which then begs for the question--why would Murray give Michael propofol if he was already sedated?
Apparently 450 mLs of urine were found in the bottle left at the house and 550 grams (which is roughly the same amount in mL) was found in his bladder. His bladder, according to the autopsy report, was "distended and trabeculated". It was distended from the volume of urine. Trabeculated means "characterized by thick wall and hypertrophied muscle bundles; typically seen in instances of chronic obstruction". Michael had obstruction due to an enlarged prostate which is common in men around his age. When men have an enlarged prostate they tend to "go a little way too often" instead of being to empty their entire bladder at one time.
I was reading a case study on a young male nurse who died from propofol abuse. His cause of death as well as his estimated amount of propofol administration was estimated through his propofol urine content. The nurse's urine was found to have contained 5.4 ug/g--the bottle of Michael's urine found at the house had less than 0.10 ug/g and the urine from the body had 0.15 ug/g of propofol--much less than the nurse who died. This report estimated that the nurse had died after accidentally giving a 200 mg dose of propofol too himself too fast--but before he died, he'd given himself at least eleven 20mL (200 mg) doses over about six hours (roughly 2225 mg).
This report on the nurse also said that the typical person produces about 40-50 mL of urine an hour. Okay--450 mL divided by 50 mL gives you about 9 hours of urine in the bottle at the house. If you divide 550 mL by 50 mL you get about 11 hours worth of urine in Michael's bladder. Whoa. We do not know when that urine in the bottle was voided, we do not know if it was voided at one time or collected over so many hours or even days. However, it seems it may have been urine released over that night because of the similar content to the urine found in Michael's bladder--both contained propofol, lidocaine, ephedrine and midazolam (noticed the midazolam/propofol amounts "flipped" in the two samples--more propofol found in the bladder than the bottle and more midazolam found in the bottle than the bladder which seems to indicate the urine in the bottle was voided sometime that night, probably in more than one voiding).
In a normal person (as in, someone without diabetes insipidus) , someone usually makes urine in proportion the amount of fluids they take in, so, a person who drinks just a little bit of liquid should not pee as much as someone who has taken in a lot of liquids. Murray claims Michael was dehydrated--so Murray may have actually given Michael a lot of IV saline fluids, either for dehydration or some other reason (perhaps a reason like Monica hinted at, for example).
So, assuming Murray gave Michael a lot of fluids, for whatever reasons, it caused Michael to produce a lot of urine. Here is where the problem occurs--Michael had 550 mL of urine in his bladder. A normal bladder comfortably holds 300-350 mL of urine. A "full" bladder holds about 500-700 mL of urine. Michael's bladder had about 550 mL of urine in it so his bladder was at capacity. The desire to urinate begins to be felt when the bladder is at about 25% of its working value--so, if the working volume was 400 mL for Michael then at about 100 mL Michael should have felt the need to pee. Whatever the percentage, at 550 mL Michael should have felt the need to urinate and urinate ASAP. But, Murray claims Michael was awake, "demanding" propofol. Really? Michael was awake yet did not think to empty his at-capacity bladder? In fact, Michael should have felt the urge to go well before he passed away but yet died with a full bladder but Murray insists Michael was awake all this time. I seriously doubt an awake Michael consciously held this much urine and did nothing about it, hell, he did not even have to get up to pee since he had a condom catheter on--I think almost certainly Michael was sedated thus did not feel the need to urinate and that is why his bladder was full. He would have peed had he been awake during all that time when Murray claims he was awake demanding this and that and what not. With Michael creating that amount of urine and holding it all that time one has to ask if Michael EVER awoke at any point on June 25th before he died? It does not seem likely from my point of view.
Let us not forget the autopsy report also lists "benzodiazepine effect" as a indirect cause of death. This indicates that Michael was in fact being sedated by the lorazepam given to him. I mentioned before that Michael was given a large dose of lorazepam. An expert who testified at the hearing in January said his estimate of lorazepam given was 7-12 mg--a far cry from the 4 mg total Murray claims he gave that night. He also said he thought it would have been sedating him. He also estimated the amount of propofol given was somewhere between 100-200 mg--a dose that should not have caused death in Michael had he not been being sedated by lorazepam in the first place which together these medications caused Michael to not be able to breathe on his own. (I hope to soon be able to directly quote the expert on the findings above as they cannot be verified at this time since the transcripts are no longer publicly available online. I also hope to try and come up with his findings as a way of double-checking everything at some point since an expert is not always right. Estimating the doses Michael received is very difficult given possible reasons such as being over-hydrated, decomposition of propofol in plastic containers, multiple administrations of certain drugs rather than just one dosing, etc. I am not sure if the amounts quoted above are meant to indicate terminal (last) administrations or cumulative administrations of the medications, either.) However, Murray is lying about the dose and time he last gave lorazepam. Murray has lied about the dose of propofol he gave. He has almost certainly lied about Michael being awake during this time--WHY? Why do you give propofol to a man who is sedated and why do you claim he asked for it when he could not ask for it because he was already sedated?!
One thing I am still puzzled about is why were so many bottles empty at the scene. Two lidocaine bottles were empty and three others had partial amounts of drugs, two 20 mL bottles of propofol in addition to a 100 mL bottle of propofol (propofol should be discarded after 6 hours of being opened). I do not know if these were used during previous nights or if they were emptied as a part of staging a scene or something. Murray supposedly used no propofol the night before (thus should have used no IV lidocaine, either). Looking at Michael's urine levels it does not appear he had been given that much propofol before he died, certainly not any grand amount over 6 hours as was the case with the nurse died. It is difficult to make all these assumptions given Murray has done nothing but lie and evidence was not preserved properly if preserved at all. It will always be hard to state anything as 100% fact concerning Michael's death but I, and others, will try our best to piece everything together in time as more information comes out of the trial and I learn more information scientifically-related to this case.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
YouTube Clean Up For Michael Jackson
If you have ever tried to go onto YouTube and find a video about Michael Jackson you probably have come across some hideous ones in the process that leave you stunned, even if you do not actually watch the video. You cannot avoid them--you see the image of some fake autopsy photo or read the title of the video suggesting Michael was a pedophile when he was not. I have seen videos claiming the FBI files "prove" Michael was a pedophile when they actually prove there was no evidence of such. It is horrible to see all the lies harbored on a site that reaches millions across the globe.
Sometime last year I wrote on this very same blog about one disgusting YouTube user whose account was filled with such vile and viscous bullshit, to put it lightly, and she did it all in precious Paris Jackson's name. How much lower can one go? I was appalled and wanted to start a boycott of YouTube but knew that was likely impossible. YouTube can also be used to promote positive messages, too, but to me it is canceled out when you see videos that have no business being aired through any medium. YouTube is very lazy when it comes to monitoring what is placed online--they do not take action until after it is already viewable to the public. That kind of laziness could cost them big someday whether it involves a video of Michael or not--I am shocked we have not heard of child porn or someone's suicide being put online to view through YouTube.
