Return to Transcripts main page


Michael Jackson`s Doctor on Trial; Conrad Murray`s Office Worker Testifies; Amanda Knox Verdict Overturned

Aired October 3, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Hello. I`m Jane Velez- Mitchell. We`ve got some fascinating testimony from a volunteer in Dr. Conrad Murray`s office. Sounds nice on the surface. But is that really who is supposed to be in a medical office, a volunteer? Back to more live testimony.

NG: Going on a tour?

CHERNOFF: Yes, how did he tell you? Did he gather up everyone? Did he -- how did this -- how did this happen?

NG: Yes, he talked to everybody, all at the same time. And he said that he`s going on a sabbatical. He`s going on a tour with Michael Jackson.

CHERNOFF: And was everybody pretty much supportive of that?

NG: Yes.

CHERNOFF: Were you excited for him?

NG: Yes.

CHERNOFF: Why were you excited for him?

NG: Because it`s Michael Jackson. And everybody knows Michael Jackson.

CHERNOFF: All right. Did he happen to tell you when he would hope to come back?

NG: He mentioned that he`ll probably be back towards the end of the year.

CHERNOFF: OK. Ms. Ng, thank you very much. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Ms. Brazil, redirect exam?

BRAZIL: Nothing. Thank you, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May Ms. Ng be excused in the case, Ms. Brazil?



CHERNOFF: Yes. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Ng, I want to thank you for your testimony. Please don`t discuss either your testimony or the facts of the case with any other witness until we finish the trial. You may step down and leave. You are excused.

NG: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re welcome. Thank you.

Ms. Brazil?

BRAZIL: Yes. Bridgette Morgan.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please remain standing. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please be seated. Please state your name for the record. Spell your first and last names.

MORGAN: Bridgette Morgan. B-R-I-D-G-E-T-T-E. M-O-R-G-A-N.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Morgan, good afternoon. Let me provide you with some information and instructions which I give to every witness in every case.

First of all, please sit back and relax. Secondly, please speak loudly so everybody can hear you. Thirdly, if you`re called upon to provide a yes or no answer to a question, use those terms rather than slang "uh-huh" or "uh-uh," which can be confusing. And lastly, please wait until you hear an entire question before you answer it. In our daily lives, many of us are used to interrupting each other, because we think we know the question before we hear the whole question. In court, we need to hear it first before we answer. Is that all right?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Direct, Ms. Brazil.

BRAZIL: Good afternoon, Ms. Morgan.

MORGAN: Good afternoon.

BRAZIL: Do you recognize the defendant seated here in court, Conrad Murray?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indicating the defendant.

BRAZIL: Did you meet Conrad Murray in 2003?


BRAZIL: Did you meet him in a social setting?


BRAZIL: And the two of you formed a social relationship?



BRAZIL: You have been in...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll sustain the objection. The partial answer is stricken. Disregard. You can redefine your question, please.

BRAZIL: Ms. Morgan, after you met Conrad Murray, did you maintain a friendship or some sort of relationship with him to the present time of 2009?


BRAZIL: And in 2009, specifically in June of 2009, did you have a conversation with Conrad Murray, wherein he told you that he was Michael Jackson`s personal physician?


BRAZIL: Sometime after Conrad Murray revealed to you or shared with you that he was Michael Jackson`s personal physician, did you call him on the telephone on June 25th of 2009?


BRAZIL: Ms. Morgan, did you call Dr. Murray`s cell phone at 11:26 a.m. on June 25, 2009?


BRAZIL: And your telephone number at the time was 310-590-9566, is that correct?


BRAZIL: Did you speak with Conrad Murray when you called him at 11:26 on June 25, 2009?


BRAZIL: Do you recall whether or not he picked up his telephone? Did he answer it?

MORGAN: No, he didn`t answer.

BRAZIL: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. I have no further questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Brazil, thank you. Mr. Chernoff, cross exam, please.

CHERNOFF: Ms. Morgan, where do you live?

MORGAN: In Los Angeles.

CHERNOFF: And how long have you lived here?

MORGAN: Since 1998.

CHERNOFF: Thank you. No other questions.

