CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

DR. DREW

Latest Update on Search for Baby Lisa

Aired October 17, 2011 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go now with big breaking news tonight. Baby Lisa`s mom admits she was drunk the night her little one disappeared. So, what does this mean for the case and for the hopes of finding her daughter?

And is Conrad Murray`s case crumbling? Sensational developments tonight that may have sabotaged his defense. Plus, Michael Jackson`s childhood friend is here. Could he have saved the pop star? Let`s get started.

There`s breaking news in the Conrad Murray case. Are Murray`s lawyers cooking a new strategy for their client? They might have to big time. New test results show that Michael Jackson probably did not swallow the number of pills his defense had claimed. They claimed up to eight Lorazepam tablets. That sedative apparently was not found in his stomach in the quantities that they`re suggesting. Though I will remind people, I`m going to bring this up a couple of times tonight, he was already receiving so much intravenous medication that he need to be looked up to this. It`s a condom catheter. He was incontinent of urine throughout the night, he was so sedated.

Forget the eight tablets which apparently he didn`t take. He was already on so much intravenous medicine, and again, a reminder, had no veins anywhere in his body. Doctors had given him so many IV injections that his veins were in the same shape as a junkie`s. It is unbelievable.

So, whether he took eight tablets or not to me not really relevant, but it is looking like the evidence suggests that didn`t even happen. So, the trial is on a break through tomorrow. When it resumes we will hear more from the last witness for the prosecution. Then the defense finally begins its case and we`ll get into that in detail of course later in this hour.

Now, we of course usually want to know that I`m always looking at why people do what they do. We will be analyzing all the developments with that in my up to and after the verdict.

Get the latest 24/7 at hlnTV.com/MichaelJackson.

But first, we have more breaking news. This on another story we`ve been following. A jaw dropping admission about baby Lisa tonight. The Missouri 11-month-old has been missing for 14 days. So, are police any closer to finding her? Look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Her mother is opening up in a new interview about what she was doing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now admits she was drunk the night her little girl disappeared.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Enough to be drunk.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Also told NBC`s "Today" show she expects to be arrested.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She apparently failed a lie detector test.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You failed the one you know where your daughter`s at. And I said, that`s not possible, I don`t know where she`s at.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The national guards are also joining the search for Lisa.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two weeks now, no one knows where baby Lisa is.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PINSKY: The family had just held a press conference. It was just a few hours ago. And they have hired a high profile defense attorney to help them during the investigation. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE TACOPINA, FAMILY ATTORNEY: In my mind, there`s no question that Deborah and Jeremy for that matter had absolutely nothing to do with the disappearance. Keep the focus on trying to find Lisa. I think the questioning of these two people have been a little insensitive. Do your investigation and start here. Start right here. It is absolutely normal for them to start right here. But don`t come to a conclusion before you have evidence.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you preparing for possible arrest in the near future?

TACOPINA: For the life of me, I can`t see that happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Now, to the mother`s remarks about being drunk meaning anything. That`s what we`ll try to figure out tonight. A mother`s actions and what they have to do with the little girl`s fate.

Joining me tonight, body language expert Mark Edgar Stevens, Attorney Kim Picazio. She was the attorney for Haleigh Cummings` mother. Haleigh was five when she went missing in 2009, she`s still missing today. And on the ground for us in Kansas City, CNN Correspondent Jim Spellman.

Jim, can you bring us up to date with the most significant developments from today`s press conference?

JIM SPELLMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I think the real point was to try to reset the case and reset public perception of Deborah Bradley. This new attorney Joe - the new attorney Joe Tacopina, sorry. He came in and really took charged in this and came out, answered everybody`s questions of right on the heels of this shocking interview where she admitted as you mentioned first that she was drunk on the night baby Lisa disappeared, and second altering her time line she previous told police.

Earlier she said 10:30 she last saw Lisa, changing that to 6:40. An almost four hour gap now in the investigation. It really changes a lot of things. And you could you come to the conclusion I think that he was starting build what sounded like a defense. He said that it is not a case. They`re looking for her, but it sounded like a defense to me, Doctor Drew.

He said that think of two things about her being drunk that night. One, could someone who was drunk pull off disappearing this girl without a trace, getting her out of the house and leaving no trace, and second, creating the sense that if she was drunk and someone did break into the house, she might not have been able to hear and react like a normal person was.

Big developments from the family as they try to really recast Deborah Bradley. Doctor Drew?

PINSKY: And Jim, one quick follow on, Tacopina is famous from another case. Does that have any relation to this case from the sort of perspective there on the ground?

SPELLMAN: I don`t think on the ground at this point yet. But you know a lot of local reporters are really frustrated because while the family has spoken with national reporters, they haven`t spoken to them. And I think a lot of people here are suspects of him. And yet, at the same - and the as the family because they aren`t talk to go local media even though they say they want help in finding her.

