Return to Transcripts main page


Looking for Lisa; MJ Photog Reveals the Real Michael

Aired October 12, 2011 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go. Looking for Lisa. More questions than answers in this search for the missing child. And a mystery benefactor. Why would a wealthy stranger pay for a private investigation? Suspicious behavior. Why did the parents abruptly stop then resume cooperating with the police?

Also, a cardiologist delivers devastating medical testimony in the Michael Jackson death trial. I will examine the facts from my perspective. So let`s get started.

Welcome to the program tonight. Kansas City police are scouring the woods, a local pond, and an abandoned well, frantically searching for the missing 10-month-old, baby Lisa Irwin. Lisa`s mom, Debra Bradley, says her daughter was stolen out of her crib in her own home just last week. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Came home from work. The front door was unlocked. Most of the lights were on in the house. And the window was, in the front was open.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s everything. She`s our little girl. She`s completed our family.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: there are two other boys are waiting for her. Please, just drop her off anywhere. We don`t care. Just somewhere safe where she can come home, please.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When an infant does go missing, in most of the cases suspicion falls upon members of the family.


PINSKY: Tonight, why did Debra Bradley`s sister tell "Good Morning America" little Lisa`s mom was "bracing herself to be arrested"? And why did baby Lisa`s parents behave the way they did after their daughter vanished? Were they really uncooperative with the police? Watch this from "Good Morning America."


JEREMY IRWIN, LISA`S FATHER: We were in interrogation for a really long time Tuesday. We were there again yesterday, answering questions. And I just I couldn`t take it anymore. I told them I had to have a break. I told them I couldn`t do it anymore, I couldn`t answer any more questions today. And I asked to be let go. And so they let us.


PINSKY: Where is baby Lisa? Joining me, Psychologist Stacey Kaiser, Bounty Hunter Leonard Padilla, and CNN Correspondent Ed Lavandera, who is in Kansas City, Missouri.

Ed, let me start with you. What are you hearing about baby Lisa`s mom being spotted with some mystery man? What`s that all about?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we actually got the glimpse today of this surveillance footage at a nearby grocery store. And we spoke with the woman who worked the cash register, who checked out Debra Bradley. She had walked in there about 5 1/2 hours before she told police that she had put baby Lisa down to sleep last Monday.

She walks in, picks up some baby wipes, some baby food, and also some boxed wine, and she was with a friend. The catch register told us that this was a friend that she has seen Debra and the baby`s father, Jeremy, with several times, who`s clearly someone, according to her, that the parents knew well, that wasn`t anything out of the ordinary. And that everything appeared absolutely normal. The children weren`t with her. You can see clearly in the videotape. But she said that Debra acted normally. In fact, you take a close look at that tape. As they`re walking out of the store, Debra was smiling

So according to her, everything seemed nice. She had dealt with Debra and Jeremy several times over the last couple of years, and always seen them to be happy. Always talked very happily about having a baby girl. They were very excited about that. In fact, she had seen baby Lisa and that visit last Monday didn`t appear, nothing appeared out of the ordinary.

PINSKY: Ed, we are live tonight. I just want to apologize. I think I mispronounced your name. It`s Lavandera. I have a follow-up question for you, though. We`re watching that tape alongside of your report. And first of all, the guy that she`s with looks awfully young, number one. And number two, if this is sort of a family friend of the couple`s, why aren`t they speaking out about that and why didn`t they report that? And who was with the kids when those guys were out doing whatever they were doing?

LAVANDERA: Well, this is interesting. It`s hard to say who was with the kids. But just to kind of based on what we know so far, the father was working an overnight shift. He`s an electrician. He got home about 4:00 in the morning. So if you kind of backtrack from there, let`s say he works an eight-hour day, perhaps he starts around 8:00 at night. This was three hours before then. The children could very easily have been with their father.

Now, whether or not cops knew this is unclear. They haven`t told us exactly what they knew in terms of the timeline outside of the details they`ve told us about when they put the child to bed and when they discovered that the baby was missing.

Now, having said that, the store clerk that worked the cash register, she told us that FBI agents or they had discovered the receipt from the store last Saturday and they had come across their name and that`s what drove them to go talk to her. This was Saturday about four or five days after the disappearance of baby Lisa.

PINSKY: Now, Ed, one last question. The mother, I guess, failed a polygraph test, we`re hearing. A, is that true? And b, has the father taken a similar polygraph test in and finally, c, is that why she is so- called preparing to be arrested?

LAVANDERA: It`s interesting. They were both given the polygraph test. What they have said and family members have said is that police told her that she, that the mother, Deborah Bradley, had failed that polygraph test. She doesn`t believe she failed it, but she says that`s what police told her. And obviously, there has been so much focus and so much attention focused on these parents that clearly investigators haven`t ruled them out.

In fact, when we talked to that cash register at the grocery store today, she told us that one of the main things that investigators were focusing on was the demeanor and the state of mind of Deborah Bradley. I think that`s kind of a clear indication that up until Saturday of, just a few days ago that investigators had been very keyed in, trying to figure out and get more details about Deborah Bradley and we presume the father as well.

