October 03, 2012


Nov 21, 2011 –  Two weeks after he is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Michael Jackson’s death, Conrad Murray attorney Michael Flanagan asked Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor to allow for People’s 30 to be tested for Lidocaine residue.

People's 30: 100ml Propofol vial found in an empty saline bag

Defense attorney Michael Flanagan contended in the motion that the test results is probative to “confirm of negate the accuracy of Dr. Shafer’s proposed scenario.”

Prosecution witness Dr Steven Shafer

The proposed scenario Michael Flanagan wants to confirm or negate is Dr. Steven Shafer's theory that Murray removed some Propofol from the 100ml propofol vial, added some Lidocaine then infused the vial into Michael Jackson.

Michael Flanagan contends that if Dr. Steven Shafer's theory is correct then the residue in the vial should contain Lidocaine. Flanagan stated that it didn't occur to him to test the contents of the vial because Dr. Shafer testified that he believed Murray injected Lidocaine into the Propofol vial when he was recalled at the very end of the trial.

Propofol causes burning at the injection site. To alleviate the burning, Conrad Murray used Lidocaine. Lidocaine comes in cream form and the injectable liquid form. Conrad Murray bought both kinds. So perhaps, that morning he used Lidocaine cream. Or perhaps he injected Lidocaine via the y-port of the concoction he set up. This is substantiated by the presence of Lidocaine in the short tubing of the IV set-up. Who knows how Conrad Murray gave Lidocaine that morning. What we do know is that this subject is not, AT ALL, important in the grand scheme of things.

Prosecutor David Walgren objected to the testing arguing that "whether there was Lidocaine in that bottle or not is completely irrelevant. The trial is done. It was a fair trial.”

Judge Michael Pastor denied Conrad Murray's request stating: 
“this is not surprising evidence. This exhibit has been around since the inception of the case. There is no justification for the court to respond favorably to this type of extraordinary motion.”

Jun 25, 2012 – Conrad Murray took his request to test the propofol vial to the Appellate Court. “If a forensic examination of the residue in Exhibit 30 revealed no lidocaine, it would completely negate 
[Dr. Shafer’s] theory” stated Conrad Murray attorney Valeria Wass. 

Aug 13, 2012 – Appellate Court denied Conrad Murray’s request.

Oct 2, 2012 – Conrad Murray takes his case to the Supreme Court. 

From the get-go, Conrad Murray’s defense 
centered around accusing Michael Jackson of causing his own death - albeit their stories ever-changing. First they said Mr. Jackson drank Propofol. When science proved that drinking Propofol wouldn’t cause death, they claimed Mr. Jackson self injected Propofol. Upon no Michael Jackson fingerprints on either the syringe or the propofol vial, the defense moved onto their Lorazepam theory which was refuted by the prosecution

The testing of propofol vial is Conrad Murray grasping at straws. EVEN IF Michael Jackson did cause his demise, Conrad Murray would still have been guilty. Prosecution witness Dr Steven Shafer was left to postulate various theories because Conrad Murray didn’t maintain any records of his “insomnia treatment with Propofol.” The prosecution doesn’t have to exactly pinpoint how Conrad Murray killed Michael Jackson.

The request to test the propofol vial is basically Conrad Murray saying: 
“THAT is not how I killed Michael Jackson.”

“All of this is speculation, because there are no medical records. If there were medical records we wouldn’t be engaging in this ‘guess what I did’ nonsense.” ~ DR STEVEN SHAFER

The jury didn’t convict Conrad Murray because there may or may not be a propofol infusion. They convicted him for being “a substantial factor” in Michael Jackson’s death.

“The alleged victim [Michael Jackson] may have contributed to the death. However, if the defendant’s [Conrad Murray's] act or failure to perform a legal duty was a substantial factor causing the death, then the defendant is legally responsible for the death.” ~JURY INSTRUCTIONS

In my opinion, Conrad Murray request will be denied by the Supreme Court also. Because the testing is totally irrelevant to the guilty verdict.

Related Link:
Conrad Murray Looks to Calif. Supreme Court to overturn conviction


  1. Murray really should have been charged with Murder One instead of involuntary manslaughter. Murray's training and experience make it well nigh impossible that Jackson's death was accidental or that Murray's actions and treatment were the result of mere negligence.

  2. When I wrote the Michael Jackson chapter in 'Getting Over Going Under,' I assumed Murray was just a fool operating out of his knowledge base who made a tragic mistake in the greedy pursuit of money.

    I was the board certified anesthesiologist Murray's defense attorney, Michael Flanagan, sought out before they got Paul White.

    When Flanagan tried to impress me with his client's superior clinical prowess, he said,

    "When Dr. Murray performs cardioversion, he doesn't even start an IV. He just injects the propofol directly into the patient's vein."

    My eyes grew very large in astonishment. I responded saying, "Well you have impressed me, but not in the manner in which you hoped. There are no words to adequately describe the recklessness of Murray's conduct."

    Later, during Murray's trial, I learned Murray had hospital clinical privileges to perform cardiac catheterization under propofol sedation necessitating pulse oximeter monitoring.

    Murray knew perfectly well what the significance of a decreasing pulse oximeter tone meant; i.e. inadequate breathing.

    Despite his pulse oximeter knowledge, Murray purchased the cheapest pulse oximeter on the market - one that had neither an audible tone nor an alarm.

    By his own public admission, he gave Jackson propofol & left the room - an act commonly described as patient abandonment.

    It was only then I understood that Murray, while maybe an intelligent person, does not believe the well-established safety guidelines apply to his practice.

    This type of reckless behavior is common among sociopaths who under no circumstances should ever hold a license to practice medicine.