Return to Transcripts main page


Murray Trial Goes to Jury

Aired November 3, 2011 - 19:00   ET



MICHAEL JACKSON, POP STAR: This will be it. This is it. When I say this is it, it really means this is it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Entered the rehearsal full of energy, full of desire to work.

JERMAINE JACKSON, BROTHER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: The legendary King of Pop, Michael Jackson, passed away on Thursday, June 25.

M. JACKSON: This is it. This is it.

DR. CONRAD MURRAY, ON TRIAL FOR JACKSON`S DEATH: He complained he couldn`t perform, he had to cancel rehearsals again, to put the show behind, you know, not satisfy his fans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would it still be your opinion that Conrad Murray is directly responsible for the death of Michael Jackson?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So what if he`s a junkie or he was a drug addict? He did not deserve to die.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said he was very happy. That they were accomplishing the dream.

M. JACKSON: This is it. And see you in July.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: More war of the words. Closing arguments at the Michael Jackson death trial.

Good evening, everyone. Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live from Los Angeles.

Tonight, we have just wrapped up this second the most crucial few hours in an extraordinary trial that`s gone on for six weeks. Which side won? Which lawyer convinced the 12 jurors? We will debate that tonight with an amazing team of experts.

Now, outside court, a wild scene. Colorful protesters converging to demand justice for Jackson. Inside court, two wildly different pictures painted of what went on the day Michael Jackson died. Prosecutors calling Dr. Murray a greedy, reckless doctor, out for one person and one person alone, himself.


ED CHERNOFF, DR. CONRAD MURRAY`S LAWYER: Michael Jackson went into his personal bathroom and swallowed Lorazepam. And Dr. Murray didn`t know.

DAVID WALGREN, PROSECUTOR: What Conrad Murray was doing was a pharmaceutical experiment on Michael Jackson.

CHERNOFF: They want you to convict Dr. Murray for the actions of Michael Jackson.

WALGREN: Conrad Murray marched forward, putting Conrad Murray first, not Michael Jackson first.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, then the defense came out swinging, accusing the prosecution of making up an entire story, inventing a Propofol drip the defense claims never existed. Why? Because the defense says prosecutors are hell-bent on seeing Dr. Murray go down so somebody pays for the death of one of the world`s most famous men. Check it out.


CHERNOFF: Dr. Murray had no control over the situation because of what was happening in the background. He was just a little fish in a big, dirty pond. Somebody`s got to just say it. If it were anybody else but Michael Jackson, anybody else, would this doctor be here today?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: How would you vote if you were on the jury? Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Tonight, ding, ding, ding, in one corner, on set with me, we`re delighted to have two very well-known prosecutors, famed prosecutor Marcia Clark of O.J. Simpson fame and former L.A. deputy D.A. Hamid Towfigh. Now in the other corner -- ding -- defense attorneys, Joey Jackson and Eric Chase. Are we ready to face off, people?

I`m going to start with Eric Chase. How did the defense do?

ERIC CHASE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think the defense did a pretty good job, considering what they had to work with. The most important point I think they made was about the Propofol drip. And I`ve been saying this all along. That`s the one link in the chain that the defense had to attack.

If the prosecution was not successful in proving there was a Propofol drip, then their argument to the jury was they should have quit. And I think that gives them a chance, not a great chance, but it gives them some chance.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right Hamid, your response?

HAMID TOWFIGH, FORMER L.A. DEPUTY D.A.: Look, as much as the prosecutor, Dave Walgren, did a fantastic job. He hit it out of the ballpark. His presentation was organized. It was historic. I`ve never seen in Los Angeles County the 11 1/2 years I was deputy D.A. a presentation where they used edited clips from a television broadcast the way he did and effectively -- really effectively presented Paul White as this caricature of the slithery, defense-paid hired gun. I mean, it was brilliant. But and that was...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So now we know David Walgren could be a TV newscaster if he wants, but Marcia Clark, how did the prosecution do in terms of scoring points and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Murray should go down?

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Great. They did great. They did knock it out of the park. I did love the way he used those clips. I just wanted to say, it`s fantastic, and yes, he does produce well. But he really delivered the points clearly.

Here`s the thing, Jane. It`s great that they have what is actually close to a blue-ribbon jury. They`ve got a biochemist on there. It`s amazing the quality of jurors they`ve got. But they don`t need them, because it`s such a simple case. At the end of the day, and what he was able to show, very clearly, the doctor left the room with a patient under sedation that is likely to stop a patient from breathing. No one does this.