PINSKY: Thank you, Ed, for that report right there on the ground where this is all taking place. Stacy, here is Ashley Irwin, baby Lisa`s aunt, defending the child`s mother on ABC`s "good morning America." take a look at this.


ASHLEY IRWIN, LISA`S AUNT: If anybody spends any time with them, you just know it`s not true. She`s genuine. She loves that child. It`s her baby. She would never do anything to hurt her.


PINSKY: So Stacey, we`re hearing that the mom is sort of, somehow expects to be arrested. Why would she be expecting to be arrested if she`s so innocent?

STACEY KAISER, PH.D., PSYCHOLOGIST: I mean, it is all fishy to me. The first thing that I have to point out is, you know, we hear relatives and neighbors and friends all the time say that person`s wonderful, I think they`re a great parent, and then we later find out that they`ve done a lot of things wrong. And so you don`t really know what goes on behind closed doors.

And as far as why she seems to be predicting she`s going to get arrested is I feel like a lot of her behavior`s been a little bit odd. Most of the mothers that I would imagine would have lost a 10-month-old child and don`t know what`s happened to them would be distraught. They`d be more emotional. And she seems very flat and stoic to me.

PINSKY: Yes. I agree with you. And it`s funny. You know we`ve come with the recent cases we`ve been covering in the last six months or so have reminded that odd behavior, not that uncommon. Also not that uncommon for people to neighbors and what not, family members to say oh, this guy`s the salt of the earth, greatest guy I ever met, and turns out the guy did something horrible. Very common, isn`t it, Stacey?

KAISER: It`s really common. And you know, what I`ve also been seeing in all the cases we`ve been covering is if it starts to look fishy it tends to be fishy. And it`s looking fishy to me for that couple.

PINSKY: Leonard, I want to go to you. A couple of things. Have you - first I want to ask you, have you dealt with cases like this? Have you investigated stuff like this before?

LEONARD PADILLA, VOUNTY HUNTER: I`ve had situations like this, 20 years ago I had a 7-month-old that law enforcement and the FBI thought, you know, something`s going on, something`s wrong. And it was a situation where a young lady had been telling her friend that was an inmate at the jail that hey, look, I had your baby. And when he was about to get out, they needed a baby. So she sent a couple of guys over and they stole a 7- month-old baby that she had baby-sat at one time before and it took about ten days -

PINSKY: So Leonard, let me ask you, given that you`ve investigated some situations like this, and this is in no way am I suggesting that we are pointing fingers at anybody, particularly, you know, not the family or the mom. But just based on your experience, is there anything about this that seems fishy to you?

PADILLA: Sure. It`s the Casey Anthony, Susan Smith thing all over again. I mean -

PINSKY: Well, the point is but Leonard, we`ve come to all understand that people can say things that aren`t true. I mean, that`s what we`ve come to understand. And not only have we gotten kind of used to that, we`ve gotten used to sort of, you know, seeing things on TV that the veracity of which we kind of question.

And my question was is this the kind of thing that usually ends up being something surprising? But I also have another question. Apparently, there was some wealthy person hired a private investigator to investigate what had gone on here. That`s something I also don`t understand. Who would have done that besides family?

PADILLA: I don`t believe that at all. I have no faith in anonymous contributors to the finding of children. Very seldom does that happen. In most cases it`s an individual like myself that injects himself into a case with his own money. Whether it`s for fame and fortune or just to see your name in the television or newspapers. But that`s usually what it is. I doubt that there is a huge contributor of any money or a contributor of any kind of money in a situation like this. It`s someone injecting themselves into the case.

PINSKY: Got it.

PADILLA: It`s not a problem if they know what they`re doing.

PINSKY: Right.

PADILLA: It`s not a problem. This gentleman from New York, he - excuse me?

PINSKY: I understand. We can confirm nor deny what you`re saying. But the fact -

PADILLA: Right. That I understand. And a lot of people think I`m too outspoken. But the gentleman from New York that`s involved in this situation, he knows what he`s doing. He used to be a cop. And I`ve run across his situation on several occasions. So if he`s injected himself with his own money, hell, more power to him. And that`s what I think it is. And I think you`ll be able to have some questions that sometimes law enforcement cannot ask.

PINSKY: Well, thank you, Leonard. Thank you, Ed. And of course thank you Stacey. The question I had, is did an expert witness damage Conrad Murray`s chance of mounting a defense? Find out what people are saying at

And when we come back, it is day 11 of the trial. Did explosive testimony rattle the defendant? I`ve got my own take on what the witness told jurors. Be right back.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever heard of any doctor using propofol in their practice of medicine to treat insomnia?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have never heard of it.