MORGAN: Mr. Chernoff, thank you. Redirect, Ms. Brazil?

BRAZIL: Yes. Ms. Morgan, when you met Conrad Murray in 2003, did you meet him in Las Vegas?


BRAZIL: Thank you. Nothing further.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Recross, Mr. Chernoff?

CHERNOFF: No thanks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. May Ms. Morgan be excused, Ms. Brazil?





Ms. Morgan, thank you for your testimony. Please don`t discuss this or the facts of the case with any other witness until we finish the trial. You may step down and leave. You are excused.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. May I see counsel?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s some pretty fascinating testimony from a woman who met Dr. Conrad Murray in 2003, and she was questioned very briefly, shockingly briefly, about the events on the day Michael Jackson died.

I want to bring in Jean Casarez, if I may. Explain the significance, because I was rather shocked, Jean, at how quickly she got on and off the stand.

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": And on the surface, it`s like what`s the big deal? She calls him at 11:26 on June 25. He doesn`t answer the phone. That`s it. That`s because he had two phones, and he was on another phone on a phone call at the same time. So I think prosecution is trying to show, he`s got two phones, juggling phone calls from both phones. Never mind a patient.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is absolutely fascinating. Thank you for that explanation.

We are going to take a brief break, and we`re going to be back with more of an extraordinary day. This case, as well as Amanda Knox, freed from Italy. Behind bars no longer. She is heading to Rome, and then she`s going to be on a plane to the United States tomorrow. This is incredible news. We`ve got all of it. Stay right there, and we`re going to be back with more in a moment.



AMANDA KNOX, FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER OF ROOMMATE (through translator): I want to go back home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a big mistake. There`s a principle of law that you need evidence. There is no evidence.

KNOX (through translator): I don`t want to be published. To have my life, my future, taken away from me for things that I haven`t committed. Because I am innocent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But Amanda Knox walks free tonight. She will be on that plane.

The appeal for Amanda Knox overturned. Overturned. That means Amanda Knox will soon be free.

KNOX (through translator): I am innocent.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good evening, I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell on an extraordinary news day. Amanda Knox, dubbed Foxy Knoxy by some in the media, is free. Just a few hours ago, a jury acquitted her of murder.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They are acquitted of offense charges A, B, C, D. We have overturned. So Knox, Amanda is free. And Sollecito, Raffaele, as well.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: An extraordinary emotional scene. Look at the tears of joy. Amanda made a passionate plea in fluid Italian for her own innocence earlier in an Italian court. Listen to her speak.


KNOX (through translator): I am not what they say I am. Perversity, violence. I respect life and people, and I haven`t done the things that they are suggesting that I`ve done.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Amanda spent almost four years behind bars for the murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher. The prosecution claimed that Amanda and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and a man from the Ivory Coast, Rudy Guede, killed Meredith in a sex game gone wrong as part of some kind of satanic ritual. But now Amanda is a free woman. She is leaving Italy tomorrow. Tonight she`s with her family.

According to her lawyer, the first thing she wants to do is, quote, and this is a direct quote, "lie down on a green field," end quote. You can actually hear her sobbing with joy as she is rushed out of the courtroom after learning she is a free woman. Check this out.




VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you think justice was served? Call me: 1-877-JVM- SAYS; 1-877-586-7297.

Straight out to Mike Brooks, HLN law enforcement analyst. This was a very emotional, emotional decision. So many people in Seattle, in Seattle, all across the United States, rooting for Amanda. How big a victory is this, Mike?

MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I`ll tell you, it`s huge, Jane. And you know, right from the very beginning, there was questions about the evidence. And you heard one of her attorneys talking about that. That in this case, there was no evidence.

And I thought right from the very beginning -- Jane, we have talked about this before. I thought the Italian authorities really screwed the crime scene up. There was cross contamination. They really had no DNA evidence that would have ever been allowed in a U.S. court. And then when the judge asked for two DNA experts to come in and to review everything, they basically said, no, that they have nothing.