That they gave the Propofol in a bedroom without adequate monitoring. These are big, bold, simple strokes that you don`t need to be a biochemist to understand. He delivered those. If that isn`t criminal negligence, I don`t know what is.

And I think that`s why the defense case is ultimately going to fall apart. You can claim conspiracies all you want, but at the end of the day, the evidence is very clear and solid. Don`t forget one other really important point here. Here, the popularity contest goes to the victim. The victim is the famous one. The victim is the beloved one, not the defendant. That always has some kind of impact on the jury, even if it`s subliminal.


The prosecution made huge points about Conrad Murray`s wardrobe. Check out the pockets -- OK, this is key -- the pocket on the night Michael Jackson died, because the prosecution is suggesting that he took a crucial piece of evidence, the tube that actually delivered, allegedly, the killer Propofol, took it and hid it in his pocket and then went to the hospital. Watch this carefully.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What you`ll see depicted in this picture is Conrad Murray standing here with these beige pants and a white T-shirt. And what you`ll see when you look at the photograph closer is are these large, loose cargo pants, with cargo pockets on the sides. You can actually see in the photograph this left leg here, there`s a big cargo pocket.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. He`s saying, basically, hey, Dr. Conrad Murray has a key piece of evidence that he took from the crime scene and stuck it in his pocket.

Prosecution also arguing a slew of deviations from standard medical care, alleging that Dr. Conrad Murray lied to EMS, lied to the doctors, was greedy, seeking $150,000 in payment per month, and experimented on Michael Jackson. And then, of course, hiding evidence in the pants.

Joey Jackson, defense attorney, boom, boom, boom, boom. Did they knock it out of the park? What do you say, for the defense?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think the defense did a very good job at explaining the situation. Now, what did they do? They came out swinging, talking about this.

We know, everyone knows there was negligence here. The issue was whether it is criminal negligence. I like the way that, in laying out the case, he said, "You know, they spent six weeks talking to us about negligence. Didn`t we already know it was negligence? Is it criminal negligence? That`s another issue."

Attacking Alberto Alvarez, saying that there was a motivation, why this profit? Attacking Dr. Shafer, talking about how that he was an advocate. He wasn`t there to simply supply medical opinions. He was there to advocate, to talk about things that, this is unbelievable, this is unconscionable. You`re not there for that. You`re not there to take sides. I mean, you are in the true sense in that you`re testifying for one side over the other, but it should be balanced testimony. His was not.

Addressing the 911 call, Jane, and suggesting that he`s a doctor -- that is Dr. Conrad Murray. His first instinct is to act like a doctor, not to call someone else to do the job, to do the work. And so I think certainly...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Except, Joey, he didn`t have the right equipment. Had he had the right equipment, it might justify not calling 911.

JOEY JACKSON: That`s another...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But if you don`t have the right equipment to treat somebody who`s stopped breathing, you better call 911, and he didn`t. He called some assistant of Michael Jackson`s and left a voice mail.

Phone lines lighting up. Let`s go to the phone lines. Christine, Oklahoma, your question or thought, Christine?

CALLER: Hi. I want to say that I wholeheartedly believe the prosecution and Steven Shafer, and if not for the actions of Conrad Murray and his inactions, Michael Jackson probably still would be here today. Nobody does what Conrad Murray did. That`s the truth. That is. It is criminal.

And I`ve had -- I`ve had a doctor call 911 for me when I was in an urgent care clinic, so, you know, no excuses.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. That`s a good point.

All right. We`ve heard explosive arguments today. If you want to join in, we want to hear from you. So you can check out our Web site, I`m writing a blog post with my thoughts on closing arguments. I would love to hear what you think. Let`s get a conversation going, people. Logon to

And more Michael Jackson trial coverage with our team of dueling experts when we come right back.


TOM MESEREAU, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: Trying to cover it up was a disgrace, how he didn`t talk to the paramedics and the cops at the hospital was a disgrace.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s exactly -- that`s exactly -- that`s exactly why...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hypocritical! He`s going down! He`s a murderer!




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case is overwhelming. The evidence in this case is abundantly clear that Conrad Murray acted with criminal negligence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What words for the prosecution today?