One of the things he is going to do as well is focus attention away from her and more onto having searches like we seen in the last couple days. The National Guard was out yesterday going inch by inch through thick woods a few blocks from here. Just a couple of hours ago, there were search dogs here going into their house. They gave consent again today to have their home researched and the home where they`re staying a few miles away and a neighbor`s home the dogs were in today as well. They moved us away. We couldn`t get too good a view of what they were doing. But they want more of that and they want more of the public out there and less focus on Deborah Bradley. I think that that`s what you are going to see in the coming days.

PINSKY: Thanks Jim.

Kim, Deborah told FOX News that it was possible she blacked out saying I don`t see the problem with me having grown up time. What do you think of that admission? I mean grown up time to the point that you become unable to do your duty as a professional, in charge of children. Yes.

KIM PICAZIO, ATTRONEY: That`s right. And there was no one else in the house. I don`t know how many times I told my clients I am a family lawyer, you can`t do what you want when you want when you`re a parent, you give up that right. And if you`re not willing to give up that right, then you shouldn`t have children. And has anyone never heard of a baby-sitter?

I mean even if she could have traded off if she didn`t have sufficient funds, you could have traded off child rearing responsibilities with a friend down the street on occasion. There are plenty of times to go out. You don`t do it when you`re watching two children and an infant.

That infant could have gotten into anything. And for her to do it is more than careless, is more than irresponsible, and it probably we - I think we will see down the line has something to do with the baby`s disappearance.

PINSKY: And Kim, the fact they don`t want investigators to interview Deborah`s two other children what they may have seen or heard that night, isn`t that a little telling?

PICAZIO: I think it is very suspect. I think that if a child went missing, any parent would want to do anything they could to provide any information to law enforcement to aid in the search in the finding of their child. I can`t even imagine not offering up the child every single day if that`s what the police want.

And police are very tender with children. They usually call in children specialists who are interrogation experts with children. It is usually not a traumatizing experience. The children usually think they`re playing and for her and this man to not want to do everything they possibly can to give law enforcement the tools they need to find this child is extremely suspicious to me, especially in light of all of the inconsistencies we`re seeing now.

PINSKY: Speaking of inconsistencies, is though that Jim reported to us, she first said that she last saw her baby at 6:40 p.m., not at 10:30. Listen to her attorney defend this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TACOPINA: When you tell stories several times in the rehashing events of that night, on a normal night when we`re putting our kids to bed, you`re not exactly clocking the times, and there are going to be discrepancies, but there are absolutely no discrepancies or recollections that are refreshed perhaps by others. There are no recollections that have been refreshed with discrepancies that caused the police officers to take any action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: I want to point out that Tacopina is the same attorney that defended Van Der Sloot, murderer of the young woman down in Aruba, the first one, Holloway. I mean, this whole situation is little suspect. Kim, should the mom be a suspect?

And what about the dad? I get funny feelings about the dad. How come people aren`t putting him under a microscope?

PICAZIO: I don`t know. I guess that he probably had a lock solid alibi for work, that`s what I am assuming. But he seems to extremely mellow. We saw that you know in several other cases where the men will stand by the women for a short time period. And then you know when more is revealed, you see them fall off.

I think that this attorney is probably going to - we`re going to see less of this couple in the media, we`re going to see more of the attorney. This attorney probably knows how to do his job. That`s what I did when I was representing the mother of a missing child.

In that case, she was not a suspect, and I learned that pretty quickly the writing was on the wall that she was not a suspect, but I clearly kept her off the media because one little statement could send even law enforcement into a whirl wind with an inconsistent statement.

You get you statements done with law enforcement. You do not go to the press. And I think that especially if she has any liability or any culpability in this, that defense attorney wants to keep her out of the media because every statement she made is going to be played to the courtroom just like in the Casey Anthony case.

PINSKY: Thank you, Kim. Mark, we`re seeing a lot of footage there of both parents. Again, I keep getting a funny feeling about dad. The mom seems really distraught. Is there anything you see from body language? We`ll talk more in the next segment. We`ve got about a minute here.

MARK EDGAR STEPHENS, BODY LANGUAGE SPECIALIST: There`s a reason you`re getting a lot from the dad in terms of first of all he shows embarrassment, a lot of shame, a lot of looking down.

PINSKY: A lot of looking down.

STEPHENS: Yes.

PINSKY: He never looks up. I feel more suspicion than shame when I look at him.

STEPHENS: When we have high self esteem, we can look at someone in the eye. We can maintain eye contact. He looks down a lot. There`s something else that he does -

PINSKY: You know he reminds me, listen, I shouldn`t say it, because I don`t know this man. I don`t know if he is culpable, but reminds me of the guy in Boardwalk Empire with half his face who always looking down, always ashamed, always looking miserable.

STEPHENS: Well, if you look at a dog that`s feeling shame, literally it is the same look that he is doing right now in the camera. He is looking down and up like there`s a lot of shame going on there. But there`s something else he does when he is asked questions and we may see some of this footage later, he swallows hard and bites his lip, which is a sign, a classic sign of deception. I don`t know what it is that he is trying to keep from us, but it is a classic sign of deception.