So I think they got it right this time, Jane. Because if you look at all of the evidence, it just doesn`t add up to Amanda Knox.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: She could have been sent behind bars for the rest of her life. It`s an extraordinary system, where it wasn`t just, "Oh, you did it or you didn`t." They could have increased her sentence to life from the current 26 years of which she served for. They could have said, "You go free," which is what they decided to do or they could have given a lesser sentence. A very different kind of criminal justice system.

And at the heart of this controversy, really a scandal, was the prosecutor. The prosecutor, who went after Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito. This isn`t the first time that this particular prosecutor has been in trouble. This prosecutor has been known for embellishing stories, and there were even rumors that he crafted the idea that Meredith died during a sex ritual from a blog.

I want to go to Doug Preston, who is the author of the amazing book "The Monster of Florence," a previous case, a previous murder mystery, set in the same area in Italy. And he outlines how this prosecutor went after him, too. Doug Preston, tell us, first of all, your reaction to Amanda being freed.

DOUG PRESTON, AUTHOR, "THE MONSTER OF FLORENCE": Well, I think it`s wonderful. It`s fantastic. Finally, justice was done. But who`s going to give her back four years of her life? I mean, this case was clearly bogus from the very beginning.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but tell us about the history of this particular prosecutor. You`re looking at him right here. He came up with the idea that Meredith was killed in this sex game, and that Amanda was actually accused of sexually assaulting her female roommate, Meredith, the woman who died. And he created this satanic ritual. It was around Halloween, and Amanda was involved in pinning her down and wanted to force her to have sex with the other guys.

And where did he get all this, and has -- does he have a propensity for coming up with these very ornate story lines out of thin air?

PRESTON: Well, he does. In the Monster of Florence case, I -- I got a call on my cell phone when I was walking down the streets of Florence. A voice said, "This is the police. Where are you? We are coming to get you."

And they brought me in front of this prosecutor. And I was interrogated, like Amanda Knox, not as long, but for three hours by five cops, in Italian, no lawyer present. And they accused me of being an accessory to murder, of trying to frame an innocent man for murder. And they demanded that I confess. And when I refused to confess, they indicted me for perjury.

And then Mignini said, "Well, we`re going to lift all these indictments to allow you to leave the country, but they`re going to be reinstated." So they basically threw me out of the country. And then to my writing partner, Mario Spetzy, who was the Italian journalist I was working with, he had him arrested and accused him of being a member of a satanic sect that was murdering young couples. The Monster of Florence Mignini felt was not just a lone psychopath but a group...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So basically, just to cut to the chase there, Doug, you were writing a book about a series of murders, and the guy accuses you of being involved in the murders, because you`re an American there writing a book about a series of murders, essentially. I mean, that is the most bizarre thing I`ve ever heard.

And I know that this prosecutor has had some severe problems with the law, based on this previous case.

I want to go to Jean Casarez who is here with me. What do you know about this very troubled history of this prosecutor? Because it really upsets me that he was allowed to remain on this case, given that he has this history of coming up with these crazy, satanic ritual stories.

CASAREZ: You know, the main thing that I remember is after she was convicted, he was investigated. But the conviction stood. And we went forth from there. And you have to wonder, what`s the motive of the prosecutor in all of this, to gain fame and glory? Or to gain justification that he was vigilant in everything he did to prosecute her?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, and let`s remember that they already had one guy on this case, Rudy Guede, this drifter from the Ivory Coast, who was allegedly a drug dealer, as well. He was convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering Meredith Kercher, the British victim, in 2008. He was sentenced to 30 years. He appealed, and now apparently he`s only going to serve 16, Holly Hughes.

But he`s the guy who said, "Oh, I saw Amanda," who was the victim`s roommate, "leaving the crime scene." This is a guy who`s a known liar. And for some reason, because he said, "Oh, I saw Amanda leaving the scene," she ends up getting wrapped up in the whole thing, Holly.

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And interestingly enough, Jane, he doesn`t say that initially. When it first happens, his initial statement is, "I was there, you know. I raped her, but oh, I didn`t kill her."

Well, it doesn`t come out until after they begin to say, "Well, if somebody else was there, then maybe your sentence would be reduced." He got his sentence cut in half, essentially, Jane. He was given 30 years. Not until he names Amanda and Raffaele does his sentence get cut in half, down to 16.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`ll be right back.