JOE JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON`S FATHER: Justice. Justice. That`s what I want.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Michael Jackson would want this, because he was friends with Michael Jackson. They both loved each other.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For Michael`s children, this case will go on forever, because they do not have a father.

LA TOYA JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON`S SISTER: I wanted him to talk. I really did. I wanted him to testify.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is not the Propofol that killed Michael Jackson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Michael was murdered. He was a doctor. He had a role to play and a job to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael did this to himself. Michael had drug people in that house. Dr. Murray tried to help him. Dr. Murray did not kill him, all right?

WALGREN: Did Michael Jackson yell out for help? Did he gasp? Did he choke? Were there sounds? We don`t know.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. The most crucial day of this six-week trial wrapped up moments ago. The closing arguments are over. Tomorrow, the jury expected to get this case, the first thing they will do is a choose a jury foreperson. Then they begin deliberating. We could have a verdict by this time tomorrow. It could be all over.

I want to bring in a very special guest, who we are bringing in live from London, England. Tom Mesereau, who successfully defended Michael Jackson in 2005, when Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation and found not guilty on all counts. And I`ve always said, if I`m ever in trouble, this is the guy I`m calling. Because I watched an incredible attorney in action, and I remain in awe.

Tom Mesereau, you have been studying the arguments, the closing arguments on both sides from London. First of all, thanks for staying up. I know it`s a lot later there. But what do you make of the defense arguing, essentially, that there was some kind of conspiracy going on, and that everybody was making up stories to get Dr. Conrad Murray, because somebody has to pay for Jackson`s death?

MESEREAU: Well, first of all, I think that, Jane, thank you for having me very much. I appreciate it. Both lawyers did an excellent job. Both were powerful; both were passionate; both were prepared; and both are 100 percent behind their clients.

The prosecution has a clean, simple common-sense case. Because they`ve limited it to one count, involuntary manslaughter, they`re not looking at the possibility of a hung jury the way they would if they had charged second-degree murder.

The defense has to deal with what they have. They were very effective in bringing a highly regarded expert. He couldn`t agree with everything they wanted him to say, but he was highly regarded. A lot of people thought they couldn`t get a good expert. They have really done a good job in trying to distinguish between negligence and causing death.

I think the prosecution has a better argument. I think their argument is likely to win the day. But I do think the defense did a very effective job.

The problem is that not only was Conrad Murray very incompetent; not only was he a poor doctor; but the use of Propofol in the home has been effectively distinguished by the prosecution from other prescription drugs like sleep medication, anti-anxiety medication, antidepressant medication.

Furthermore, his not being candid with paramedics, police, and hospital personnel, in my opinion, will really sink him. He has no credibility.

I think the prosecution will win, but I think the defense did a very spirited and effective job.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think in confusion, there can be reasonable doubt, and I found myself confused listening to the closing argument of defense attorney Ed Chernoff today. I`ve been following this case carefully. So have many of our viewers. Listen to this little segment of the closing argument of the defense and see if you can figure it out. Good luck.


CHERNOFF: What did the prosecution tell you over and over again? Well, this is 1/26 of a pill, it`s just 1/300 of a pill. This is just math. You can keep going: 1-2-5, down to 0-7-5, or something like that. You keep going to every 20 minutes, to finally you can get down to 0.08.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have no idea, Tom, what he`s talking about. Could he effectively confuse the jury?

MESEREAU: Well, he`s certainly trying to do that in a sense. He`s trying to really attack the causation element, as I said before. He can`t possibly argue that his client acted effectively, because everyone knows that`s not true. He can`t argue that his client did not violate certain ethical requirements, because everyone knows that`s true.

What he`s trying to argue is they cannot prove to the highest standard of the law, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was a substantial factor in death because of all these other uncertainties and technical issues. I don`t blame him for what he`s doing. I understand it, but I don`t think ultimately it will win.

You have a very intelligent jury. You have a jury with a lot of people with jury experience. Keep that in mind. There are, I believe, nine people have had prior jury experience. They`re going to come into that jury room feeling very confident they know had to deliberate and how to follow the law.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tom, we`ve got to leave it there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We thank you so much.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mrs. Jackson! What words for the prosecution?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Michael! Justice for Michael! Justice for Michael?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): I`m starting with the man in the mirror. I`m asking him to change his ways

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The last phase of the trial.