There is some good news out of all the bad news I had to mention above--friends of mine are leading the way in eradicating not only vile and filthy videos but also YouTube accounts that promote such hate towards Michael. Please help take part, even if you only report one video or one abusive account, you can make a difference.
The following tweet is from a dear friend, Deborah Ffrench:
http://tl.gd/900flv
The most recent tweet is actually linked below, with some important updates:
http://tl.gd/90m8te
Please click on the link above to read all of the videos and accounts that need to be reported and how to go about reporting them. Sadly, the list is very, very long and I do not want to copy it here on a blog trying to help Michael and his legacy. I do not think you need a Twitter account to see the tweet, but, if you do, let me know via my comments section and I will copy and post the tweet.
March 5th and 6th is another one of the scheduled times to report the videos and accounts (there have been previous sessions that were very successful)--but you can report anytime. However, when we have people reporting together the results are achieved much faster.
Please, take some time this weekend, even if only 30 minutes, to report some of these videos or accounts. Every little bit helps!
You do not need to be a fan of Michael's to do this, try to include your friends and family, if they love you, they will help (hehe)--everyone should do this when they can out of respect for a fellow human being, especially one who gave so much of himself to others, and for his family especially his children. No child deserves to go onto the internet and see all the vicious lies and cruel remarks and images of their own father who is now gone. The pain of his death is bad enough and his children do not deserve to be hurt anymore than they already have been by his death. And yes, Michael's children do go online and it is a matter of time before they see these putrid videos (if they have not already, but let's pray they have not). Put yourself in Michael's shoes or in one of his children's shoes--the need to do something is needed now. Be a part of it!
Sometime last year I wrote on this very same blog about one disgusting YouTube user whose account was filled with such vile and viscous bullshit, to put it lightly, and she did it all in precious Paris Jackson's name. How much lower can one go? I was appalled and wanted to start a boycott of YouTube but knew that was likely impossible. YouTube can also be used to promote positive messages, too, but to me it is canceled out when you see videos that have no business being aired through any medium. YouTube is very lazy when it comes to monitoring what is placed online--they do not take action until after it is already viewable to the public. That kind of laziness could cost them big someday whether it involves a video of Michael or not--I am shocked we have not heard of child porn or someone's suicide being put online to view through YouTube.
There is some good news out of all the bad news I had to mention above--friends of mine are leading the way in eradicating not only vile and filthy videos but also YouTube accounts that promote such hate towards Michael. Please help take part, even if you only report one video or one abusive account, you can make a difference.
The following tweet is from a dear friend, Deborah Ffrench:
http://tl.gd/900flv
The most recent tweet is actually linked below, with some important updates:
http://tl.gd/90m8te
Please click on the link above to read all of the videos and accounts that need to be reported and how to go about reporting them. Sadly, the list is very, very long and I do not want to copy it here on a blog trying to help Michael and his legacy. I do not think you need a Twitter account to see the tweet, but, if you do, let me know via my comments section and I will copy and post the tweet.
March 5th and 6th is another one of the scheduled times to report the videos and accounts (there have been previous sessions that were very successful)--but you can report anytime. However, when we have people reporting together the results are achieved much faster.
Please, take some time this weekend, even if only 30 minutes, to report some of these videos or accounts. Every little bit helps!
You do not need to be a fan of Michael's to do this, try to include your friends and family, if they love you, they will help (hehe)--everyone should do this when they can out of respect for a fellow human being, especially one who gave so much of himself to others, and for his family especially his children. No child deserves to go onto the internet and see all the vicious lies and cruel remarks and images of their own father who is now gone. The pain of his death is bad enough and his children do not deserve to be hurt anymore than they already have been by his death. And yes, Michael's children do go online and it is a matter of time before they see these putrid videos (if they have not already, but let's pray they have not). Put yourself in Michael's shoes or in one of his children's shoes--the need to do something is needed now. Be a part of it!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Letter to Kamala Harris and David Walgren
The following is a letter I have sent to both California Attorney General Kamala Harris as well as Asst. District Attorney David Walgren who will be prosecuting Conrad Murray.
I doubt I will get a response but hey, at least I am trying. I cannot do nothing. If anything comes out of this, I want to know why strict liability is not being used to prosecute Murray because in my opinion it should be used and could be used unless there is some legal loop hole I am unaware of in this case. I think strict liability is something that is sometimes overboard (or way overboard in the case of pharmacist Eric Cropp whom I discussed last year) but in this case if we are not to see murder charges then at least strict liability should be utilized given Murray at least claims he was medically "treating" Michael at the time he died. "Medically treating" my ass--what an insult to the practice of medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Harris:
Greetings. My name is Nikki *****. Over the past year I have been researching Michael Jackson's homicide--I do not have access to "inside individuals" so my research is based only on what is known to the public. However, as a medical professional who also has family members in law enforcement I have a great interest in medical/legal dilemmas and have the ability to apply relevant knowledge and research to cases of this nature--including Michael Jackson's case which has taken on special role in my life because I find his death especially tragic and unwarranted.
From my perspective as a medical professional there are compelling flaws in all forms of attempted logic with Jackson's so-called "treatment" by Mr. Conrad Murray--this notion, I would have thought, would have eventually led to the questioning of Murray's intent and possible motives in relation to Jackson's death including the possibility of malice being present. Trying to reason this case as involuntary manslaughter is highly difficult if not impossible for me given the circumstances that are known, especially when looking at Jackson's death from a medical perspective with expertise in medications while also recalling Murray is a physician with firm knowledge that cannot be disregarded or assumed absent from his intellect. I personally feel charges for murder in the first or second degree are warranted with first degree murder being plausible if propofol could be argued to have been used as a poison in this situation (per California Penal Code 190.2.19 which mentions the administration of poison as being a special circumstance for murder in the first degree).
I would also like to know why Murray is not facing some form of prosecution via strict liability as he is a physician and was actively rendering non-therapeutic services directly to his patient when his patient died under his supposed monitoring. Strict liability states that "no intent to engage in misconduct is required for a violation. Sometimes even knowledge of the forbidden act is not required--all that must be proven is that the violation happened and that the defendant is responsible for the instrumentality through which, or the place at which, it occurred. Because the potential consequences of any violation are so serious to the public health, the threat of strict liability is used to deter any violations" (Marcus and Cohen, "Pharmacy Law for California Pharmacists", 156). If Murray is not to be charged with murder at some point then I would think the least that should be done is to see Murray facing strict liability as a health professional. Dr. Rapin Osathanondh was prosecuted under strict liability for a case similar to this Murray's except it appears, from my standpoint at least, that Osathanondh did not have any intentions to kill anyone the day his patient died in his clinic. Enclosed is more information detailing the case against Osthanondh.
Late last year I mailed a couple documents to the LAPD that were written by me concerning Jackson's death. One document includes an analysis (albeit a slightly outdated one) of Jackson's death and Murray's possible actions accompanied with many medical questions and references. The other document mailed was a detailed argument against self-injection of propofol by Jackson which appears to be Murray's current defense even though self-injection is also against expert opinion as stated in the autopsy report. If you would like to read these documents they may be on file with LAPD or you contact me for copies as well and I would provide them promptly.