PINSKY: Welcome back. Michael Jackson did not have to die. That was the gist of testimony today, with propofol and an expert witness taking center stage. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Day 11 of the Conrad Murray trial. The state has about three experts left to call.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The battle of the experts has begun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Propofol is a very powerful medication. And that means that there are specific protocols that we have to follow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cardiologist Doctor Alon Steinberg testifying, laying out six points where Doctor Conrad Murray basically showed gross negligence. Point one he used propofol as a sleep aid.

DOCTOR ALON STEINBERG, CARDIOLOGIST: Instead of just calling 911, he started doing chest compressions which is counterproductive on a heart that`s already working.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Perhaps the most effective witness the prosecution has had on the stand since the case began. And he seemed to score some of his most passionate points during the cross-examination.


PINSKY: The prosecution put its own cardiologist, cardio logical expert on the stand. He dissected Murray`s actions the day Michael died, including, including Doctor Murray`s decision to leave Jackson`s side.


STEINBERG: When you monitor a patient, you never leave their side. Especially after giving propofol. It`s like leaving a baby that`s sleeping on your kitchen countertop. You look at it, and it`s probably going to be OK, and you`re just going to put some diapers away or go to the bathroom. But you would never do it.


PINSKY: Very powerful. It`s like leaving a sleeping baby on your kitchen countertop. In this case I would even say maybe on your stovetop with the stove running. Let`s go right to our guest, Doctor John Dombrowski, who`s an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist. Doctor Mark Urman is a cardiologist here with me in the studio. Also in the studio Beth Karas, finally got her in here down from the courtroom. She`s a correspondent with "In Session" on truTV.

Beth, can you bring us up to date with what`s going on in the court room?

BETH KARAS, IN SESSION CORRESPONDENT: Well, the prosecution is close to wrapping up. They`re going to call their final witness, an anesthesiologist, pharmacologist tomorrow. But the clinical care sleep expert still has to be cross-examined, Doctor Cumegard. And he said some of the same things the cardiologist said today but he went over a lot of gross deviations from the standard of care. The two experts the state has called so far review cases for the California medical board. Very interesting because Conrad Murray`s here, they may be reviewing his license.

There`s no question, though, that both of them said unequivocally that you do not leave a patient who has received an anesthetic like this, that first the cardiologist believes there was a drip to keep him under -

PINSKY: There for sure was.

KARAS: The defense is saying no. You know, they have to say no.

PINSKY: No, there for sure was. It says it - I`ve got the - this is his interrogation here. This is how big the interrogation is, 125 pages. He says it in here he put a drip. He says it.

KARAS: And the defense is going to take issue with those words. And as the cardiologist is saying, page 39 to 40, page 62, and those are some of the pages where there are references to the drip, dose to drip, dose to put him under, drip to keep him under, jurors were going through their transcripts and following along. It`s going to come down to interpreting the words.

PINSKY: So the cardiologist for the prosecution is Doctor Alon Steinberg. He named six deviations from the standard of care that proved gross negligence on the part of Doctor Conrad Murray. And the prosecution was meticulous, starting at the deviation number one. Watch this.


DAVID WALGEN, PROSECUTOR: The first extreme departure or evidence of gross negligence you noted was that propofol was not medically indicated. Is that right?

STEINBERG: Yes, sir. He was using propofol for the use of sleep. Propofol is, again, a very strong anesthetic medication, and we use it to facilitate, to make you comfortable during a diagnostic procedure. We don`t use it for rest or for sleep. Or psychological reasons.


PINSKY: OK, Doctor Dombrowski, I know I`ve spoken to you many times and you`re an anesthesiologist. Murray used propofol to treat insomnia and administered the drug in Michael Jackson`s home. Do you feel if you were on the stand, that was egregious, inappropriate, and gross negligence? Just to do that. Just to treat sleep with propofol and to provide the medicine in the home.

DOCTOR JOHN DOMBROWSKI, ANESTHESIOLOGIST, PAIN MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST: There`s no, there`s no reason for this. This is gross negligence, as was said by the cardiologist and everyone on the stand. This is truly indefensible. As we`ve talked about in the past, obviously, we`ve had a deviated doctor-patient relationship because of money or fame or whatever. But no physician in their right mind would ever provide this type of medical practice, if you want to call it that.

PINSKY: Doctor Dombrowski and I are or excuse me, I`m an internist. He`s an anesthesiologist. But we`re both addictionologist. We deal with people that demand things of us a lot and we learn to withstand those demands and take the punches and give them what they need.

Now, Urman, you`re a cardiologist. So you have the perspective Doctor Murray would have. It`s interesting, when you read the interrogation, once Michael Jackson arrested, Doctor Murray kicked into his cardio logical training and did everything just right. But up until that point he was so far I mean, into outer space with his care of the patient from my perspective.

As a cardiologist let me just ask you something sort of simple and basic. Would you have assumed the primary care and sole care of an individual as a cardiologist including administering to their sleep and their depression and whatever else they had? Is that appropriate for a cardiologist to take that kind of role on?