PINSKY: Very interesting. Next. Thank you by the way to the panel.

Next, Deborah apparently failed a lie detector test. Is that why she expects to be arrested? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH BRADLEY, BABY LISA`S MOTHER: She`s everything. She`s our little girl, she`s completed our family. She means everything to my boys and we need her home. I can`t live without her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: That is Deborah Bradley pleading for the return of her daughter, Lisa. Again, remember, this is about again a missing child. I mean Casey Anthony, missing child, the center of the story. So we`re used to not getting the facts out of the suspects and what we see on the ground, so we`ll speculate a little bit, try to understand the story.

The police, FBI, and now the National Guard have joined the search for this missing baby. There have been over 300 tips. They still have no leads and no real suspects. There`s also a $100,000 reward for Lisa`s safe return.

Kim, we heard breaking news today, the parents just hired a high profile attorney, Joe Tacopina. Again, he was Van Der Sloot`s attorney. The mom and dad`s stories, just quickly, can you tell me, are they matching up with each other, does dad have an alibi or are the stories kind unraveling?

PICAZIO: Well, I think that in the beginning, we heard this was God`s gift to the perfect couple. But now, we`re hearing that mom has gotten drunk, dad was working, we haven`t heard any inconsistencies there. We don`t know what law enforcement knows, of course. And to go back to the inconsistencies, we don`t know, although she may have said one thing to media on different days, we don`t know if she`s consistent to law enforcement unless they say she has.

So, with regard to dad and mom, he is clearly supporting her story, backing her up. We don`t know if that`s going to start to fall apart. I think that would start to happen in the weeks to come. That will probably happen once the attorney moves in or law enforcement gets more aggressive in interrogations with mom, if that happens. Then you may see that relationship breakdown.

PINSKY: Let`s take a look now at the clip of Deborah on ABC`s "GOOD MORNING AMERICA" talking about how she failed the lie detector test.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRADLEY: He said you failed, and I said failed what? What question did I fail? And he said you failed the one where you know where your daughter is at. I said that`s not possible, I don`t know where she`s at and I just proceeded to come unglued, it is not possible, freaking out, telling them, no. And he looked at my face and said I met bad mothers like you. And proceeded to say probably something along the lines of I need to tell the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Now Mark, I want you to help the viewing audience to understand something. The fact she failed that question about you know where the child is, does it mean that she knows where the child is? She may have other doubts about what`s going on with that child such as what the neighbor might have done with the child, what the husband could have been done with the child. And not going to whirl that what affecting her answer in the lie detector test.

STEPHENS: This is correct. Because when you take a lie detector test, the lie detector will detect any emotion that`s extreme. So it doesn`t necessarily mean she was lying but she had extreme emotion about it.

PINSKY: Maybe something she wasn`t conscious of. Some feeling.

And again, what about this neighbor? What is with the neighbor? Who is this guy, where is he? What`s his story?

STEPHENS: I would certainly like to see a little bit of footage of the neighbor talking about this to find out what did the neighbor really hear. Are we seeing deception in the neighbor, truth in the neighbor, what are we seeing.

PINSKY: While we look at another clip from ABC`s "GOOD MORNING AMERICA," I want to have a challenge the control room to come up with footage of the neighbor, if you can do that for us, Mark and I will analyze it right here.

Now, Deborah`s husband in this state has talking about how he realized his daughter was missing. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, when you first came home, you didn`t immediately realize that Lisa was gone.

JEREMY IRWIN, BABY LISA`S FATHER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has this put a strain on your relationship as a couple?

IRWIN: It`s actually kind of done the opposite. We`re spending every waking moment together since this happened. It`s actually made us a lot closer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: So Mark and I watch this footage very closely. Also want to say the control room yelled back at me that there`s no footage on the neighbor. We will go looking for that.

So Mark, what did you see on that tape?

STEPHENS: Yes. Two really clear things Doctor Drew, is when he is responding and says the word no, he seems actually swallows hard and you see a tightening of the lips.

PINSKY: So, he is swallowing something down.

STEPHENS: That`s right. That`s exactly right. He`s swallowing something down. It is one of the things we do when we`re nervous or when we`re concerned about what might actually come out. Tightening of the lips is the thing you would say, we just tighten the lips down, I don`t want you to know anything other than no, swallow, tightening of the lips.

The one time that we see a micro expression on him, a micro expression appears on the face for less than a second, to tell us something that we`re feeling that we may be masking. We see a micro expression of happiness comes up when he talks about when he and his wife actually getting closer together.

I don`t know what that means, but I think it is very interesting to see that during this very tumultuous emotional thing, he is actually feeling a little happiness that he and his wife are going a stronger bond.

PINSKY: Well, it seems weird that he was so coldly non-emotional, and then to see happiness on that pallet didn`t make sense almost.

STEPHENS: It doesn`t make sense because the thing is when we`re feeling strong emotions too, you see things up here in the brow, he is not showing anything in the brow.

PINSKY: It is flat. Very flat.