ALBERTO ALVAREZ, FORMER BODY GUARD OF MICHAEL JACKSON: We have a gentleman here that needs help, and he`s not breathing.

WALGREN: Michael Jackson trusted Conrad Murray.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: May Michael rest in peace!

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The family coming in the front door every day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they loved him so much, why didn`t they get Michael off drugs?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. We all know a jury of Dr. Murray`s peers, going to decide Dr. Conrad Murray`s fate. But who has been sitting in those 12 chairs these past six weeks? You can find it out. Check it out, breaks down all the details on this jury and how that might affect this verdict.

Meantime, the defense took -- wow, they went after a lot. They essentially argued that there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy.

And we can tell you right now that the family of Michael Jackson is walking out of court right now. We`re going to take a brief look at that. There you go. Katherine Jackson walking out of court right now, on this monumental day, after watching six weeks of testimony. And boy, that lady in her 80s -- I spoke to her this morning -- what a class act. What a graceful, charming woman in the midst of all this madness.

But, again, the defense basically saying that there`s a whole conspiracy, a whole bunch of liars. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Alberto Alvarez has been offered $500,000 for his story. Now, how did Alberto Alvarez go from a story that`s worth $9,000 to a story that`s worth half a million dollars?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Essentially, the defense is saying everybody conspired to lie. That everybody is in on this, including the coroner`s investigator, who would have had to have made up the story of finding a Propofol bottle inside a saline bag.

I`ve got to bring in Matt Semino, attorney and "Huffington Post" contributor. What do you make of this character assassination combined with this 11th hour conspiracy theory?

MATT SEMINO, ATTORNEY: Jane, the defense`s closing argument is almost as ridiculous as its theory of death. I mean, essentially, they do not have anything to go on to counter the hard facts that show that Dr. Conrad Murray was egregious in his care for Michael Jackson. He was extremely negligent. He acted with gross negligence.

And the only way that they can bolster their case is to basically blame everyone else. They already blamed the victim. Now they`re blaming every other witness. And they`re going through this character assassination one by one by one. And that`s the only way that they can save face and save their case here, Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But they did come up with sort of a catchy phrase, or maybe I invented it. If there is no drip, you must acquit. I know that`s got to rub Marcia Clark the wrong way. Twenty seconds.

CLARK: You know, you really want me to respond to that? I`m not going to respond to that!

VELEZ-MITCHELL: If there is no drip, you must acquit. All right. Well, I guess that says it all. Not taken seriously. Is the jury going to take it seriously?





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The jury will have to decide whether he`s guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented in court.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defendant is charged in count one with involuntary manslaughter based upon the theory of the failure to perform a legal duty with criminal negligence.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Most people who have ever tried to get inside the courtroom, even more than those who arrived for opening statements, are here today.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s not here to speak for himself, and that`s why we are here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The most basic, the most common sense thing that we all learn as young children, that you call 911 immediately.

MURRAY: I cared about him. I did not want him to fail. I had no intentions of hurting him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m feeling like Dr. Conrad Murray is going down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re here to stand up for Dr. Conrad Murray. He is an innocent and we stand up for him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Conrad Murray has been accused of infusing a dose of Propofol and leaving his patient.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he should have called 911 sooner. I do not, however, think it would have made any difference in the outcome of this case.

JOE JACKSON, FATHER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: Justice. Justice. That`s what I want.

MURRAY: I told the truth, and I have faith the truth will prevail.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Just a little while ago, the most crucial hours of this case, the closing arguments by the prosecution and the defense and a rebuttal closing by prosecutors, they were going mano a mano, it was a verbal war. Who scored the highest points? Who connected with the jury? It depends on who you talk to.

But one person we know always plays it straight down the middle, our Beth Karas who has seen so many of these closing arguments. I`ve got to tell you something, Beth, we were talking about this, I get nervous when I watch these closing arguments for the prosecutor and for the defense attorney, almost like when I`m watching the Olympic skaters, I get nervous for them. It`s the same concept.

How nervous do you think they were? How much pressure was on them?

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": A lot of pressure, of course, Jane. This is the case that needed good, succinct, understandable closing arguments, just sort of reducing the science to simple terms, which is what I think David Walgren did.

Now, the fact of the matter is, the facts are more on the prosecution`s side. So that`s why the defense has to attack some of the witnesses, and attack the integrity of the whole prosecution theory, saying they just want to create a crime to make Dr. Murray pay for Michael Jackson`s action.