DOCTOR MARK URMAN, CARDIOLOGIST, BOARD MEMBER, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION: Well, I personally would not have. There are cardiologists who will act as a primary care doctor, an internist, if you will. But this is beyond that. I mean, when you have somebody who is trying to figure out how to use these powerful drugs to get him to sleep, a drug that we know -

PINSKY: Wouldn`t you consult?

URMAN: can make you stop breathing -

PINSKY: It`s got to be -

URMAN: I wouldn`t even consider it to begin with. If they had an addiction issue I would refer them to someone like yourself.

PINSKY: Right, but you`re a cardiologist, you`re not used to consulting so much as a primary care, but wouldn`t you have consulted?

URMAN: Absolutely. Yes. Such as the whole premise of taking propofol out of the hospital.

PINSKY: Bizarre.

URMAN: Ludicrous.

PINSKY: Ludicrous is the right word. Now, do you guys have a question about what happened in court today? Find everything you want to know about Conrad Murray trial at

Next, Doctor Steinberg was a charismatic expert witness, but how did the jury feel about him? Was he engaging or perhaps over the top? We`ll talk about that when we come back.



STEINBERG: Are you pointing out that Mr. Jackson was an addict for drugs? And that would make a difference?


PINSKY: We`re back. We`re live. And we`re talking about the Michael Jackson death trial. Doctor Alon Steinberg is the cardiologist who took the stand for the prosecution today. And as you just saw, he was not shy about questioning the defense. And he wasn`t shy about getting his points across. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it your testimony that Doctor Murray should have tried to wake him up -

STEINBERG: Absolutely. Absolutely. When you give propofol, you have to always assess the sedation level, and you do not leave a patient unmonitored until they`re back to their pre-sedation level. You don`t give propofol for sleep. That`s not an indication for the drug. And that`s an extreme deviation of standard of care.


PINSKY: Completely agree. And I think just about every doctor out there would agree with this. With me now is Trent Copeland. He`s a criminal defense attorney. And Beth Karas, correspondent for "In Session" on truTV.

Beth, you were in the courtroom today. What was your reaction, and what do you think the jury`s reaction was to the high-energy testimony?

KARAS: Well, a lot of people thought that as the cross went on even though the defense was getting out good points for the prosecution and he was reiterating the points he made on direct, it was like a double direct, he was getting a little bit rattled, a little annoyed, the witness was, with the lawyer.

And you know what? That`s kind of what you do with cross-examination, when you can`t do anything with the information. Because he was pretty solid on the information. So he just kind of -

PINSKY: He tried to up, you try to upset the witness?

KARAS: Exactly. Maybe the jurors will get a little annoyed with him too. Don`t know if it worked. But jurors seemed to like him.

PINSKY: Seemed to like him. Trent, you spend a lot of times in courtrooms. Can an expert witness be too engaging? Can he be so like emphatic that the jurors get kind of turned off?

TRENT COPELAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think you do. I mean, it`s a fine line doctor. You`ve got to recognize as a witness, particularly when you`re the lawyer and you`re preparing that witness for his examination, you`ve got to let him know look, I want you to be yourself but I also want to caution you not to toe the line too tightly. I don`t want you to take the jury into an area where they believe that you`re somehow so invested, that you`re so invested in the position that you`re intractable. And I don`t think that happened in this case.

Look, I think like Beth, I saw his testimony, I think this witness was a fabulous witness for the prosecution. I think when you want to go out on a bang this was one of the guys you want to go out on a bang with. I think it was very good. I think it was very solid. In some ways he might have out Flanagan because Flanagan has been really, really good. He`s been really solid in terms of questioning and attacking the defense that the prosecution witness as the defense lawyer.

PINSKY: What would you have done with this guy as a defense?

COPELAND: I wouldn`t have done much. And I think this has been one of the chief problems I think I`ve had with the defense. Sometimes you`ve got to know when to shut up and when to sit down. And I think there have been instances in the trial when the defense has gone too far with these witnesses and they`ve tried to attack them in areas where there really is, no grounds for attack.

PINSKY: They`re unassailable.

COPELAND: They`re unassailable. Sometimes you want to sit down and redirect the jury`s attention to a different area.

PINSKY: It`s almost like you want to reconsider the philosophy of what the witness is talking about. It`s like reframe the conversation entirely.

COPELAND: You want to reframe, redirect the conversation.

PINSKY: Redirect the conversation.

COPELAND: Into another area. That`s exactly right.

PINSKY: Well thank God.

KARAS: When court took a break, and he said he had one or two more hours of cross-examination, came back after the 20-minute break. No further questions.

COPELAND: That`s exactly right. Because someone either got in his ear or he recognized the error of his ways and decided, look, I can`t do much with this witness.

PINSKY: Thank you, guys. Next, the man who captured Michael Jackson on film is here, and he will expose the real king of pop. Of course, if you want to know how the defense can come back from today`s devastating medical testimony in the Conrad Murray trial, go to


PINSKY: Tonight, an exclusive interview with the man who worked for Michael Jackson for decade. A rare look inside the singer`s private life through the lands of his personal photographer. The truth about Michael, the myths and the mysteries.