STEPHENS: And even trying to hide emotion, not trying to show anything, tells us something. So, when those micro expressions come out we go, that`s what underneath that non-emotional face.

PINSKY: Or there`s something that doesn`t fit and there`s some reason for the flatness or something. We`re going to get more into this. Mark, thank you. Kim, thank you.

The story of course pushes everyone`s buttons. And we`ll hear more about what you think on this story in the on call segment next.

And coming up after the segment is the big development, it`s the Conrad Murray trial. We are going to get all the breaking news at hlnTV.com/MichaelJackson.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: That now is Deborah Bradley at the grocery store where she reportedly bought diapers and I think a box of wine among other things. Not exactly a typical combination of grocery items, but does that alone justify the scrutiny this woman is getting? You all have a lot to say about this. So, let`s get right to it.

We`ve got Melissa who`s e-mailed us with this. "My son is 19-months- old and I don`t drink. I don`t understand how a mother can get drunk when she`s home alone with her child. It makes me sick and she does need to be arrested for this action."

PINSKY: I actually agree with Melissa that is at least child endangerment or potential child endangerment. She needs some sort of scrutiny, action; punishment, education, something so that doesn`t happen again and the other kids shouldn`t be endangered in the future. And by the way, if she`s an alcoholic, let`s get that treated, let`s go deal with that.

Get to the phones now. Amy in Pennsylvania. What have you got?

AMY, CALLER, PENNSYLVANIA: Hi, Doctor Drew.

PINSKY: Hi Amy.

AMY: I think the mother isn`t rattled or panicked enough. She seems to even keel. The couple just isn`t rallying together. Now the boys aren`t allowed to speak to the police? What about the kids` memories? Are they afraid the kids might say something?

PINSKY: Yes. I mean that what this is so many pieces of that that are peculiar. I mean think about this. They hire Van Der Sloot`s attorney. The husband doesn`t see seem emotional, as he is sort of, as we`ve discussed, ashamed and peculiarly detached.

And the mom`s seems not frantic, I agree with you. I mean you wouldn`t be unable to sit still every second of every day if your child is missing. It is all not quite fitting together. And again, two words we have to remind ourselves of, Casey Anthony. These things happen, people lie, distort, and do horrible things.

Barbara writes on facebook. "She didn`t say that she had a drink or two. That wouldn`t be bad. She said she had five or more. She said she was drunk. Her words. This makes her at best an irresponsible and neglectful parent considering she was home alone with three children. At worst she destroyed an innocent life."

PINSKY: Agreed, Barbara, let`s keep moving on. Not much to say to that. Back to the phones. Marcia in Washington. Go ahead.

MARCIA, CALLER, WASHINGTON: Hi, Doctor Drew.

PINSKY: Hi Marsha.

MARCIA: I am not saying she did anything to her child, she brought scrutiny on herself. If you don`t want anybody to judge you, you should be honest instead of letting them find out on their own.

PINSKY: You know that`s exactly right. I mean it isn`t that the thing we all, you know have back since water gate, we hate the cover-up. We don`t like cover-up. And one of the things that made us all so angry with Casey Anthony was the lying and distorting. You feel negated by that and it is not OK. One more facebook.

This is Nicole. She writes. "I am a proud mother of three and I`ve had a drink or two on many occasions after my kids went to bed. No one knows what happened that night, so stop assuming she killed her baby just because she admitted to drinking on the night Lisa disappeared.

PINSKY: OK, Nicole, you can have your wine once in a while. We`re not saying that anybody that has a glass of wine at night. It`s tough. I know I have triplets. I am not saying anyone that has a glass of wine should be indicted. I am not saying that so. I am not interested in telling people how to live their life. I am interested in the fact a child is lost and dead perhaps and endangered by the mom.

Next, blockbuster Michael Jackson news tonight. It may have defense attorneys scrambling. We are taking a look at how and why this 11th hour drama has developed.

If you have something to say, do it at trial central, that is HlnTV.com/MichaelJackson. And again, I`m going to pay off after the break what the condom catheter and Lorazepam have to do with each other.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY (voice-over): Breaking Conrad Murray news tonight. Has it sabotaged his defense? Lawyers are reviewing toxicology test results that may have them scrambling at the 11th hour. Remember this drug, Lorazepam?

And Michael`s childhood friend is here. What does he think of the trial, so far?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY (on-camera): And tonight, we have big breaking news that might have a huge impact on Dr. Conrad Murray`s chances of remaining a free man. Last week, the Murray team made an abrupt about face and decided to abandon the Propofol defense, the idea that Michael, himself, had given -- injected himself or drunk himself on Propofol, and now, they`ve gone with a new idea, eight Lorazepam pills, that he consumed eight Lorazepam pills. Sound simple?

Of course, nothing in this case is simple. A new analysis by the coroner`s office was totally inconsistent with the defense`s claim that Jackson took as many as eight Lorazepam pills, begging the question still, what killed or who killed Michael Jackson.

