Lawyers trying to outsmart an expert doctor, nope. SMH. Good job to this doctor here. Solid. Some say "boring" but this doctor is not here to entertain, he is here to establish findings. And he did just that. Pro.
@@moow950 not really. they do their research in order for them to be able to defend their client when it’s a case like that and they have to question people in the medical field.
There should be NO ANESTHESIA in his body. Period. What kind of Dr would do this to a person in there home? No life support at all for him. The Dr just couldn't say No could he. The yes people in MJs life killed him.
@@claudia-Silva yes when I heard the dr describe how he went from medicine to medicine to medicine hour by hour and by morning still wasn’t sleeping, my brain physically ached for him. I know that pain of not sleeping. However, the anesthesia is not sleep. Poor MJ not getting actual sleep cycles for so long. He must’ve suffered terribly
if doctor murray had any type of vital signs monitoring machine none of this would have happened. He could have even contuinued to give propofal in the house but to have no machine monitoring is ridiculous
Why did Murray only get 4 years and only served 2.? WTF. He was reponsible for not only give Michael a fatal dose but having no remorse whatsoever. Outragous
Rewatching this just pisses me off how can you justify a night when he was given anesthesia over a course of months prior to him going on tour so just because he had that amount that particular night doesn’t mean that’s not the cause of he’s death! That man was given that dangerous aesthetic for months maybe even years he’s body took into a shock anybody with any type of common sense can see that I could smack the shit out of this lawyer just stupid how can you justify something like that and he’s argument & statement is just absolutely stupid to say the least!!
He’s referring to the amount of Lorazepam needed to make an individual unresponsive to painful stimulus (1.9 vs. the patient’s 1.6 concentration) versus the Propofol levels necessary to make a patient unresponsive to painful stimulus (5.2 vs. his 2.6 concentration), and saying the Lorazepam concentration was higher in that respect.
Well initially it would sound like the attorney demolishes the autopsy doctor. But when you lead all your questions with if he were telling the truth? That kind of devalues your clients supposed innocence. I mean yeah, anything could sound good if you insert the narrative with what it's supposed to be.