And later, I`ve said it before, and today`s testimony drove home the point. The medical profession failed Michael Jackson. Physicians are not friends. Doctors are not drug dealers. And protocol matters. I`m breaking it down.

The doctor shopping, the unheeded precautions, the gross negligence.

Plus, I`m bringing in a cardiologist and a lawyer, pulling together the medical and legal angles of the case.


PINSKY (on-camera): Dick Zimmerman is a world-renowned celebrity photographer and artist. He shot some of Michael Jackson`s most remembered photos and created this portrait of Michael and Lisa Marie for their wedding. His 1982 cover for Michael`s "Thriller" album is iconic.

Dick Zimmerman joins us tonight. Dick, after you took the wedding portraits, you went, I guess, to Lisa Marie and Michael`s suite. What did you see there?

DICK ZIMMERMAN, PHOTOGRAPHED MICHAEL JACKSON FOR "THRILLER" COVER: Well, it was a funny story. You know, I got there really late. Oh, it was about midnight. And, the maid let me in. And I hung around. It was kind of dark in there. And I asked when Michael was coming down. And I waited. It was a good half hour, and no Michael. So, I`m wondering what`s going on.

I noticed there was a fellow standing next to a pole not too far away. And, I went over just to see, I thought maybe he was a bodyguard or something. And I said do you have any idea -- and I went closer and closer. I said, do you have any idea when Michael is coming down? You know, it was late. And, all of a sudden, I get closer and he starts laughing, and it`s Michael.

He was wearing a mustache and a beard. So you know, very playful. Very surprising. We laughed. It was really fun.

PINSKY: Did you eventually sort of develop a friendship with him after working with him for a while?

ZIMMERMAN: I did. Well, that particular night was a very, very good night. We spent quite a bit of time, you know, having -- he opened up a bottle of wine, and he -- you know, we just talked. We talked about life. We went over the photographs that I created for him and Lisa. And he basically -- I got to know him more than ever that evening because he actually had tears in his eyes and he had just finished an interview with Diane Sawyer.

I don`t remember. It was "60 Minutes" or something, and he took him around Neverland. and he said, I poured my heart out and I told the truth. I told them everything about me, and they twisted it around, you know? And he says, I don`t know what to do anymore, you know? I can`t -- I tell the truth, and it doesn`t work, you know? So, that`s --

PINSKY: So, Dick, you sort of -- in a way, you have an opportunity to set the record straight. What is the truth? How do we understand this man?

ZIMMERMAN: The truth about what? The truth about what he was like as a human being?

PINSKY: Yes. I mean, let`s put it -- let me, let me -- let`s break it down, first of all. He had some charges about having been a pedophile. And, I guess, you`re quoted as having said he was very child-like. But that`s not necessarily healthy.


PINSKY: Right? Being child-like? In my world, that`s pathology. So, how do I understand all these -- these aspects of him?

ZIMMERMAN: Well, you know, I would like to answer that question after I -- I wrote something down here regarding Michael and the trial and what he was like. And if you don`t mind, I`d like to read it to you.

PINSKY: Please. It can`t be to long, but -- it`s live television.


PINSKY: I don`t have a couple minutes. I have like 30 seconds.

ZIMMERMAN: Thirty seconds? Oh, wow. OK.

PINSKY: Let`s see what you can do.

ZIMMERMAN: Michael Jackson was an incredible artist, probably the most talented and dynamic entertainer in history. You know it`s tough enough for an average entertainer to maintain a successful career, but then, imagine maintaining the enormous magnitude of Michael`s.

Having to continue to create perfection but having the obstacle of the media looking for ways out of jealousy or whatever with criticalness in order to fill up blank pages and newspapers. To suppress rather than to validate his talents or find ways to inspire it. Suppression, unfortunately, in this country, usually leads to drugs.

Sure, Dr. Murray is guilty of negligence and should be punished and take responsibility for his negligence. Dr. Murray just happened to be there at the end, the fall guy. But Michael started to die years ago, from trying to handle the suppression from his media attackers. They were constantly looking for ways to bring him down.

We lost too many iconic performers to the media leading to suppression, leading to drugs, leading to death. Lady Gaga will most likely be next. I certainly hope not. I`m almost finished.


ZIMMERMAN: Michael was highly misunderstood. He loved children, was totally concerned for their future on this environmentally strained planet. But compassionate. Very compassionate. Michael --

PINSKY: I`m going to interrupt you.

ZIMMERMAN: One second.

PINSKY: I appreciate your comments.

ZIMMERMAN: Please -- I`m almost there. I`m almost there. The media couldn`t have it any other way. OK? Michael is compassionate. No one can be that compassionate. So, let`s see how we can twist that into a negative. Oh, how about turning it into child molestation? Well, yes, that works.

Anyway, I`m glad that these drugs, slurred words from Michael are there to be read. Just turn off the volume and you will finally understand who Michael Jackson really was. So, thank you for letting me get that in there.