Here to help us figure this out are Mark Eiglarsh, criminal attorney and Trent Copeland, also a criminal attorney. Now, before the break, or a actually, a few minutes ago, I asked the question or pointed out that this, I believe, has something to do with this business about the Ativan being an appropriate defense, Lorazepam.

If you take a bunch of oral Lorazepam -- first of all, if you`re hooked into this, OK? This is a condom catheter. This is what Michael Jackson had to be hooked up to in order to deal with how much medication had been given to him that night. If you can`t even get up to go to the bathroom, how are you going to get up and take a bunch of Lorazepam pills.

TRENT COPELAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Going to be pretty tough.

PINSKY: It`s going to be tough. And by the way, I guess, they didn`t find enough Lorazepam in the stomach to substantiate the claim, right, Trent?

COPELAND: Well, you know, look, this is going to be a question of science, and this may be the first real battle of the experts, because, look, the defense theory was always that he drank Propofol and that he took eight pills of Lorazepam, enough of which would have put six people to sleep.

And suddenly, he died in an instant so quickly that he couldn`t even close his eyes. And now, they`ve abandoned the Propofol theory. And now, they may be faced with the issue of not even having a viable defenses as it relate to taking eight Lorazepam. And I think what they`ll have to argue is that, A, they disagree, Dr. Drew. They agree with the manner in which these tests were conducted.

PINSKY: OK. Take issue with all that.

(CROSSTALK)

COPELAND: They have to say that`s a problem. And then, they`re also going to have to say, hey, look, you know what, we asked the coroner`s office, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to test the stomach contents before this case even started. And their answer was, they couldn`t do the test, because the test couldn`t be done safely and efficiently without destroying the sample.

So now, suddenly, the technology, when the trial is nearly over, exists, and I think that will have to be the argument. They`ll have to argue, A, they don`t agree with the science, and then, B, they have to make it a little personal.

They have to suggest that the defense create -- that the prosecution created this issue when the issue really didn`t exist and the defense never had a real opportunity to test those stomach contents properly because the prosecution didn`t make it available until it was too late.

Now, the prosecution is making the test available, and now, they`re testing it. It`s all too late. They`re going to make a mess of it.

PINSKY: Mark, if I`m a juror based on what Trent said, I`m already confused. I suppose that`s the goal of the defense team. But the fact is, the fact is common sense in medicine is you give a guy a whole bunch of medication that you shouldn`t be giving him intravenously, and by the way, again, I want to point this out, Michael Jackson had no veins in his body, only severe junkies have that.

I`m t saying Michael was a junkie. He had been given enough injections by doctors to have the same structure of his (ph) veins that a severe junkie has, and he got a bunch of medication, it made him stop breathing, and that eventually made his heart stop. That`s the simple case. Do you think, Mark, the defense is going to be able to tell (ph) the jury to the point they`re going to go, I`m not sure. Maybe, they got a point.

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We don`t know what they`re going to do, but I am one of the few people who say that this new evidence is actually beneficial to Conrad Murray. Yes, I said it. I`ll tell you why. If this judge allows this to come into evidence at this point in the trial, it almost guarantees Conrad Murray a free trial. This is coming back on appeal.

Only in cheesy courtroom television drama can you have a trial by ambush. The constitution requires this stuff to be turned over prior to defense giving it opening statement, so you don`t have trial by ambush which is what`s happening now.

So, if it does come into evidence, you`re going to hear the appellate court say either, you had ineffective assistance of counsel, we should have seen this coming, or what I suspect, that this should have been provided in discovery prior to this trial beginning.

PINSKY: Trent, do you agree?

COPELAND: Look, I think mark has a point to a point. The fact is, this isn`t a trial by ambush. I think what will happen is they`ll certainly make it an issue on appeal. And I think the fact is they`ve got to make this an issue that confuses the jury somewhat.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: The reality is what?

COPELAND: The reality is look, the defense has now had an opportunity to conduct their own tests. The prosecutions conducted their own tests, and they`ll now just have to fight it out in court in terms of who believes their test is the more appropriate test.

(CROSSTALK)

EIGLARSH: Trent, they gave opening statement relying upon what was available at the time. It`s fundamentally unfair. Forget about Conrad Murray. Think if this was your trial, how would does make you feel? If this was your trial, you`re on trial.

COPELAND: But the truth is, but the truth is, but the truth is, you know as well as I do, Mark, that it happens all the time. Look, there are bends in the road in every trial. In every trial, there are issues that come up that the judge, the defense, and the prosecution have all got to caucus (ph). They got to get together and figure out how are we going to confront this issue.

And Mark, as well as you know, you know as well as I do that the reality is the defense has an opportunity now to go back and to do retesting if it`s necessary or they can argue the science, and that`s what they`ll do. They`ll argue the science. They`ll argue the process.

(CROSSTALK)

COPELAND: You can`t go back now and say that they never had a chance.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Mark, Mark, let me ask you this. You said something about inadequate representation by the attorney or something. What`s that term you used?

EIGLARSH: Yes, ineffective assistance of counsel --

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: OK. Hold on a second. I`m holding up a document here that is an interrogation of -- supposed interrogation of Conrad Murray that several attorneys that I`ve had through the show said, oh, my God, if my attorney had done this to me, subjected me to this, I would have sued him.