KNOX (through translator): I am the same person that I was four years ago, exactly the same person. Of the only thing that now separates me from four years ago is my suffering. In four years, I`ve lost my friend in the most terrible and unexplainable way. My trust in the authorities and the police has been damaged.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So Amanda cleared of all charges, besides one. She is still guilty of defamation against this club owner by the name of Patrick Lamumba. OK? She did implicate this bar owner, and ultimately, he had an alibi. So she has been convicted of defamation.

Now, the judge said she had to serve three years and pay more than 22,000 euros, which is something like 30 grand. But all the time served, that means she walks free.

But the prosecution has 90 days to re-file an appeal. I want to go to Jean Casarez who is on-set with me. OK. She gets on a plane tomorrow. She leaves Italy for the United States. Let`s say, though, she loses the ultimate appeal to the highest court in Italy. Could they try to get her back and demand extradition?

CASAREZ: In reality, she is outside of their jurisdiction. She`s in the U.S. She won`t be going back. But in theory, they could sure try. It will be interesting to see if they actually appeal this and don`t give up at this point. Because the U.S. State Department is thanking the Italian government and prosecutors for going the extra mile to seek justice here.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but you`d think, the United States and Italy, they have to maintain their extradition rules. They can`t just say, "Hmmm, in this case, I just don`t think I want to do the extradition."

CASAREZ: But they can fight it. The U.S. can fight it very handily. And I think they would. They definitely will. And when she`s outside of the jurisdiction, it would be difficult to get her back.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Get on that plane right away, Amanda. That`s my advice.

All right. Kathy in Florida. Your question or thought, Cathy.

CALLER: Yes, I have a friend who studied in Perugia, and I know that they -- that students come from all over the world to study there. And I was just wondering, since they blew this up so large without having any, you know, evidence, whether the city of Perugia by chance had issues with exchange students. And having parties and maybe acting up. I was wondering if they were trying to make an example out of these two.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I get your point.

And I want to throw it back to Mike Brooks. I think there was a political aspect to the prosecution of Amanda Knox. There was anti- American sentiment. There were times when in court, people were wearing the colors of Italy, and it became more of a "us versus them," Mike.

BROOKS: Initially, there was. And I do recall a little bit of anti- American sentiment. But -- but when it comes down to the evidence, you know, you had the initial -- when she was prosecuted, she was supposed to spend 26 years in jail.

But I tell you, Jane, there in Italy, if she was here in the United States she actually got probably a better appeals process there with the Italian courts. Because basically, you get a whole new trial, and a new set of eyes to look at the evidence. So the appeals system actually in Italy kind of worked in her favor, in this particular case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And by the way, Amanda`s ex boyfriend and her alleged co conspirator, Raffaele Sollecito was also in court today. He was also cleared of murder. But they`re not going out anymore. As a matter of fact, while they were both incarcerated, she sent him -- there he is -- a note saying, "I`m breaking up with you." Which you can certainly understand, behind bars, separated, in this horrific ordeal. That relationship...



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Members of the Jackson family, including Michael`s mother Katherine and his three children, attended the premiere.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s a tremendous effort (ph) here, private security to kind of block us.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Latoya going in. She`s dressed to the nines, walking into court.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Both Latoya and Janet are divas. I mean that has been the image they have always had.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Again, she is a fashion show. You look beautiful, Janet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you`ve got Cirque and Michael Jackson together, you expect to see something fantastic.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Trial shock waves. Jackson death trial shock waves continue, but is there a new controversy causing a rift in the Jackson family?

Hello everyone. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live from Los Angeles; Criminal Courts building right behind me.

We are now in week two of the explosive Michael Jackson death trial. But the fireworks are coming from inside the Jackson camp. Take a look at this. It`s Michael Jackson, the "Immortal World Tour", the astonishing new Cirque du Soleil show that opened just yesterday in Montreal. Take a look at it. It`s fascinating.

Ok. It was sold out. 13,000 die-hard fans came out for this premiere, every seat in the house taken. Look at it. It`s unbelievable. Michael`s own children, Prince, Paris and Blanket, were there for the premiere. They joined the whole crowd, the sold-out event as the show kicks off a huge 47-city tour.