PINSKY: You`re quite welcome. I understand you`re also very passionate about a tribute painting that we`re going to actually put up on the screen.


PINSKY: I see now what your motivation is. Just explain to us what it means for you, and then, we have to go out on break.

ZIMMERMAN: OK. Basically, I created this --

PINSKY: There it is now.

ZIMMERMAN: OK. I basically created this tribute painting for Michael. It has -- it`s a montage filled with the images of the three photo sessions that I had with him, the "Thriller" session, the Spielberg session where he narrated the E.T. album, and my portraits, my exclusive portraits when he married Lisa Marie.

I put that together in a painting. On the bottom right-hand corner is an 8 over 15, which represents the eight times that I either worked with Michael or socialized with him over the 15-year period. And, it has a lot of elements that have to do with Michael`s life.

I would have to, you know, take some time to explain it. But, of course, we don`t have that time. But it was my tribute to Michael. Yes, yes.

PINSKY: Thank you, Dick. I appreciate it very much. I appreciate you joining us. Very lovely tribute you`ve created there for Michael. And thank you for telling us your story and reading us --

ZIMMERMAN: You`re welcome.

PINSKY: Your tribute and your feelings about Michael because you were somebody that was there.

ZIMMERMAN: Right. Thank you.

PINSKY: Next, last week we heard tapes of Dr. Murray being questioned by detectives. I`m going to get into that. Will it help or hurt his defense? Again, for more on the Murray trial, check out I`ve got this interrogation report. I`m going to get into it after the break.


PINSKY: Make sure you stay tuned for Joy Behar. Tonight, she`s got Hank William Jr., and you will want to hear what he has to say about his split with ESPN. That`s at the top of the hour.


CONRAD MURRAY, DEFENDANT: I have done all I could do. I told the truth, and I have faith the truth will prevail.


PINSKY: Oh, I`m afraid it might. That was Dr. Conrad Murray in a YouTube statement to his supporters, but has -- well, has the truth hurt him, I guess is the question. Did Murray do all he could to save the King of Pop? Two days after Michael Jackson died, Murray was interviewed by detectives. Here it is. All 125 pages.

He gave his version of what happened on that fateful day in June of 2009. And there`s a ton in here that jumps out at me. One thing Dr. Murray revealed was that Michael Jackson was no stranger to propofol. That a doctor in Las Vegas, a plastic surgeon, had previously given him the milk on several occasions. Take a look to this.


MURRAY: He said Mr. Adams -- he said, he helped me before. He would take me to this plastic surgeon`s office. And he will come there with his bag and he always had it, and he would start it, and he would get sleep. His worst day on the set is when he would go into Dr. Klein`s office, which is about three times a week.

And when he came back, he was basically wasted, and required at least 24 hours for recovery. So, I wasn`t certain, again, why he never shared with me. If you want me to be your team and overlook things for you, why wouldn`t he have shared with me the fact that he was seeing a dermatologist or another doctor for any kind of treatment. That he did not share.


PINSKY: So, there are several things in that quote that are just so far outside of general medical -- good medical practice. One was, he allowed Michael to doctor shop and talk to other doctors without his knowledge as the primary care guy, the one responsible for administering dangerous medicines, and Michael had a relationship with other doctors.

And his position, Dr. Murray`s position was, well, you know, he`s entitled to keep that to himself if he wants. His position should have been I`m running out of here if you don`t tell me what`s going on so I can keep you safe. There are so many things in here I want to get into.

So, joining me to talk about this is criminal defense attorney, Trent Copeland, and cardiologist, Dr. Mark Urman. Dr. Urman, I will talk to you about what I`m hearing on these tapes. One of the things, this business of him -- first of all, he takes over the care of the patient as the sole special envoy for this special patient. Do you have any feelings about that?

DR. MARK URMAN, CARDIOLOGIST & BOARD MEMBER, AMERICAN HEAR ASSOC.: You know, some specialists can act as a primary care doctor. In and of itself that isn`t necessarily a bad thing. But, it`s all about judgment. And it`s all about how do you take control of the care of that patient and what are you going to allow and do you make it clear there are certain boundaries? You know, you`ve got to be careful not to let things get out of hand.

PINSKY: This is where I actually get all upset about this, because Michael Jackson, great performer, God bless him, everyone loved him, had very serious psychiatric liabilities. He just did. And people think somehow that every doctor has comprehensive understanding of those issues. Cardiologist is not necessarily going to have that knowledge. Really. I mean, right?

URMAN: I`ve always said the best doctor isn`t necessarily the smartest. It`s the one who knows their limitations. And you have to understand what you`re dealing with and know when it`s time to call for help.

PINSKY: Which would have been right at the beginning of this case, would it not have been in not going to the plastic surgeon and being introduced to propofol. That`s -- it`s so outrageous for me. I can`t even -- I can`t get over it. There are so many things in here -- it`s going to take me all week to go through this, guys.

And I`m sorry, Trent. I`m going to have -- it`s going to take me all week, but don`t you agree with me on that?