COPELAND: There`s no question about it. If there has been a mistake in this case and if there`s ineffective assistance of counsel, look, Mark, it`s ineffective assistance of counsel, because they gave him the opportunity to interrogate this guy but more than two hours.

And you know what`s even worse is we had Conrad Murray`s defense lawyer, Chernoff, sitting there, not only was he allowing his client to answer these questions, but he was also answering questions himself. He was also asking his client questions. He had it coming both ways.

PINSKY: Mark, have you read this --

EIGLARSH: I have. Let me just say this. Let me just say this. Very Monday morning quarterback of everybody, there are instances where I sit down with detectives, and then, my client is in charge. Chernoff would have been the hero if, somehow, this explanation satisfied him. They said , all right. It`s a civil matter. It`s --

(CROSSTALK)

COPELAND: You don`t try a case, Mark, trying to be the hero. You try the case making sure that your client`s best interests are at heart. And look --

EIGLARSH: Well, of course. I agree with you.

COPELAND: There is no question that arrogance got in the way of both Chernoff. Arrogance got in the way of --

PINSKY: Gentlemen, arrogance is going to get in the way again here. I`ve got to step in and going to wrap this up. But let me say, Mark, Trent, thank you very much. But I want to say this, that I think the reason they did this is I think that Dr. Murray convinced his attorney that he actually had done everything right.

That he really believed that. He really, and he still believes it, I think. And that, to me, is even more disturbing than almost anything else about this case, because once Michael was dead in here, he pretty much did everything right the way a cardiologist normally would.

Up to that point, what happened to Michael Jackson was a miscarriage of physician-patient relationship to -- on such a degree I choke on it when I read some of this stuff. Gentlemen, thank you.

Next, we talk with Gotham Chopra, son of Deepak. He`s a good friend of Michael who accompanied him on his dangerous tour. Can he explain Michael`s behavior over the years? Now, as you know, the trial is dark until Wednesday, but our trial website is up and running day and night. Go to hlntv.com/michaeljackson for nonstop coverage. We`re back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: At the top of the hour, get the latest on the search for Baby Lisa from my colleague, Joy Behar, 10:00 p.m. eastern time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: That was Michael Jackson at his best, entertaining the crowd with his hit "Jam" during his 1992 "Dangerous" tour. He traveled the world for 69 performances and played to an audience of 3.5 million. Amazing.

Our guest was invited by Michael to accompany him on the "Dangerous" tour. Gotham Chopra joins us to talk about that and how he came to know the King of Pop. What was that like? How old were you? What was it like in a tour with him?

GOTHAM CHOPRA, FRIEND OF MICHAEL JACKSON: I was 17. It was my junior (ph) of high school.

PINSKY: That must have been mind blowing.

CHOPRA: I mean, what do you say when Michael Jackson asks to come on tour with him? It was the biggest rock tour of all time. You talk about the numbers, and it was staggering. It was overwhelming. Everywhere we went, there were police escorts. And I got to, you know, side-by-side with him.

So, I had this insight into his world, but it was police escorts. It was private. Everything was just completely mind blowing about it.

PINSKY: So, part of I imagine -- this is what got to ask you is part of Michael`s behavior is that he was in such a bubble, that he couldn`t get out. He couldn`t have a regular life of any kind, could he?

CHOPRA: Yes. I mean, you saw it up close and personal. On one hand as a 17-year-old kid, being with Michael Jackson on this rock tour, it was amazing, but gradually as time went by, I started to realize that, you know, all these millions of people and these hundreds of people on the tour, they`re having a great time, but he is in a bubble. He`s extremely isolated after the shows in front of hundreds of thousands of people.

He would retreat up to his penthouse hotel, and he would essentially be by himself, watching movies, drinking orange juice. There would be people, literally, hundreds of people downstairs, chanting his name all night. He would occasionally sort of stick his hand out or peek outside and wave at them. They would go crazy, but that was his existence. It was incredibly isolating.

PINSKY: And you were up there some of the time with him watching movies, hanging out?

CHOPRA: At first I was, because he had asked me to there, and it was cool to have that sort of access. Gradually, it was kind of boring, to be honest.

PINSKY: Yes.

CHOPRA: And so, I asked out of that. I started working on the tour and hanging more with the dancers and the band and all of that.

PINSKY: So, you`re 17. How old was Michael?

CHOPRA: I think he was in his early 30s at that time.

PINSKY: Did that seem peculiar to you that a 30-year-old wanted to hang out with a 17-year-old?

CHOPRA: You know, not on the face of it. And I mean, I had -- you know, not the way I knew Michael which is while he may have been 30s, I related to him, he related to me. We talked about the same things. We talked about sports. We talked about movies. We talked about women, those sorts of things, and it just seemed sort of normal.

My parents were comfortable with it, and so, I never had any reason to question it. And by the way, it was well before all of the scandals and all of that.