In conclusion, I hope you will at least consider reviewing what I have stated in this document, if nothing else, for the Jackson children. I will continue to hope to see additional charges/reprimands placed against Murray for his many wrongdoings taken directly towards Jackson and wish to see the charge of involuntary manslaughter changed to murder in the first or second degree. There are simply too many errors in this case to see only the one insufficient charge of involuntary manslaughter against Murray. Murray, as well as others, should be facing criminal charges and/or reprimands through agencies such as the Medical and Pharmacy State Boards. I also want to know why strict liability is apparently not being utilized against Murray, either, especially given the nature of his alleged crime.
Kind regards,
Nikki *****
Links to some of the information discussed above:
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/09/two-tales-of-sensless-death-but-justice.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/08/michael-jackson-did-not-administer.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/02/has-justice-been-flushed.html
I doubt I will get a response but hey, at least I am trying. I cannot do nothing. If anything comes out of this, I want to know why strict liability is not being used to prosecute Murray because in my opinion it should be used and could be used unless there is some legal loop hole I am unaware of in this case. I think strict liability is something that is sometimes overboard (or way overboard in the case of pharmacist Eric Cropp whom I discussed last year) but in this case if we are not to see murder charges then at least strict liability should be utilized given Murray at least claims he was medically "treating" Michael at the time he died. "Medically treating" my ass--what an insult to the practice of medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Harris:
Greetings. My name is Nikki *****. Over the past year I have been researching Michael Jackson's homicide--I do not have access to "inside individuals" so my research is based only on what is known to the public. However, as a medical professional who also has family members in law enforcement I have a great interest in medical/legal dilemmas and have the ability to apply relevant knowledge and research to cases of this nature--including Michael Jackson's case which has taken on special role in my life because I find his death especially tragic and unwarranted.
From my perspective as a medical professional there are compelling flaws in all forms of attempted logic with Jackson's so-called "treatment" by Mr. Conrad Murray--this notion, I would have thought, would have eventually led to the questioning of Murray's intent and possible motives in relation to Jackson's death including the possibility of malice being present. Trying to reason this case as involuntary manslaughter is highly difficult if not impossible for me given the circumstances that are known, especially when looking at Jackson's death from a medical perspective with expertise in medications while also recalling Murray is a physician with firm knowledge that cannot be disregarded or assumed absent from his intellect. I personally feel charges for murder in the first or second degree are warranted with first degree murder being plausible if propofol could be argued to have been used as a poison in this situation (per California Penal Code 190.2.19 which mentions the administration of poison as being a special circumstance for murder in the first degree).
I would also like to know why Murray is not facing some form of prosecution via strict liability as he is a physician and was actively rendering non-therapeutic services directly to his patient when his patient died under his supposed monitoring. Strict liability states that "no intent to engage in misconduct is required for a violation. Sometimes even knowledge of the forbidden act is not required--all that must be proven is that the violation happened and that the defendant is responsible for the instrumentality through which, or the place at which, it occurred. Because the potential consequences of any violation are so serious to the public health, the threat of strict liability is used to deter any violations" (Marcus and Cohen, "Pharmacy Law for California Pharmacists", 156). If Murray is not to be charged with murder at some point then I would think the least that should be done is to see Murray facing strict liability as a health professional. Dr. Rapin Osathanondh was prosecuted under strict liability for a case similar to this Murray's except it appears, from my standpoint at least, that Osathanondh did not have any intentions to kill anyone the day his patient died in his clinic. Enclosed is more information detailing the case against Osthanondh.
Late last year I mailed a couple documents to the LAPD that were written by me concerning Jackson's death. One document includes an analysis (albeit a slightly outdated one) of Jackson's death and Murray's possible actions accompanied with many medical questions and references. The other document mailed was a detailed argument against self-injection of propofol by Jackson which appears to be Murray's current defense even though self-injection is also against expert opinion as stated in the autopsy report. If you would like to read these documents they may be on file with LAPD or you contact me for copies as well and I would provide them promptly.
In conclusion, I hope you will at least consider reviewing what I have stated in this document, if nothing else, for the Jackson children. I will continue to hope to see additional charges/reprimands placed against Murray for his many wrongdoings taken directly towards Jackson and wish to see the charge of involuntary manslaughter changed to murder in the first or second degree. There are simply too many errors in this case to see only the one insufficient charge of involuntary manslaughter against Murray. Murray, as well as others, should be facing criminal charges and/or reprimands through agencies such as the Medical and Pharmacy State Boards. I also want to know why strict liability is apparently not being utilized against Murray, either, especially given the nature of his alleged crime.
Kind regards,
Nikki *****
Links to some of the information discussed above:
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/09/two-tales-of-sensless-death-but-justice.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/08/michael-jackson-did-not-administer.html
http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/02/has-justice-been-flushed.html
Sunday, February 13, 2011
FYI
Hi everyone! Just wanted to let everyone know that I will continue posting blogs here shortly. I have been having to take care of some things that required enormous amounts of my personal time but most of those things should be out of the way now. Also, I do moderate all comments--if you post something I almost always will post it, (for the record I have never rejected a comment unless it was spam)--even if it totally goes against my views. I believe in freedom of speech completely. I try to approve comments only when I have the time to read them and respond which sometimes is a long time (like now). I just approved a batch of comments (this is 02/13/2011) but do not have time yet to respond but hopefully will within the next few hours or days. There is never enough time in the day! Thanks for understanding.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Ronni Chasen--Another Flagrant Case of Injustice in Hollywood
I am taking a very quick break from the main purpose of this blog to discuss another case of horrid injustice that deserves attention--that being the brutal murder of Ronni Chasen. By all accounts, Chasen seems to have been a good person who was incredibly hard-working and completely undeserving of what happened to her.
I had thought about writing a blog about her death at some point but after positing the following comment on a social outlet yesterday I actually had a couple requests to do one now:
"Way to go "po-leese"! First you say Harold Smith has no ties, now his gun matches and he acted alone--case solved! Yeah right! He must have been really lucky not missing his target while chasing her on his bicycle!"
I was being sarcastic but low and behold the Beverly Hills Police Department has actually marked my words!
I have been keeping up with Chasen's death since it occurred on November 16th as it stuck a cord with me because of the brutality and tragedy of her death. Her photos reveal a beautiful woman who appeared to be full of life--why did this happen?
When I first heard about her death I immediately thought "hired hit" due to the nature of the crime. She was gunned down in a camera-lacking intersection by five on-target hollowed-point bullets which are more lethal than a typical bullet due to their ability to "spread" in the body.