But there is controversy tonight over this weekend`s Michael Jackson tribute. It`s a concert that`s supposed to occur in Cardiff, Wales. There is an all-star line up. Beyonce was scheduled to perform. Here she is, courtesy of Sony and BMC. The Black-Eyed Peas will be there according to the schedule now; they`re on RCA Records. And Christina Aguilera will also be lending her voice to this project. And here she is, from Interscope Records. So an all-star cast also performing: Cee Lo Green, Gladys Knight, Smokey Robinson. Whew.

But not in attendance: Jermaine Jackson, Randy Jackson, and Janet Jackson. Michael`s mom, Katherine, is supporting the show, even though it`s going on during this trial. What do you think? Do you think that`s good timing? Is it appropriate, or should they have waited until the trial is over? Call me 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

With me tonight, author and Jackson expert, Ian Halperin; he`s made a riveting documentary about Jackson`s final years. It`s called "Gone Too Soon". Let`s watch just a bit from YouTube.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone has a piece of the puzzle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Conrad Robert Murray.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you heard of this thing that takes you to the valley of death, and then it brings you back?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we finally put them all together --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you ever accused of having sexually molested Brent Barnes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t answer that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would we see in the big picture?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ian is also the author of "Unmasked: The final years of Michael Jackson", a book that I read; a fascinating book. Anybody who wants to really understand Jackson definitely should read this book.

What`s going on here in terms of this upcoming concert in Wales, of all places, this coming Saturday? Katherine, the kids, Tito, Jackie, Marlin -- they`re all involved -- Latoya is going to perform, as well; but Jermaine and Janet apparently not happy about it. Why do you think they`re upset and what do you make of this split?

IAN HALPERIN, AUTHOR, "UNMASKED: THE FINAL YEARS OF MICHAEL JACKSON": Well, Jane, it always involves dollars and cents. But let me tell you something. Let them go to Wales. Let them have a good time. This trial is digging up the skeleton of their beloved family member, Katherine Jackson`s son. It`s a good diversion for them to go to hear some music.

I think you should go too, Jane, you`ve been working hard here. Maybe you should go down a bit. But my focus is on the trial right now.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, pull up the private jet and I`ll hop on and go over to Cardiff, Wales and watch the show, ok. Yes. You provide the transportation --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- a little humor.

HALPERIN: Look, any time we get Michael Jackson`s music, I think it`s a blessing to the public and a blessing tribute to him. But Conrad Murray is a murderer; it`s not an Amanda Knox type case here. Murray should go to jail. He was completely negligent. He did not have the proper equipment - -


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, why don`t we let -- excuse me, Ian. Listen, I respect your knowledge of Jackson and Jackson history. But why don`t we let the jury do its work and we can -- we can debate it and talk about evidence. But just to call it "case closed" at this point, it`s a tad premature. Why don`t we see what comes out?

HALPERIN: Because I`ll -- let me --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I mean that`s what the trial is for.

HALPERIN: Let me tell you why. And I do believe, let justice take its course, but we have seen the smoking gun here. This person did not have the proper ventilation, the proper equipment around. He didn`t even have an anesthesiologist, let alone a nurse on a $150,000 salary a month. This guy should have been put in jail, not now, but two years ago.

And there`s a long list of other people, Jane, who were just as complicit in the death of Michael Jackson, who for some reason, have not been brought to justice. And until they are, the death of Michael Jackson still lingers on. And his family will not have justice. And his fans won`t. And I urge authorities to look at all of the other doctors as well.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. All right. Hold on Ian.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look, let`s talk about some of the testimony today. Just a couple of seconds ago, a huge witness took the stand -- who is Bridgette Morgan? She met Dr. Conrad Murray at a nightclub in 2003. And listen to what she was asked.


DEBORAH BRAZIL, PROSECUTOR: Ms. Morgan, after you met Conrad Murray, did you maintain a friendship or some sort of relationship with him to the present time of 2009?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, so she`s a girlfriend, she had a relationship; one of many, apparently. And there`s now testimony that`s going to come in that at the time when he is supposed to be watching Michael Jackson, he`s talking on the phone to all of these different women and different people.