PINSKY: Right. Did you have any hints of any impropriety? Was it a shock to you when those scandals broke?

CHOPRA: It wasn`t really a shock to me. I mean, I think, you know, by virtue of being around Michael and seeing how he interacted, yes, he interacted with a lot of young people, aside from me, some younger. And I think, certainly, that drew attention, and you could see where some of the allegations where he might get himself into trouble.

But in my presence, I mean, he was impeccable with his behavior, and that`s all I have to really go by.

PINSKY: I guess, you told us that Michael called, Gotham told us Michael called him one night after his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley and asked for some marital advice, but before we get to that, watch this 1995 ABC News interview with Diane Sawyer conducted with the newlyweds.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: What is it you love the most about him?

LISA MARIE PRESLEY, SINGER: Oh. What do I love the most about him? Everything. He`s amazing. I really admire him. I respect him, I admire him, I`m in love with him. We don`t sleep in separate bedrooms, thank you very much. I love everything about him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Were you around him during that phase? I mean, he actually looks really happy there.

CHOPRA: Yes. I think, you know, I was in college at the time. And, he used to talk about his relationship, the good parts, the not so great, the frustrating parts, I should say.

PINSKY: What was frustrating or can you say?

CHOPRA: Yes. I mean, you know, it`s personal stuff for him, but I mean, it was the normal stuff. I mean, he would be frustrated by things she wanted him to do. He was traveling all the time. She wanted to settle down.

PINSKY: You`re not paying enough attention to me.

CHOPRA: Yes. I mean, you know --

PINSKY: Never here for dinner.

CHOPRA: Exactly. So, it was normal stuff. But it was also a symptom of Michael not having developed the skills, frankly. I mean, since the age of five years old, he had been on stage. He had been in front of the cameras. He had been --

PINSKY: No girlfriends?

CHOPRA: He had girlfriends, but I don`t think the sort of long- standing, deep relationships that most people go through and develop.

PINSKY: And then, here you are a college kid, a 35-year-old or something man is asking you about sexual advice with his wife. What did he want to know?

CHOPRA: I was a college kid. I mean, I was the one needing sexual advice.

PINSKY: I was going to say, I talked to a few college kids, they`re not always exactly on board with things, but what did he need to know at 35 or whatever it was, 30s?

CHOPRA: I mean, I think he just -- he did not have the experience of hey, it`s not just about the sexual act necessarily. That intimacy is a much broader thing, and that was just something he didn`t really know because he hadn`t gone through those formative relationships.

PINSKY: I don`t want to be tawdry, but can you tell us what the question was? I mean, I still don`t quite get it. I mean, is he saying how do we function better together or she`s complaining that I don`t pay enough attention? The usual thing is it`s not (ph) a foreplay. That`s the usual complaint. So, it`s one of those complaints. All right. Yes. It looked like every other marriage.

(CROSSTALK)

CHOPRA: And I think that`s like the broader context. Like, there were parts of Michael that were very normal. I mean, there were obviously things that were extraordinary and unlike anyone else in the world, perhaps, you know, few people in the history of human civilization had the same types of issues Michael did in terms of his celebrity but also the sort of tragedy of his life.

PINSKY: Well, let`s talk about the tragedy. A few weeks ago, prosecution played an audio tape that Dr. Murray apparently recorded of Michael slurring words about missing out on his childhood, his incredible connection with the pain of children. Listen to this for a second.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL JACKSON, MUSICIAN: I love them because I didn`t have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain. I feel their hurt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Now, of course, that`s a common thing for people that had been traumatized in childhood. They see their pain in other people and they confuse it. Did he ever talk about missing his childhood, having a lot of pain?

CHOPRA: Yes. He talked quite openly about the complete absence of a childhood. From the age of five years old, it was like he grew up on stage. He never got to play playground basketball.

PINSKY: Would he say Gotham, I feel horrible about this. I wish what you have this kind of thing?

CHOPRA: Oh, yes.

PINSKY: And how about the abuse. Jermaine in his recent book talks about Michael getting not just the belt but the belt buckle, which is, I mean, tearing flesh. I mean, that`s fantastic physical abuse. Did he talk about that?

CHOPRA: Yes. I mean, that was -- and he recognized that that was a big part. I think Michael which hasn`t really been talked about is, he didn`t separate that. And he knew in part that sort of terrible pain was in part why also he had been able to achieve such great things, why it had pushed him towards reaching these.

PINSKY: He would say that?

CHOPRA: Yes.

PINSKY: Interesting.

CHOPRA: He was a deeply sort of psychological person.

PINSKY: Why didn`t he ever get any real treatment or stay with treatment?

CHOPRA: Why didn`t he -- I mean, you can answer that better than I can.

PINSKY: Well, sometimes people would just say, I don`t believe -- would have all kinds of spurious excuses. I just wonder what his was.

CHOPRA: I mean, his was that he was trying, and he had tried, and he would try again.

PINSKY: So, people did treat him?

CHOPRA: Yes. He went through, you know, chemical dependency.