Things we know (or thought we knew) from previous articles:
--She was likely shot from a high-profile vehicle due to the angle of the shots
--She may have been in motion (driving) when it happen considering she later crashed at enough speed her air bags deployed (how tragic to be shot then have an air bag hit you your wounds)
--The gun seemed to be at least a semi-automatic weapon
--It was not a car jacking (if you want the car--you make the person get out, not kill them, leaving them and the car)
--It was not a robbery (apparently her purse, jewelry, cell phone, etc. were not taken)
--She apparently tried to revise her will two months ago (her will leaves most of her 6 million dollar fortune to charities and one of two nieces)
--She feared someone was following her since March 2010
--There were no casings found at the scene
--The shooter appears to be an expert marksman hitting the torso of the body with all 5 shots
Then we hear, some days later, that the Beverly Hills Police Department has a "person of interest" from tips called in during an airing of "America's Most Wanted". These tipsters living in the same apartment claim Harold Smith said he was due to be paid $10,000 for a "hit" or lawsuit. They also claim Smith said he would never go back to prison yet apparently had no problem "bragging" about killing a publicist everyone had seen on TV. We have also heard from reports in the news he had been in prison before but not for murder. Others living at the apartment said he rode a bike for his method of transportation and always wore gloves which would have made it difficult for him to pull a gun trigger. He was not known to be a professional hit man and apparently had no expert firearms/marksman training. Reports also initially said that ballistics from the gun he used to kill himself did NOT match.
Come yesterday we sudden hear, oh yes, ballistics DO match. We also now hear he shot her while riding his BIKE (did he stand up on it to have the appropriate trajectory!?)--I am not talking about a motorcycle but a BIKE as in a person-powered bicycle with pedals! Now suddenly Smith worked alone--and it was a failed robbery attempt and by no means a hired hit--keeping in mind he was supposedly able to "rob" the scene of casings in the dark without being seen but failed to grab any belongings. Would it really take 5 bullets, hollow ones nonetheless, to rob someone? No. Why would someone hell-bent on never going back to prison do something so stupid, and then supposedly BRAG about it? Moreover, why do the police think the public are actually stupid enough to buy this bullshit? I certainly am not! My big question is WHO is the police either afraid of or covering?!
I would say with Chasen, hopefully her family and friends, some of which are high-profile individuals themselves with clout, will hire a private investigator to look into her murder and not accept this CRAP of a scenario given to them. But then, I read that her own brother was quoted at saying, "I'm sure it was road rage. I'm sure it was some kind of random thing." WHAT?! I would never try to implicate someone's own family in a murder, and am not doing that now, but seriously, how could he even think or say such given the evidence we know is factual? Contrary to reports by even some that knew her there are not that many nuts running around randomly killing people, especially not in the manner in which she was killed! I do not know if police are telling her family and friends that but it is not true. Most people who are murdered know or know of the assailant--there is usually some form of a connection, as with most crimes including rape and kidnapping. I do not think this case is any different.
I hope there will someday be justice in Chasen's death but things are looking dim, just as they are for Michael Jackson. At least people are not blaming her for her own death. I actually told some of my friends I feared this is how her death investigation would play out, either they would never find any suspects (or claim any) or pen it on someone else because whoever did this has power and probably a lot of money behind them, too. I think this is the same route that Jackson's death has taken--money and power are more important than justice for the victim. When you look at these two individuals (and even to some degree at Smith who very well may be a victim here, too, being accused of something he did not do which ultimately led to his suicide)--they are the weaker of the two forces compared to those who wanted them dead. That being said, and considering the politics in Los Angeles and in Hollywood (the entertainment industry) in particular, do you think the police or prosecuting forces want to defend and fight for these two individuals who mean nothing to them and risk losing their jobs and/or possibly their lives? I cannot say this about Chasen but with Jackson there are clear ties, monetary ties, tying those assumed involved in his murder in some way with the authorities that are suppose to be on HIS side or moreover on the side of JUSTICE, integrity and TRUTH, not corruption and the "good ol' boy" system.
Sources:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/ronni-chasen-shot-in-botched-robbery-gunman-acted-alone-police-say.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8181126/Ronni-Chasen-murder-suicide-and-a-tale-of-two-Hollywoods.html
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/09/skeptical-ronni-chasen-murder-robbery-gone-wrong/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8179858/Ronni-Chasen-murder-detectives-investigate-road-rage-link.html
I had thought about writing a blog about her death at some point but after positing the following comment on a social outlet yesterday I actually had a couple requests to do one now:
"Way to go "po-leese"! First you say Harold Smith has no ties, now his gun matches and he acted alone--case solved! Yeah right! He must have been really lucky not missing his target while chasing her on his bicycle!"
I was being sarcastic but low and behold the Beverly Hills Police Department has actually marked my words!
I have been keeping up with Chasen's death since it occurred on November 16th as it stuck a cord with me because of the brutality and tragedy of her death. Her photos reveal a beautiful woman who appeared to be full of life--why did this happen?
When I first heard about her death I immediately thought "hired hit" due to the nature of the crime. She was gunned down in a camera-lacking intersection by five on-target hollowed-point bullets which are more lethal than a typical bullet due to their ability to "spread" in the body.
Things we know (or thought we knew) from previous articles:
--She was likely shot from a high-profile vehicle due to the angle of the shots
--She may have been in motion (driving) when it happen considering she later crashed at enough speed her air bags deployed (how tragic to be shot then have an air bag hit you your wounds)
--The gun seemed to be at least a semi-automatic weapon
--It was not a car jacking (if you want the car--you make the person get out, not kill them, leaving them and the car)
--It was not a robbery (apparently her purse, jewelry, cell phone, etc. were not taken)
--She apparently tried to revise her will two months ago (her will leaves most of her 6 million dollar fortune to charities and one of two nieces)
--She feared someone was following her since March 2010
--There were no casings found at the scene
--The shooter appears to be an expert marksman hitting the torso of the body with all 5 shots
Then we hear, some days later, that the Beverly Hills Police Department has a "person of interest" from tips called in during an airing of "America's Most Wanted". These tipsters living in the same apartment claim Harold Smith said he was due to be paid $10,000 for a "hit" or lawsuit. They also claim Smith said he would never go back to prison yet apparently had no problem "bragging" about killing a publicist everyone had seen on TV. We have also heard from reports in the news he had been in prison before but not for murder. Others living at the apartment said he rode a bike for his method of transportation and always wore gloves which would have made it difficult for him to pull a gun trigger. He was not known to be a professional hit man and apparently had no expert firearms/marksman training. Reports also initially said that ballistics from the gun he used to kill himself did NOT match.
Come yesterday we sudden hear, oh yes, ballistics DO match. We also now hear he shot her while riding his BIKE (did he stand up on it to have the appropriate trajectory!?)--I am not talking about a motorcycle but a BIKE as in a person-powered bicycle with pedals! Now suddenly Smith worked alone--and it was a failed robbery attempt and by no means a hired hit--keeping in mind he was supposedly able to "rob" the scene of casings in the dark without being seen but failed to grab any belongings. Would it really take 5 bullets, hollow ones nonetheless, to rob someone? No. Why would someone hell-bent on never going back to prison do something so stupid, and then supposedly BRAG about it? Moreover, why do the police think the public are actually stupid enough to buy this bullshit? I certainly am not! My big question is WHO is the police either afraid of or covering?!