And then he brought a whole bunch of people into this web --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Beth?

KARAS: Yes? Yes Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. We think we`re getting you on the wrong mike. So we`re going to get back to you in just a second. But first, listen to the prosecution point out Conrad Murray`s alleged motivations for trying to get back to the house -- he`s at the hospital, he`s taken Michael Jackson to the hospital. And then he makes up an excuse about wanting to go back to the Michael Jackson mansion to get some cream. Here`s what was said about that in court today.


DAVID WALGREN, PROSECUTION: What does he know? He knows his medical bags with the Propofol and the other items are still in the house. He knows that (INAUDIBLE) with his fingerprint on it is still at the house. He knows his three various medical bags, syringes, and various items are still at the house.

Do you really think he was worried, at that time, that Michael would be concerned about a Benoquin cream?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Defense attorney Eric Chase, the prosecutor is saying, "Hey, get real, people." He didn`t rush back -- or try to rush back to the mansion unsuccessfully to get some cream. He was out to save his own you know what. And I think they were very effective in this.

ERIC CHASE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Jane, I actually didn`t like that part of the prosecutor`s argument. When he talked about the cargo pants and the fact that the Propofol infusion portable system was hidden in the cargo pants and that was the bulge you saw, that`s now the third example of how the Propofol infusion was set up. You have it hanging with the roller clamp, you have it inside the saline bag, and now you have it as a portable system in Conrad Murray`s pocket.

This trial went on for a long time. They didn`t focus on that throughout the course of the trial. Why do you pull it out of your hat at the closing argument?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We have another caller.

CHASE: Mr. Chernoff did something very interesting in his closing. Mr. Chernoff gave the prosecution a put, and said, you stand up, Mr. Walgren, and you tell them about this Propofol drip and which one you`re talking about. And when Mr. Walgren got up for his summation closing, he didn`t address it at all.

Now, I know it may be a long shot. The evidence, as everyone has said, is very strong on the other issues, the standard of care and the negligence. But on the --


CHASE: -- issue, I think this does give the defense a chance.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Basically, Eric Chase is saying, you can talk all you want about recklessness, and as the defense said, this is not a malpractice case, it`s not a lawsuit, and did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt, Marcia, that Dr. Conrad Murray killed Michael Jackson?

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER PROSECUTOR IN THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE: Yes, and in so many ways. I think what`s really interesting about Walgren`s argument, whether or not you like the issue with the cargo pants, there were things missing from that room. How did they get out of there? Why did they get out of there? Who could have taken them out of there? There was only really one person. And that`s why pointing at Conrad Murray shows consciousness of guilt.

What does that mean? I mean he -- they pointed to the fact that he made no medical reports of Michael Jackson`s treatment -- critical stuff. This is what doctors do. They make medical reports. Why didn`t he do it? He didn`t want anyone to know.

Why didn`t he tell anybody about the Propofol when Michael Jackson was being reported to 911? He didn`t want anyone to know.

What does that mean? It means that he knew that administering Propofol under the conditions he was doing was dangerous and likely to cause death. And that is what the prosecution has to prove. That he knew of, a reasonable person would know, the natural and probable consequences of his acts would be to cause death. And they proved that.

And the consciousness of guilt evidence, in not keeping medical reports, in lying to the police, in not telling everybody about the administration of Propofol, they`ve shown clearly that Conrad Murray knew what he was doing and he knew that it was wrong. So, yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, a big part of the defense case though is to say, hey, Michael Jackson is an adult. He is not a child, he was not a baby. He was an adult capable of making his own decisions. Listen to this. This is the defense side.


ED CHERNOFF, ATTORNEY FOR CONRAD MURRAY: It was the most insulting, possible thing you could say about Michael Jackson, as if this fully-formed 50-year-old man was just a baby.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Beth Karas, we`re back to you. I was shocked by one thing, Beth. There was very little talk about addiction. There was very little talk, if any, about Demerol, about Dr. Arnie Klein. None of that was mentioned, Beth.

KARAS: Well, no. It was mentioned but it was the very end of Ed Chernoff`s summation. And he was actually very strong when he got to that point. He said that Dr. Murray jettisoned into this situation two months before Michael Jackson`s death. He kind of glossed over Dr. Murray not really knowing what was going on in Michael Jackson`s life.