URMAN: Well, outrageous is right.


URMAN: I mean, the whole concept of using propofol in a home to get somebody to sleep is so off base.

PINSKY: I must tell you, he had already -- again, in this interrogation, had already given him Klonopin, Xanax, Restoril. This was someone who had required inpatient treatment for addiction. That already was so far off the rail. So far off the rail, I can`t even tell you.

Now, as we previously heard, Dr. Murray admitted he knew that he was seeing other patients and that maybe the doctor -- maybe he was sort of doctor shopping. Take a look at this.


MURRAY: I heard that he was seeing a Dr. Klein three times a week in Beverly Hills, and he never disclosed that to me. But I`d seen bottles of pills at his bedside that had Dr. Klein`s name on them. I also saw like a Dr. Mettser`s name on that. So, I realized that he`s also seeing other physicians.


PINSKY: And if you remember, in the previous tape at the beginning of this segment, Dr. Murray said that when he came back from Klein`s office, he would be so, quote, "wasted" that it would take 24 hours for him to recover.

So, Trent, my question to you is, wasn`t there massive liability in not reaching out to these other physicians and at least inquiring about my patient? His patient, that is, of course.

TRENT COPELAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Liability. I mean, let`s just start there. I mean, the fact is that if you are the doctor who`s going to come aboard for $150,000 a month --

PINSKY: That`s another question -- that`s -- tune in tomorrow when I address that issue, because that`s another ridiculous thing.

COPELAND: That`s right. And if you`re that doctor and this is your sole and exclusive patient, not only is it incumbent upon you, it`s absolutely critical that you delve into that patient`s medical history immediately. Look, you can`t have it both ways. And look, I`m going to differ with you, too, Dr. Drew, when you called this an interrogation, because this was nothing like an interrogation.

PINSKY: What was it?

COPELAND: This was a narrative. This was, I`m going to walk you in, the lawyer, I`m going to walk you in, my client, and I`m going to allow you to explain away every reason why Michael Jackson`s death was not a cause related to any of your kind of medical treatment and care. And in my view, I never would have allowed my client to have gone in and to have given this amount --

PINSKY: It`s 125 pages.

COPELAND: 125 pages of information, testimony that can be parsed by these prosecutors, that can find the contradictions, the inconsistencies. I never would have allowed it.

PINSKY: Trent, do you think that it`s possible -- this just now occurred to me, that Dr. Murray had convinced his attorneys that his practice was beyond reproach, and it was time to just march in and tell the story?

COPELAND: I do. And I think, look, this is where his -- perhaps it was his own arrogance got in the way and got the best of him. And I think worst of all, the lawyer -- look, Michael Jackson had only been dead for two days. They didn`t have an opportunity to really sit down and figure out exactly chronologically what happened.

And as a result of that, this is what we get. We get a narrative filled with inconsistencies, filled with contradictions. We`ve got a Dr. Murray who says, listen, you know what, I didn`t know what his medical history was, but he got medication all over the place. I didn`t know --

PINSKY: Didn`t know his medical history, didn`t know who he was seeing, and then, didn`t maintain a medical record.

COPELAND: Yes. But the fact is he`s walking in and he`s out of it. He`s drugged up, and he knows he`s coming from Arnold Klein`s office. So, the fact is, it just doesn`t make sense, and it begins here.

PINSKY: Now, Dr. Urman, let me ask you this. I`m going to calm down a little bit and ask a sensible question, which is this whole issue of doctors becoming so dazzled by special patients. You work in this town. And you probably see celebrities here and there.


PINSKY: And to me, they are -- my advice to my peers when they`re treating celebrities is don`t treat them any differently than anybody else. The standard of care of the medicine is the standard because it is the best, and if we do anything other than the standard that we offer to all our patients, we`re doing something substandard or potentially substandard.

How do -- is there a lesson here for all of us in this profession, particularly, those that practice in this town around celebrities?

URMAN: Absolutely. That`s right, Drew. I mean, it is very easy to get enamored with somebody who`s famous, somebody you who think is --

PINSKY: Why? I don`t get enamored by it. I find it more of a problem.


PINSKY: It`s more difficult. They`re more demanding.

COPELAND: When you`re representing celebrities, they`re more difficult.

PINSKY: And by the way, Trent, you represent -- you know they`re more difficult. They`ll dismiss you easily. And you have to hold firm, hold fast.

URMAN: Absolutely. I think it`s all about boundaries.

PINSKY: Absolutely.

URMAN: And you have to make it clear, and I do this with all my patients, that there are certain things that are allowable, there are certain things that aren`t. And just because somebody`s trying to press you into doing something you know is not right, you feel uncomfortable about it, and it`s not good medical practice. You`ve got to take a stand.

PINSKY: But don`t you think that by the time they`re so dazzled by the specialist, they`re not even thinking about what -- they`re just thinking about making that person happy, being the best possible sort of almost servant for that subject, for that patient.