I would say with Chasen, hopefully her family and friends, some of which are high-profile individuals themselves with clout, will hire a private investigator to look into her murder and not accept this CRAP of a scenario given to them. But then, I read that her own brother was quoted at saying, "I'm sure it was road rage. I'm sure it was some kind of random thing." WHAT?! I would never try to implicate someone's own family in a murder, and am not doing that now, but seriously, how could he even think or say such given the evidence we know is factual? Contrary to reports by even some that knew her there are not that many nuts running around randomly killing people, especially not in the manner in which she was killed! I do not know if police are telling her family and friends that but it is not true. Most people who are murdered know or know of the assailant--there is usually some form of a connection, as with most crimes including rape and kidnapping. I do not think this case is any different.
I hope there will someday be justice in Chasen's death but things are looking dim, just as they are for Michael Jackson. At least people are not blaming her for her own death. I actually told some of my friends I feared this is how her death investigation would play out, either they would never find any suspects (or claim any) or pen it on someone else because whoever did this has power and probably a lot of money behind them, too. I think this is the same route that Jackson's death has taken--money and power are more important than justice for the victim. When you look at these two individuals (and even to some degree at Smith who very well may be a victim here, too, being accused of something he did not do which ultimately led to his suicide)--they are the weaker of the two forces compared to those who wanted them dead. That being said, and considering the politics in Los Angeles and in Hollywood (the entertainment industry) in particular, do you think the police or prosecuting forces want to defend and fight for these two individuals who mean nothing to them and risk losing their jobs and/or possibly their lives? I cannot say this about Chasen but with Jackson there are clear ties, monetary ties, tying those assumed involved in his murder in some way with the authorities that are suppose to be on HIS side or moreover on the side of JUSTICE, integrity and TRUTH, not corruption and the "good ol' boy" system.
Sources:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/ronni-chasen-shot-in-botched-robbery-gunman-acted-alone-police-say.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8181126/Ronni-Chasen-murder-suicide-and-a-tale-of-two-Hollywoods.html
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/09/skeptical-ronni-chasen-murder-robbery-gone-wrong/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8179858/Ronni-Chasen-murder-detectives-investigate-road-rage-link.html
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The "Gloved One" and the "Invisible Hand"--Michael Jackson and Sony Music Entertainment, Part One
This is going to be a multi-part "series" for I cannot get all of it written down in any reasonable amount of time. It is also sort of a work-in-progress, too, as I do not know everything about Michael's relationship with Sony but I am learning more and more each and every day. It takes time to learn something of this nature and takes even more time to get it right--and getting it right is what matters to me most. The music business has been something that has intrigued me since I was a teen as I watched one of my favorite artists, Prince, fight for "freedom" from Warner Brothers and discuss what he considered the theft of his "masters" (mechanical copyrights/actual tracks that are on the albums you buy). I have also for years had an interest in how businesses operate, including the economics of those businesses. Hopefully this will help me to understand what has and continues to come about from Michael Jackson's relationship with Sony Music that is slated to continue, via his Estate, until 2017, if not until the unforeseeable future.
Michael and Sony became artist-with-company in 1987 when Sony purchased CBS Records whom Michael had been with for many years after leaving Motown. Obviously Michael had tremendous success both artistically and business-wise throughout the 1980s. I will try to start this particular blog with what began to transpire in 1990/1991 with the extension of Michael's contract with Sony after an abbreviated introduction to my stance with Sony. I will then, hopefully soon, continue such discussions all the way up to now concerning the relationship with Michael Jackson's Estate and Sony Music Entertainment, including my take on the new album "Michael" and the issue concerning some of the tracks on the album.
I want to make something clear first right off the top--I am not a "boycotter" of Michael's "new" music. I will not criticize someone who feels they need to boycott the new releases from Sony. I will also not criticize someone who chooses to buy the album or hopes for it to reach #1. If you believe your stance is what is best for Michael, and your emotions are purely from the heart, then I cannot disagree with that stance. I believe the release of "new" music, be it finished, unreleased tracks cut from previous albums due to time constraints or demos of the artist (Michael) at work can help cultivate Michael's genius that has many times been overlooked by the public (and even some fans) who do not understand the depth of Michael's involvement in his own music. However, I will not and cannot support the creation of music in Michael's name and image that is utilizing scant song concepts and fake vocals being passed off as his own, while in turn brainwashing the public into thinking those are his vocals on the finished product--and his vocals only. I believe Michael cared for and cherished his fans more than any other entertainer ever and to think an industry, the very same industry Michael accused of "breaking" artists down and leaving them "broken"--which is what essentially happened to Michael with help of numerous individual extortionists and con-artist corporations including the concert promoter AEG--is now passing the torch of manipulation onto his fans. Someone has to be blunt about what is happening and has happened in the past. I am willing to break it down and tell it like it is--I want to do it for Michael.
I am not going to sit here and pretend to tell you I know exactly where every penny of "new" album sales will go. I will not attempt to tell you how buying or not buying the album will hurt or help Michael or his children. I will not even sit here and tell you that Sony "murdered" Michael though many believe they had motive for such because of his ownership in the Sony/ATV catalog. What is factual, however, is Sony had a direct hand in "murdering" Michael's career and I think too many people are overlooking this fact and shifting blame or lying to themselves so they can justify buying Michael's posthumous music free of guilt because in their own hearts there is a feeling that there is at least something wrong with the situation we are facing today, be it with his "new" album, his unexpected death, his enormous debt and/or all the tribulations he faced since the 1990s.
I see fans shifting blame of any issues related to this new album off Sony and onto Michael's family for sabotaging the album or claiming Michael only had issues with Tommy Mottola who served as Chairman and CEO of Sony Music Entertainment from 1988-early 2003. Both of these notions are false. The family has not brainwashed the masses, including those who could not even name most, if any of Michael's family members, nor did Michael say his only problem was with Tommy Mottola (see the videos below). His problem was not just with Sony (think back to Brett Ratner's interview with Michael and the discussion about "sharks in the industry" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvKwAXSVRU8). His problem was with the entire music industry and how they essentially use artists as modern-day slaves, cheating them out of profit and product which in-turn affects them in the latter years of their lives. Michael attempted to prevent this from happening to himself when he bought the ATV catalog in 1985 for $47.5 million. It should have provided to him a steady and dependable income for the rest of his life. The catalog was also important to him because it contains a part of our history including some of the world's most treasured art in the form of song (the Beatles are the highest selling artists of all-time, making this catalog all the more valuable financially and artistically). But, instead this catalog became a burden of fear and paranoia that may have in-fact led to his death, if not certainly his financial decline and despondence. All of this was exacerbated by Sony. Sony took advantage of a situation in which Michael went from champion to underdog within a matter of hours in 1993 and instead of being loyal to him, standing at his side, they bit the hand that had and will now continue to feed them, disregarding the fact that Michael was a human being and not a disposable commodity. There have been many artists rocked by scandals, some true, some not, but many have not suffered the devastating blow that Michael himself and his career had to endure when he was undoubtedly innocent of all allegations against him. Sony should have helped to rebuild his career--instead they were helping to break it apart, piece by piece, and likely during this demise eying for a profitable means directly through Michael that would not have to face any issues with public relations or image--that means being the ATV catalog.
