Los Angeles:
The coroner who performed theautopsy on Michael Jackson testified today that the pop star'sdeath would have been classified a homicide even if the singergave himself the final dose of the anaesthetic propofol.
Christopher Rogers, chief of forensic medicine for theLos Angeles County coroner, was questioned by a lawyer for DrConrad Murray, who is charged with causing Jackson's death byadministering a lethal dose of propofol and other sedativesand failing to provide proper care.
Attorney J. Michael Flanagan suggested Jackson couldhave swallowed the drug, which is meant to be administeredintravenously.
While Rogers said that seemed unlikely, he said itwould not have made a difference in his finding of homicidebecause of inadequate care by Murray.Flanagan's inquiry was the first disclosure of how thedefense plans to counter the involuntary manslaughter chargeagainst Murray.
The lawyer has suggested Jackson could have injectedhimself intravenously while Murray was out of the room.The testimony came during an ongoing preliminaryhearing after which Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor willdecide if there is enough evidence for Murray to stand trial.
Murray has pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys havesaid he didn't give Jackson anything that should have killedhim.
In court, Flanagan displayed a chart showing the druglevels in Jackson's blood at the time of the autopsy.Flanagan asked Rogers, "If the ingestion (of propofol)is by the decedent (and) led to these blood levels, it wouldnot be a homicide?""I believe it would still be a homicide," Rogersreplied.
Asked why, the witness said, "Based on the quality ofthe medical care, I would still call this a homicide even ifthe doctor didn't administer the propofol to Mr Jackson," thewitness said.
Rogers said propofol should not have been present inthe bedroom because it is meant only for hospital settingsand, "If there was propofol there, the doctor should have beenprepared for the effects."
Christopher Rogers, chief of forensic medicine for theLos Angeles County coroner, was questioned by a lawyer for DrConrad Murray, who is charged with causing Jackson's death byadministering a lethal dose of propofol and other sedativesand failing to provide proper care.
Attorney J. Michael Flanagan suggested Jackson couldhave swallowed the drug, which is meant to be administeredintravenously.
While Rogers said that seemed unlikely, he said itwould not have made a difference in his finding of homicidebecause of inadequate care by Murray.Flanagan's inquiry was the first disclosure of how thedefense plans to counter the involuntary manslaughter chargeagainst Murray.
The lawyer has suggested Jackson could have injectedhimself intravenously while Murray was out of the room.The testimony came during an ongoing preliminaryhearing after which Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor willdecide if there is enough evidence for Murray to stand trial.
Murray has pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys havesaid he didn't give Jackson anything that should have killedhim.
In court, Flanagan displayed a chart showing the druglevels in Jackson's blood at the time of the autopsy.Flanagan asked Rogers, "If the ingestion (of propofol)is by the decedent (and) led to these blood levels, it wouldnot be a homicide?""I believe it would still be a homicide," Rogersreplied.
Asked why, the witness said, "Based on the quality ofthe medical care, I would still call this a homicide even ifthe doctor didn't administer the propofol to Mr Jackson," thewitness said.
Rogers said propofol should not have been present inthe bedroom because it is meant only for hospital settingsand, "If there was propofol there, the doctor should have beenprepared for the effects."