Dr. Nat Strand, you are an anesthesiologist --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Would it ever occur to you -- speaking of which, somebody is calling me here -- would it ever occur to you under any circumstances to be talking, just like it would never occur to me to answer that phone call that just rang --



VELEZ-MITCHELL: It would never occur to me to answer a phone call while I`m doing a live television show, ok? Unless it`s my mom -- if it`s my mom calling, I`m going to answer. But would it ever occur to you to be talking to girlfriends while you`re dealing with a patient who is under anesthesia?

STRAND: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. His behavior demonstrates such poor judgment. It`s a lack of vigilance. It`s way below the standard of care. No one should be dealing with girlfriends on telephones and having such a call when they have a patient under anesthesia or patient who they`re supposed to be monitoring.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know what strikes me, and I want to get maybe Ian`s take on this. I know that sometimes I`ll get very, very busy, and I`ll have to make an emergency phone call. But when your life gets really messy, the messier your life gets, and this guy had a lot of things he was dealing with.

He had had a bankruptcy in his past, he had money issues. He had children by several different women. He was being pursued for child support, creditors, yada, yada, yada. When your life gets that messy, you`re going to have a lot of calls, Ian, to take, and it`s going to bleed over into your professional work. Isn`t that exactly what happened here, Ian?

HALPERIN: Jane, with all due respect, and I think you`re doing a hell of a job covering this case. I cannot throw any pity parties for the behavior of Conrad Murray, the way he acted with Michael Jackson. He was being paid $150,000 --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m not throwing a pity party. I`m saying that it`s just a fact -- we have to learn from these things. When your life gets really messy, things bleed over into your work.

HALPERIN: Well, there has to be a level of professionalism and the fact that he didn`t have the proper intubation equipment, the proper nurse around Michael Jackson when he was taking those calls. It`s completely negligent.

In the state of California, involuntary manslaughter -- remember, you just have to show a bit of proof, and case closed. We have seen more than enough proof here. I say, let`s stop the case now. Let the jury try -- let them, you know, be sequestered. Let them render their verdict.

Right now, we don`t have to waste anymore of the state of California`s taxpayers` hard-earned money on this case. We have seen the smoking gun here. I don`t think Chernoff at this point can pull a Johnnie Cochran, "if it don`t fit, you must acquit" smoking gun.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know what -- I`m going to have to stop you again. Because that`s exactly what people were saying during the Casey Anthony case; it`s over, it`s done, put a fork in it, it`s over. Well, guess what; she was acquitted on all serious charges. It`s never over until it`s over.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Dr. Richelle Cooper, who was one of the key witnesses, was asked by the defense about Propofol dosage. Listen to this carefully because the devil is in the details. Listen.


DR. RICHELLE COOPER, WITNESS: A 60 kilogram male? If I wanted to achieve sedation so that I could perform a painful procedure, 25 milligrams would not be a sufficient dose, in most patients.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it might be enough to put a person to sleep?

COOPER: I don`t suspect so. But I don`t know. I do not use the medication in those types of doses.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So the defense attorney says, well, might 25 -- 25 milligrams be enough to put somebody to sleep? She goes, I don`t suspect so, but I don`t know. She doesn`t suspect it. So a lot of people said, hey, this is good for the defense but I actually thought it was a score for the prosecution because if his whole purpose is to give Michael Jackson a chance to sleep, then why would he give him only 25 milligrams if he really wanted him to sleep? To me, that says, no, chances are the jurors might conclude he gave them more than 25 milligrams and he was just lying about the 25 milligrams.

STRAND: I have to say, I kind of agree with you. Is that -- to put someone to sleep, that`s less than 25 percent, on average, of what you would use to put someone to sleep. However, in this case, he wasn`t having a painful procedure. He was just lying in his bed. So he wouldn`t need as much as a person would need for a big abdominal surgery or a painful procedure.

But my question is, if he only got 25 milligrams, what were all these empty vials of Propofol doing? Each vial of Propofol has about 200 milligrams in it. So if he only truly used 25 milligrams, why are there all of these empty vials?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that`s going to be a key case because I think that the defense is going to claim that Michael Jackson may have opened some of those bottles. We`ll have to see.