Please listen to the following to get a better understanding of Michael's stance on Sony and the music industry in general.
Michael's "Killer Thriller" Speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1T1DZdWrA
See 5:40, Michael and fans chant "Sony Sucks"--it was not just about Mottola:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhxrmaDCHKM&feature=related
The 1991 Contract
Please read the following sources for information on the 1991 contract between Michael and Sony:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-21/news/mn-654_1_michael-jackson
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/21/movies/michael-jackson-gets-thriller-of-deal-to-stay-with-sony.html
To the best of my knowledge, no one has a copy of this contract but Lynton Guest claims he was able to view it in his book, "The Trials of Michael Jackson". Some information about this contract has been revealed, however, through various sources online. I think enough of it is known to piece some key information together though having an actual copy of the contract would be fabulous.
When Michael signed into this new agreement/extension that was to be valid until March of 2006 (15 years) he had supposedly "entered into an agreement to create feature films, theatrical shorts, television programming and a new record label for the Japanese conglomerate's American entertainment subsidiaries". Basically none of this happened, certainly nothing worthy of recognition and/or profit for Michael or Sony, either. There was no TV programming, no feature films, no theatrical shorts unless you try to count the hidden gem "Ghosts" which most non-fans have never heard of or seen. A record label dubbed "Nation Records" never came to fruition but MJJ Music was created (http://www.last.fm/label/MJJ+Music). Filmmaking had been a childhood ambition for Michael--one that he never got to really pursue--something (moreover, someoneS) always got in the way. "He doesn't need the money. So you say we have this fantastic company that has all these avenues for you. Give us your albums and you can do movies, TV shows." That is exactly what Sony did--they wanted the music, his greatest asset. However, just years later he did find himself needing the money, or so he thought (this will be addressed later). By Michael going further and further into debt, Sony became closer and closer to controlling the ATV catalog which contains 251 of the Beatles most precious songs. The Sony/ATV catalog owns and administers over 500,000 song copyrights today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing_artists).
At times the contract from 1991 has been dubbed a "billion dollar contract" but it would have been Sony, not Michael, making this amount over time. "Tommy Mottola, the president of Sony Music Entertainment, said the company based the estimate of $1 billion in retail revenues on the 40 million copies of "Thriller" and 25 million copies of "Bad" that have been sold, at an average of $10 per record, or $650 million." I know Michael always felt the need to top himself and had aspirations of beating "Thriller's" success but for Sony and Mottola to even remotely assume Michael would ever create another "Thriller" is shocking and, in all honestly, purely ignorant and unbelievable. What "Thriller" achieved was a once-in-lifetime event for not only Michael but all of us living now, too. It was more than just a perfect album--it was a cultural phenomenon. "Thriller" set the time piece to the decade if not for the century and then paved the way to how music videos/short music films should be created. It established guidelines that were to be aspired--not surpassed. Maybe Michael did not know this but those in the music industry did. To build a contract off such a notion was already a step in the wrong direction for Michael--in fact, it was a burden placed on him as far as I am concerned.
Of Michael's reported possible earnings through the new contract, "Jackson, 32, reportedly could receive more than $120 million per album if sales match the 40-million-plus level of his smash mid-'80s album "Thriller." Two sources close to the talks said the reclusive singer is guaranteed an advance payment of $5 million per record plus a 25% royalty from each album based on retail sales." No artist could or can top "Thriller's" sales and honestly not many artists could even rival the sales of Michael's subsequent albums, either. Though the royalty rate is very good, the advance payment of $5 million is pathetic. This schematic means Michael could only make money off his albums if they sold well. If his album did not sell well, then his profits would be minimal. In my opinion, this payment scale would have protected Sony from losing money if Michael's albums failed to sell and all albums sold after the 1993 scandal were plagued with problems which I hope to cover in the next blog. Here is a breakdown of some math from this $5 million/25% royalties payment plan:
"HIStory" sold 20 million copies (40 million CDs total): 20 million album sets x $20 dollars (assuming the two-disc set was double the amount of a single CD) = $400 million x 0.25% for royalties = $100 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $105 million GROSS for Michael for "HIStory"
"Blood on the Dance Floor": 6 million albums sold x $10 per album = $60 million dollars x 0.25% for royalties = $15 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $20 million GROSS for Michael for "Blood on the Dance Floor"
"Invincible": 13 million albums sold x $10 per album = $ 130 million dollars x 0.25% for royalties = $32.5 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $37.5 million dollars GROSS for Michael for "Invincible"
At first glance these seem like great figures but keep in mind a) these figures of total album sales are current--including the surge in sales after his death, b) they are not confirmed, at least, not by me, and c) we do not know what his NET income was for these albums. I do not know how much Sony did or could have taken out for advance payments, including costs like the reported $30 million it took to make "Invincible". If such was to come out of Michael's gross earnings for "Invincible", then that would have left him making only $7.5 million for "Invincible", with only $2.5 million of that coming from royalties since its release--and this would have been for about 5 years worth of work ("Invincible" was worked on from 1997-2001). So, Michael would have earned about $1.5 million a year for "Invincible", not including taxes or other costs recalling also that the 13 million sales figure is current.
I would assume that Sony would have recouped, at minimum, their advancement costs as any business would not want to put themselves in a hole. I am also not sure where the cost of promotion and pressing of the CDs would fit into this equation, either. Even though Sony would have earned 75% off album sales I would still assume (though I am not sure) that an artist would at least be responsible for the cost of making their own albums as the company would lose profit if they did not recoup some, if not all of the costs before the album was released. Think of that $30 million for the production/creation of "Invincible" as a loan from the bank except the bank is Sony. That is how I would assume business is conducted when you are dealing with such massive sums--no company wants or can afford to give away free money. This schematic I mentioned above is also how the "This Is It" tour was set up with AEG--Michael was being "loaned" money to prepare for his tour and once his tour began the first profits were to go to AEG to cover advancement costs, not Michael. AEG went further than just wanting to recoup advancement costs and I hope to soon go back and discuss the AEG contract again as more details have come to light, serious details. I will also discuss "Invincible" in more detail in another blog soon, too.
The six albums to be completed for the 1991 contract were to be done over 15 years which meant an album would be released on average every 2.5 years. Michael typically released an album every 3-5 years and this seemed to work for him, too. So, not only was Michael expected to release a new album every 30 months but to also balance that work between tours, movies, television shows and other work. Sounds a bit too much, right? "If that trend continues (just based on his albums), he will be approaching 60 when his final record under the Sony deal hits the stores. One source predicted that Jackson will step up the pace now. He also reportedly will augment his new material with a "greatest hits" collection. But Schulhof (Chairman of US Sony Corporation until 1995) said he was not concerned." "But some financial analysts called the Jackson deal extravagant. 'They (had) better hope he stays popular,' said one analyst who asked not to be named. Another accused Sony of 'grandstanding.' I have to agree with this--it was grandstanding, and a burden like I mentioned before. Michael was 32 years old when he signed this contract. That means the contract should have been valid until he was 47 years old. Though he could (and should) have remained a pivotal force in the music and entertainment industry, it is unrealistic to think Michael would have sustained the same force being seen in the early 1980s or even the early 1990s into the mid-2000s, especially when he was going to have to "step up the pace" and begin work on film, taking away from the music. Michael was a perfectionist--he would have preferred to have more time on his than more material. He obviously had a "quality, not quantity" belief in his work. Why would Sony want to put these type of demands on him, then, when it had worked for him in the 1980s when with CBS? Was this the beginning of the attempt to make Michael fail in order to capture the ATV catalog or just purely coincidental? I am not sure.