URMAN: Perhaps. I mean, again, I don`t know specifically what may go on in a doctor`s mind who is dealing with that and thinking that way --

PINSKY: And one last question. Then making them your friend. And this is the one other thing in here that goes way off the rail. He`s my friend. How many doctors do we have out there? So many in this case, who`ve been saying Michael was my friend, my friend. You can`t be the doctor and the friend. I`ve got 30 seconds. Can you address that in 30 seconds?

URMAN: It`s not good practice to take care of a close friend, especially when you`re dealing with such a serious medical issue.

PINSKY: Or make a patient a friend who was not a previously a friend.

COPELAND: That`s where the line has to be drawn. You know, you draw the line between patient and between --

URMAN: Client.

COPELAND: Client and friend.

URMAN: And friend.

PINSKY: Absolutely.

URMAN: You can`t have it.

PINSKY: Now, want to know what`s happening tomorrow in the Michael Jackson death trial, go to to find out. It`s your around-the-clock source for complete trial coverage. Thank you to Dr. Urman and to Trent Copeland. Thank you, gentlemen. We`ll see you, hopefully, again soon here. And we`ll be back right after this.


PINSKY: Welcome back. It`s day 11 of the Michael Jackson death trial, and things aren`t going that well for Dr. Murray. There`s the shot of the downtown courthouse. It didn`t help his case when police tape of his interview was played for the jury last week. Listen as Dr. Murray and a few other physicians who treated Michael Jackson claimed to be the friends of the superstar.


LARRY KING, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: Dr. Arnold Klein, the famed dermatologist who was Michael Jackson`s long-time physician and friend.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will never be the same, because we lost the most talented man of our age. Don`t forget, I lost my best friend.

PINSKY: He says he was not only Michael`s doctor but a friend.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many of my patients are my friends. You know, but with Michael, it was something different. Even when I wasn`t treating him, our friendship extended beyond that.

MURRAY: Mr. Jackson was my friend. I loved him. We had a good relationship.


PINSKY: As we`ve been saying here, Michael Jackson had multiple physicians that were friends, and that is dangerous. You can`t be physician and friend. You can`t be attorney and friend. It doesn`t work. Boundaries become unclear. When people have a substance problem, that`s where it really goes off the rail.

I said -- it`s live television. I said I would have Dr. Urman and Mark Copeland back -- Trent Copeland back soon. In fact, they`re here with me right now. I didn`t realize they`d be with me in this segment too as well.

Dr. Urman, one quick thing for you. Cardiologists do come across propofol. Help people understand where it would be appropriate and normal for a cardiologist to see propofol.

URMAN: Yes. Well, we do a procedure called a cardioversion. Somebody has an irregular heart rhythm such as atrial fibrillation. They need to be shocked out of it. Obviously, they`d be uncomfortable when you deliver that shock.

So, an anesthesiologist is with me, monitors the patient with me, and gives just the right amount of propofol to put them to sleep, and it does work great when it`s used in the right way. You do what you have to do to shock the heart. And then --

PINSKY: Again, make sure -- they`re there to make sure that they`re monitored and ventilated --

URMAN: Absolutely. In a hospital.

PINSKY: As I said last week, Michael Jackson`s lungs were damaged by under ventilation from so many years of doing this stuff. Trent, I`ve got about a minute. Can you sum the case up from your perspective in a minute?

COPELAND: Well, you know, the prosecution started out with the basic premise. It was the unskilled, incompetent, reckless treatment of Michael Jackson that deviated so substantially from the standard of care that directly caused his death.

Now, the defense, their view is listen, whatever Dr. Murray did, he didn`t do anything that Michael Jackson didn`t beg him to do. Their view is on some level, look, Michael Jackson has to take control --

PINSKY: I`ve got to interrupt you, Trent. So what?

COPELAND: That`s right. Look --


PINSKY: So what?

COPELAND: I think that`s what the prosecution`s position is. I think the defense`s position is listen, you know, if he wasn`t going to get this propofol from me, he was going to get it from someone else, and I cared about him, and I wanted to help manage him.

I wanted to help wean him off of the propofol, and as a result, my care did not directly contribute to his death. As a result, look, he had my midazolam, diazepam, lidocaine, --

PINSKY: A lot of stuff.

COPELAND: A lot of stuff in his system, and their view is, it didn`t directly cause his death.

PINSKY: I would beg to differ, but thank you, Trent Copeland. Thank you, Dr. Urman. I appreciate you guys for sticking with me for another segment. I hope you`ll come back again soon.

Can`t get enough of the Michael Jackson trial? Again, I`m telling you to go to for day or night coverage.

And now, I want to say a couple of few words before we go. I`ve got about 20 seconds. And they involve this. I held this up for you guys the other day. This. You see this? This is what Michael Jackson put on every night to go to sleep. It`s called a condom catheter. Urine drains into this bag over here.

Fifty-year-old man going to sleep at night with a condom catheter. Is that OK? Wouldn`t you as a physician or anybody around the guy think something`s wrong here, we need to do something? I`m out of time again. I`ve got a lot more to say--