We`re taking your calls on this. 1-877-JVM SAYS.

More in a moment.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Four years is not enough. Four years is not enough.

BRAZIL: Did you ask Dr. Murray how long the patient had been in this condition? What did Dr. Murray say?

RICHARD SENNEFF, PARAMEDIC: "It just happened right when I called you."

TOM MESEREAU, FORMER ATTORNEY OF MICHAEL JACKSON: He should have looked at Michael and said Michael, that`s dangerous.

BRAZIL: Did Dr. Murray ever mention to you having administered Propofol to Michael Jackson?

SENNEFF: No, he did not.

BRAZIL: Tell me what you saw Dr. Murray do with those Lidocaine bottles, please?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He scooped all three of them up and put them into a black bag.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was a patient that was somebody we had a really good chance of saving.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Take a look at the courthouse. We`re coming live from right in this neighborhood, just a stone`s throw from the L.A. Criminal Courts Building, where this extraordinary trial is under way. We are on day five, week two, of the Michael Jackson death trial. And we`re taking your calls.

Mary, Missouri, your question or thought, Mary.

MARY, MISSOURI (via telephone): Yes. My concern is that Dr. Murray didn`t have any of the right equipment, and that goes to show, in giving him this Propofol, which was illegal to give. Then you`ve got the records of all of the phone calls when he was talking.

And my thing was, when he knew he was in trouble, he`s calling all of Michael Jackson`s security guards and assistants, never telling them what`s really wrong, but tell them something is wrong with him, instead of calling 911, which could have saved his life.

And in all the years that went into that, so much time went by of him making all these different calls to different people for them to -- that something is wrong with Michael, but never telling them what`s wrong with Michael.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me bring in Dr. Nat Strand, anesthesiologist. One of the things that he said that was deceptive -- seemed that way, anyway -- is he said to the ER guys, oh, I called you -- this happened right before I called you. This happened -- words to that effect. This happened right -- it didn`t happen right before he called them.

The ER was called at 12:20, and he drops the phone before noon.

STRAND: Right. I mean he is someone who knew he did something wrong. I think he panicked in the moment. He didn`t react quickly with the resuscitation. He didn`t call 911. And he didn`t give an honest account of what happened once he got to the emergency room. This is someone who got caught after making a deal with the devil and then had to pay for it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And, you know, we want to bring somebody else in who knows Michael Jackson, perhaps better than anyone. Jay Coleman, you were Michael Jackson`s former agent. As you watch this case, what are your thoughts? How are you seeing it from the perspective of somebody who knew Michael Jackson, who represented Michael Jackson?

When you`re an agent, you`re kind of like a parent. You`re guiding the person, you`re advising them. . You`re protecting them. You are their -- their representative in the world, the commercial world. What`s your reaction to how this trial is going?

JAY COLEMAN, FORMER AGENT OF MICHAEL JACKSON: Well, I represented Michael back starting in 1983 to the early `90s, when, you know, Michael was in his prime. He was the biggest pop star in the world. And everything was going great.

And, you know, after the early `90s, my contact with Michael was kind of very limited. But obviously, following what`s going on now is very tragic.

You know, I was really looking forward to him making a comeback, you know. I worked with his manager, Frank DeLeo and the people at AEG, and we were really excited that this could lead to Michael going back all over the world. And obviously, it -- it didn`t come to pass. But it`s extremely disappointing.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`d like you to check out one thing. This is a turning point moment for Michael Jackson. And it happened in the early `80s, as he was shooting a Pepsi commercial. Take a look at what happened. Watch this from "US Weekly".

All right. That is Michael Jackson; unfortunately, his hair going on fire, and everybody rushing to put out his hair that caught on fire during the shooting of this Pepsi commercial. And anybody who has ever experienced a burn knows how painful that is.

And Jay, that`s -- isn`t that when he first developed his addiction to pain killers, or his -- let`s say reliance on pain killers?