More on Michael Schulhof:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983851-1,00.html
The above article highlights Schulhof's achievements while at Sony including Sony's entrance and failure in Hollywood and his departure from Sony in December 1995--one month after Michael merged his ATV catalog with the Sony catalog for somewhere between $50-$90 million. Was this merger more for Michael who was rumored to be having financial issues but had just released "HIStory" and would be going on tour soon or for Sony who was contemplating the sale of their failed film division and was directly hurting from Schulhof's big purchases during his tenure with the company? I would seem to think it was for the latter.
In the next blog, I will began discussion on the albums released under this contract from 1991 and describe the faults with those releases. I will also likely then discuss the merger of the ATV catalog with the Sony catalog and discuss some of the information concerning the loans taken out then under the tenure of Myung Ho Lee who later helped fuel the filth written by Maureen Orth.
Michael and Sony became artist-with-company in 1987 when Sony purchased CBS Records whom Michael had been with for many years after leaving Motown. Obviously Michael had tremendous success both artistically and business-wise throughout the 1980s. I will try to start this particular blog with what began to transpire in 1990/1991 with the extension of Michael's contract with Sony after an abbreviated introduction to my stance with Sony. I will then, hopefully soon, continue such discussions all the way up to now concerning the relationship with Michael Jackson's Estate and Sony Music Entertainment, including my take on the new album "Michael" and the issue concerning some of the tracks on the album.
I want to make something clear first right off the top--I am not a "boycotter" of Michael's "new" music. I will not criticize someone who feels they need to boycott the new releases from Sony. I will also not criticize someone who chooses to buy the album or hopes for it to reach #1. If you believe your stance is what is best for Michael, and your emotions are purely from the heart, then I cannot disagree with that stance. I believe the release of "new" music, be it finished, unreleased tracks cut from previous albums due to time constraints or demos of the artist (Michael) at work can help cultivate Michael's genius that has many times been overlooked by the public (and even some fans) who do not understand the depth of Michael's involvement in his own music. However, I will not and cannot support the creation of music in Michael's name and image that is utilizing scant song concepts and fake vocals being passed off as his own, while in turn brainwashing the public into thinking those are his vocals on the finished product--and his vocals only. I believe Michael cared for and cherished his fans more than any other entertainer ever and to think an industry, the very same industry Michael accused of "breaking" artists down and leaving them "broken"--which is what essentially happened to Michael with help of numerous individual extortionists and con-artist corporations including the concert promoter AEG--is now passing the torch of manipulation onto his fans. Someone has to be blunt about what is happening and has happened in the past. I am willing to break it down and tell it like it is--I want to do it for Michael.
I am not going to sit here and pretend to tell you I know exactly where every penny of "new" album sales will go. I will not attempt to tell you how buying or not buying the album will hurt or help Michael or his children. I will not even sit here and tell you that Sony "murdered" Michael though many believe they had motive for such because of his ownership in the Sony/ATV catalog. What is factual, however, is Sony had a direct hand in "murdering" Michael's career and I think too many people are overlooking this fact and shifting blame or lying to themselves so they can justify buying Michael's posthumous music free of guilt because in their own hearts there is a feeling that there is at least something wrong with the situation we are facing today, be it with his "new" album, his unexpected death, his enormous debt and/or all the tribulations he faced since the 1990s.
I see fans shifting blame of any issues related to this new album off Sony and onto Michael's family for sabotaging the album or claiming Michael only had issues with Tommy Mottola who served as Chairman and CEO of Sony Music Entertainment from 1988-early 2003. Both of these notions are false. The family has not brainwashed the masses, including those who could not even name most, if any of Michael's family members, nor did Michael say his only problem was with Tommy Mottola (see the videos below). His problem was not just with Sony (think back to Brett Ratner's interview with Michael and the discussion about "sharks in the industry" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvKwAXSVRU8). His problem was with the entire music industry and how they essentially use artists as modern-day slaves, cheating them out of profit and product which in-turn affects them in the latter years of their lives. Michael attempted to prevent this from happening to himself when he bought the ATV catalog in 1985 for $47.5 million. It should have provided to him a steady and dependable income for the rest of his life. The catalog was also important to him because it contains a part of our history including some of the world's most treasured art in the form of song (the Beatles are the highest selling artists of all-time, making this catalog all the more valuable financially and artistically). But, instead this catalog became a burden of fear and paranoia that may have in-fact led to his death, if not certainly his financial decline and despondence. All of this was exacerbated by Sony. Sony took advantage of a situation in which Michael went from champion to underdog within a matter of hours in 1993 and instead of being loyal to him, standing at his side, they bit the hand that had and will now continue to feed them, disregarding the fact that Michael was a human being and not a disposable commodity. There have been many artists rocked by scandals, some true, some not, but many have not suffered the devastating blow that Michael himself and his career had to endure when he was undoubtedly innocent of all allegations against him. Sony should have helped to rebuild his career--instead they were helping to break it apart, piece by piece, and likely during this demise eying for a profitable means directly through Michael that would not have to face any issues with public relations or image--that means being the ATV catalog.
Please listen to the following to get a better understanding of Michael's stance on Sony and the music industry in general.
Michael's "Killer Thriller" Speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1T1DZdWrA
See 5:40, Michael and fans chant "Sony Sucks"--it was not just about Mottola:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhxrmaDCHKM&feature=related
The 1991 Contract
Please read the following sources for information on the 1991 contract between Michael and Sony:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-21/news/mn-654_1_michael-jackson
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/21/movies/michael-jackson-gets-thriller-of-deal-to-stay-with-sony.html
To the best of my knowledge, no one has a copy of this contract but Lynton Guest claims he was able to view it in his book, "The Trials of Michael Jackson". Some information about this contract has been revealed, however, through various sources online. I think enough of it is known to piece some key information together though having an actual copy of the contract would be fabulous.
When Michael signed into this new agreement/extension that was to be valid until March of 2006 (15 years) he had supposedly "entered into an agreement to create feature films, theatrical shorts, television programming and a new record label for the Japanese conglomerate's American entertainment subsidiaries". Basically none of this happened, certainly nothing worthy of recognition and/or profit for Michael or Sony, either. There was no TV programming, no feature films, no theatrical shorts unless you try to count the hidden gem "Ghosts" which most non-fans have never heard of or seen. A record label dubbed "Nation Records" never came to fruition but MJJ Music was created (http://www.last.fm/label/MJJ+Music). Filmmaking had been a childhood ambition for Michael--one that he never got to really pursue--something (moreover, someoneS) always got in the way. "He doesn't need the money. So you say we have this fantastic company that has all these avenues for you. Give us your albums and you can do movies, TV shows." That is exactly what Sony did--they wanted the music, his greatest asset. However, just years later he did find himself needing the money, or so he thought (this will be addressed later). By Michael going further and further into debt, Sony became closer and closer to controlling the ATV catalog which contains 251 of the Beatles most precious songs. The Sony/ATV catalog owns and administers over 500,000 song copyrights today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing_artists).