PINSKY: He had one treatment. Right. He identified as an addict, and then, blew it all off clearly. But he never had any ongoing kinds of relationship --

CHOPRA: I mean, I wasn`t around --

PINSKY: Your dad. Your dad did some of it.

CHOPRA: He did, but you know, my dad is not a -- he didn`t counsel him every single day. He didn`t go through that rigorous process that people need to get off of the stuff.

PINSKY: Yes.

CHOPRA: Although he did identify it.

PINSKY: He told me, your dad told me this, and was dismissed from the circle, was not allowed access any more.

CHOPRA: Michael was very skillful at eluding people when he wanted to. I mean, I would go weeks, months without talking to him.

PINSKY: Did you ever confront him about anything that caused you to be dismissed? Did you have any fights?

CHOPRA: Yes, we had disagreements.

PINSKY: What did you fight about?

CHOPRA: You know, some of these dependency issues.

PINSKY: The drugs. You guys would fight -- interesting. Very interesting.

All right. Well, coming up, we`re going to talk with Gotham about a little known story involving Michael and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il. Pretty wild.

Now, go to hlntv.com/michaeljackson for all the latest trial news, opinion, commentary, facts and figures. We will be back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: We are back talking with Gotham Chopra, a good friend of Michael Jackson who also helped the King of Pop pen a few songs from Michael`s "History" album. So, there was a story Michael reached out to Kim Jong Il regarding -- what was that?

CHOPRA: A couple weeks before he died. At the time, one of my friends, Laura Ling (ph), was one of the imprisoned journalists in North Korea, and Michael, you know, he used to watch the news lot, and he had seen (INAUDIBLE) and he had seen some footage of Kim Jong Il dressed up in these military uniforms which Michael incidentally used to do and was a big fan of when you see those shots of him in concert.

So, he asked me. He called me late at night and he said, do you think Kim Jong Il is a fan of mine because we wear a lot of the same sort of clothes. I said, Michael, I don`t know. I mean, I know Kim Jon Il had this fascination with American icons. I said I`ll find out.

And he said, yes, because maybe if he is, I could call him or I could write a letter or do something or send him some jackets and that would help. And, you know, it was like one of those sort of bizarre, but if you thought about it, somewhat logical things that Michael would say.

PINSKY: Well, it`s sweet and lovely, but grandiose and bizarre. One of the things he had Conrad Murray convinced of was that he and Conrad were going to develop a children`s hospital and Dr. Murray was going to be the medical director. This is grandiose stuff when the guy is dying of substances. What did you guys fight about? As specific as you can be, can you describe a fight over substances?

CHOPRA: I mean, yes, there were times here in this city in Los Angeles where I would see Michael and I would suspect that, you know, things were not normal, that he was using substances.

PINSKY: Using pills.

CHOPRA: And he was using pills. And I brought that up to him. And I said Michael, you really need to get help, and there are great places that can help you, great people who can help you with this. And he would either say yes, I understand and I`m going to get help and I promise you or he, at times, would sort of say it`s not a problem, you know, --

PINSKY: I just have pain.

CHOPRA: Yes. I just have pain. And he did have pain, and that`s also been talked about, all the surgeries and all the hair burning and scalp and all of that stuff. I was no expert. I`m not a physician. So, it was hard. And I wasn`t the only person. There were, I`m sure you talked to some of them, his family member --

PINSKY: Apparently, there were multiple attempts at intervention. Were you ever part of any of those?

CHOPRA: Not like a formal, you know, group intervention.

PINSKY: With less than 30 seconds left. Is there one thing that you can tell my viewing audience what this man was like that we will never know because we never get again to know him?

CHOPRA: He was a deeply complicated person, you know? He was amongst most brilliant people, an artist, but he was also -- I think when you think of people like (INAUDIBLE) or Vincent van Gogh, we`ve talked about the agony of an ecstasy of those people, and I think Michael experienced incredible triumphs, but ultimately, a terrible tragedy.

PINSKY: It seems like also part of that suffering artist was something they all protected and didn`t want him to get well, because it might affect his artistry. Even himself, I suspect.

CHOPRA: I was going to say. I mean, I think he also recognized that part of this tortured part of himself was also why he was so great at what he did.

PINSKY: Thanks, Gotham. Appreciate it. Very interesting.

Now, a few words before we go. In my line of work, treating addictions and mental health issues, there`s old saying. It says, more to be revealed. When you say it all the time, more to be revealed when we`re dealing with people that are lying, and distorting, particularly surrounding use of alcohol or substances.

I`m harkening back now to Baby Lisa`s mom. Now, I`m not saying she`s an alcoholic. I don`t know (ph) if she`s dependent on substances, but her admission two weeks after her little girl vanished about being drunk makes me question now everything. Add to this the discrepancies in the timeline she`s laid out, it is not looking good, and I think most of you out there are getting used to this.

Remind you of two words, Casey Anthony. There`s more to be revealed. Stay tuned. I`m going to stay on top of this story. Thank you all for watching, and we`ll see you next time.

END