COLEMAN: Well, I was there when they shot the spot. It was frightening to watch. But I will say that two or three weeks later, he was in New York at Lincoln Center at a big event for Pepsi. He was in great spirits. He had a small patch on the top of his head. He was there with his family and his brothers.

And, you know, a few weeks later, he had hair transplants. I`m sure it was very painful. And I`m sure he had pain killers at that point. But as you all remember, a few months later, he went on the "Victory Tour". He continued to put out great album albums. So the fact that what happened 27 years ago -- I don`t think has too much to do with Michael`s addiction to pain killers.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, we`ll debate that in a second. Stay right there.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were crying. They were fairly hysterical, being comforted by someone who was referred to as their nurse.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was a witness, an Emergency Room doctor who unsuccessfully tried to revive Michael Jackson, talking about the reaction of Michael Jackson`s kids who followed their father to the hospital at the time of his death.

Coming up some very crucial witnesses in this whole trial; Conrad Murray, the defendant`s alleged girlfriends and there are at least three. Nicole Alvarez, she`s the mother of Conrad Murray`s youngest child and he`s accused shipping Propofol to her apartment and telling the pharmacist that it was her clinic.

Bridgett Morgan was just on the stand. She met Conrad Murray in club back in 2003.

And Sade Anding is another. She`s a cocktail waitress, who also met Conrad in a club -- some say it was a strip joint but we can`t confirm that independently. And she on the phone alleged with Conrad Murray when he dropped the phone the day Michael Jackson died and she kind of heard the commotion. She`s hanging on the phone like hello, hello. She hears all this crazy commotion before noon -- before noon. And 911 wasn`t called until 12:20.

And yet Jay Coleman, Michael Jackson`s former agent, this doctor told the paramedics who arrived, it happened right before we called you. That right there would seem to be deceptive. What do you make of this defendant on trial here?

COLEMAN: I tend to think he`s negligent. And I think unless he can pull out an amazing defense he`s probably going to be guilty.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ian Halperin, author of "Unmasked: The final years of Michael Jackson", in confusion there`s reasonable doubt. I say it over and over again. Because I`m not a doctor and when they start talking milligrams, how long something stays in your system before it leaves your blood. I get confused. In confusion will this jury find reasonable doubt?

HALPERIN: I don`t think so, Jane. Because one thing, you have to look at the charge. The charge you only need just some evidence and it`s going to be pushed through because you have to look at his egregious, unconscionable behavior towards his patient and right there that`s the smoking gun.

The defense, it`s indefensible for Murray to come out of this not behind bars and I think, again, I should start a TV show called "Dancing behind Bars" and he will be the star of it. And I hope a lot of other Jackson doctors are going to join him down the line because we need justice in the death of the world` greatest entertainer ever. And until all the doctors in the last 20 years are interrogated and provide proper explanations this case can never be closed.

And I`ll tell you one thing; I`m glad you had Jay on tonight because Jay is one of the few people who actually cared about Michael Jackson and, unfortunately, look what happened. When Michael`s camp got rid of people like Jay, like Rabbi Shmuley, everything collapsed and he became a drug addict the last 20 years of his life. Very tragic.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I just -- Dr. Strand, very quickly, you`re an anesthesiologist. Can people learn something about -- we have a tendency to idealize our doctors and think that they`re more than human. This case teaches all of us. Hey, doctors are human beings, don`t put blind trust in them.

STRAND: Well, what I would say is look at the entirety of your doctor. I mean this is a physician who was doing so many things wrong. It`s not the milligrams. It`s not the phone calls, it`s doing everything wrong.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you. Got to leave it right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Amanda Knox as she was freed, the first thing she wants to do is just lie in a green field. She`s just cherishing her new found freedom; her conviction thrown out because the jurors came to their senses. This case made no sense.

Amanda may have made a few mistakes when police started interviewing her. Yes, she did falsely implicate somebody. But she said she was under tremendous pressure, grilled for hours, trying to keep her eyes opened, terrified in a foreign country.

This was a young girl who went from Seattle to Perugia, Italy thinking she had found really an ideal spot to celebrate her youth and to learn about a foreign culture. And unfortunately she got trapped in a vortex where she became a political football at the hands of a prosecutor who had problems.

We`re happy she`s free.