At times the contract from 1991 has been dubbed a "billion dollar contract" but it would have been Sony, not Michael, making this amount over time. "Tommy Mottola, the president of Sony Music Entertainment, said the company based the estimate of $1 billion in retail revenues on the 40 million copies of "Thriller" and 25 million copies of "Bad" that have been sold, at an average of $10 per record, or $650 million." I know Michael always felt the need to top himself and had aspirations of beating "Thriller's" success but for Sony and Mottola to even remotely assume Michael would ever create another "Thriller" is shocking and, in all honestly, purely ignorant and unbelievable. What "Thriller" achieved was a once-in-lifetime event for not only Michael but all of us living now, too. It was more than just a perfect album--it was a cultural phenomenon. "Thriller" set the time piece to the decade if not for the century and then paved the way to how music videos/short music films should be created. It established guidelines that were to be aspired--not surpassed. Maybe Michael did not know this but those in the music industry did. To build a contract off such a notion was already a step in the wrong direction for Michael--in fact, it was a burden placed on him as far as I am concerned.
Of Michael's reported possible earnings through the new contract, "Jackson, 32, reportedly could receive more than $120 million per album if sales match the 40-million-plus level of his smash mid-'80s album "Thriller." Two sources close to the talks said the reclusive singer is guaranteed an advance payment of $5 million per record plus a 25% royalty from each album based on retail sales." No artist could or can top "Thriller's" sales and honestly not many artists could even rival the sales of Michael's subsequent albums, either. Though the royalty rate is very good, the advance payment of $5 million is pathetic. This schematic means Michael could only make money off his albums if they sold well. If his album did not sell well, then his profits would be minimal. In my opinion, this payment scale would have protected Sony from losing money if Michael's albums failed to sell and all albums sold after the 1993 scandal were plagued with problems which I hope to cover in the next blog. Here is a breakdown of some math from this $5 million/25% royalties payment plan:
"HIStory" sold 20 million copies (40 million CDs total): 20 million album sets x $20 dollars (assuming the two-disc set was double the amount of a single CD) = $400 million x 0.25% for royalties = $100 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $105 million GROSS for Michael for "HIStory"
"Blood on the Dance Floor": 6 million albums sold x $10 per album = $60 million dollars x 0.25% for royalties = $15 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $20 million GROSS for Michael for "Blood on the Dance Floor"
"Invincible": 13 million albums sold x $10 per album = $ 130 million dollars x 0.25% for royalties = $32.5 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $37.5 million dollars GROSS for Michael for "Invincible"
At first glance these seem like great figures but keep in mind a) these figures of total album sales are current--including the surge in sales after his death, b) they are not confirmed, at least, not by me, and c) we do not know what his NET income was for these albums. I do not know how much Sony did or could have taken out for advance payments, including costs like the reported $30 million it took to make "Invincible". If such was to come out of Michael's gross earnings for "Invincible", then that would have left him making only $7.5 million for "Invincible", with only $2.5 million of that coming from royalties since its release--and this would have been for about 5 years worth of work ("Invincible" was worked on from 1997-2001). So, Michael would have earned about $1.5 million a year for "Invincible", not including taxes or other costs recalling also that the 13 million sales figure is current.
I would assume that Sony would have recouped, at minimum, their advancement costs as any business would not want to put themselves in a hole. I am also not sure where the cost of promotion and pressing of the CDs would fit into this equation, either. Even though Sony would have earned 75% off album sales I would still assume (though I am not sure) that an artist would at least be responsible for the cost of making their own albums as the company would lose profit if they did not recoup some, if not all of the costs before the album was released. Think of that $30 million for the production/creation of "Invincible" as a loan from the bank except the bank is Sony. That is how I would assume business is conducted when you are dealing with such massive sums--no company wants or can afford to give away free money. This schematic I mentioned above is also how the "This Is It" tour was set up with AEG--Michael was being "loaned" money to prepare for his tour and once his tour began the first profits were to go to AEG to cover advancement costs, not Michael. AEG went further than just wanting to recoup advancement costs and I hope to soon go back and discuss the AEG contract again as more details have come to light, serious details. I will also discuss "Invincible" in more detail in another blog soon, too.
The six albums to be completed for the 1991 contract were to be done over 15 years which meant an album would be released on average every 2.5 years. Michael typically released an album every 3-5 years and this seemed to work for him, too. So, not only was Michael expected to release a new album every 30 months but to also balance that work between tours, movies, television shows and other work. Sounds a bit too much, right? "If that trend continues (just based on his albums), he will be approaching 60 when his final record under the Sony deal hits the stores. One source predicted that Jackson will step up the pace now. He also reportedly will augment his new material with a "greatest hits" collection. But Schulhof (Chairman of US Sony Corporation until 1995) said he was not concerned." "But some financial analysts called the Jackson deal extravagant. 'They (had) better hope he stays popular,' said one analyst who asked not to be named. Another accused Sony of 'grandstanding.' I have to agree with this--it was grandstanding, and a burden like I mentioned before. Michael was 32 years old when he signed this contract. That means the contract should have been valid until he was 47 years old. Though he could (and should) have remained a pivotal force in the music and entertainment industry, it is unrealistic to think Michael would have sustained the same force being seen in the early 1980s or even the early 1990s into the mid-2000s, especially when he was going to have to "step up the pace" and begin work on film, taking away from the music. Michael was a perfectionist--he would have preferred to have more time on his than more material. He obviously had a "quality, not quantity" belief in his work. Why would Sony want to put these type of demands on him, then, when it had worked for him in the 1980s when with CBS? Was this the beginning of the attempt to make Michael fail in order to capture the ATV catalog or just purely coincidental? I am not sure.
More on Michael Schulhof:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983851-1,00.html
The above article highlights Schulhof's achievements while at Sony including Sony's entrance and failure in Hollywood and his departure from Sony in December 1995--one month after Michael merged his ATV catalog with the Sony catalog for somewhere between $50-$90 million. Was this merger more for Michael who was rumored to be having financial issues but had just released "HIStory" and would be going on tour soon or for Sony who was contemplating the sale of their failed film division and was directly hurting from Schulhof's big purchases during his tenure with the company? I would seem to think it was for the latter.
In the next blog, I will began discussion on the albums released under this contract from 1991 and describe the faults with those releases. I will also likely then discuss the merger of the ATV catalog with the Sony catalog and discuss some of the information concerning the loans taken out then under the tenure of Myung Ho Lee who later helped fuel the filth written by Maureen Orth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