But he said yes, I can`t really justify giving him the Propofol in the bedroom, but he did give him Propofol and he did it for two months and he was treating a medical condition, he was treating insomnia.

So I mean, he had to call it like it was. And it`s even his own expert admitted that there were violations or deviations from the standard of care. But he really pleaded with the jury to understand that what`s going on here is trying to convict someone of a crime, for Michael Jackson`s actions, and that Conrad Murray just simply didn`t know enough about what was going on in Michael Jackson`s life.

I`m not so sure that the jury will buy it. I watched them during the rebuttal, and they seemed to sit up and be a little more attentive, even, on rebuttal with David Walgren than they were by the end of Ed Chernoff.


Well, that is interesting, that it was mentioned at the end. It certainly wasn`t the theme, though, that we expected. So many people predicted, oh, they`re going to put Michael Jackson on trial through the whole defense case. And I guess at the very end, they mentioned it briefly. But it`s kind of interesting that they didn`t hammer in as much as one might expect on the whole addiction theme -- Hamid.

HAMID TOWFIGH, FORMER LOS ANGELES DEPUTY DA: Well, you know, I think the defense started out this case, trying to blame the victim. But I think they realized at some point, that that`s really not a good idea, especially in a case where you have somebody like Michael Jackson, who now is really so revered.

They stepped back from that. They touched on the addiction stuff, slightly, enough. But they really -- their whole goal was to really confuse the issues. I don`t think they do, they could convince the jury. The defense`s goal is to get a hung jury. I think they know they`re not going to get an acquittal. So they just need one person.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s not make predictions. Because how many times have we sat here and said, oh, the prosecution did a fabulous job and the defense was a bunch of idiots and it comes back not guilty on all counts. And I`m not saying that as a reference to anybody. I just sat through too many of those cases to make a prediction about what anybody`s going to do.

One of the things that one of the jurors said, is that having watched the Casey Anthony case, he knows that there were cases that were perceived completely differently by jurors than they are by the general public, because they`re living in a bubble. They don`t have all the information. We do.

All right. Let`s go to the phone lines. Joyce, Indiana; your question or thought, Joyce?

JOYCE, INDIANA (via telephone): Yes. I think --


JOYCE: -- he`s guilty.


JOYCE: Because if he -- if he was Michael Jackson -- if he was Michael Jackson`s doctor, then he should have been there watching him instead of being outside on the phone, and then he should have been checking him. And then he shouldn`t have been trying to go back to the house, because he knew that he killed Michael Jackson. And he`s guilty and I think he needs to go down.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. Well, I think that you express the sentiment of the general public. Thank you for that, Joyce.

And certainly, you guys are in the prosecution; that is the general sentiment outside court. There is exactly one -- often one Conrad Murray supporter holding signs, but we saw it in the Casey Anthony case where the overwhelming sentiment of the public is she`s guilty, she`s going down, she`s going to be convicted and then it came back the other way on the serious counts.

We can never say for sure until the jury has rendered its decision. So much medical gobbledygook in this trial; and the jurors, they`ve got -- they have somebody who has a degree in biochemistry but they`re going to have to go through a ton of information.

Now, luckily we have broken it all the down for you an, a gallery of information on Michael Jackson`s autopsy, diagrams, everything you need to deliberate, and the ten most shocking moments of the trial.

We`ll be right back with more analysis.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Latoya, what words for the prosecution today?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m here to get justice for Michael Jackson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re ready to see justice done.

WALGREN: What Conrad Murray was doing was a pharmaceutical experiment on Michael Jackson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`ve come to give Dr. Murray support. He saved my life.

WALGREN: Conrad Murray left Prince, Paris, and Blanket without a father.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What would you say to the prosecutors for good luck?

KATHERINE JACKSON, MOTHER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: I`m sure that they`ll do the right thing today.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Michael. Justice for Michael. Justice for Michael.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I talked to Katherine Jackson as she walked into court today. What a classy lady, in her 80s amidst all of this madness.

What were the ten most shocking moments of the trial? Well,, has them listed. And I can tell you that one of them was, well, maybe it`s a whole bunch of them combined into one, all those girlfriends, including the one who said she was her own instrument. Remember this?


NICOLE ALVAREZ, CONRAD MURRAY`S GIRLFRIEND: My daily duties consist of maintaining my instrument, going on several castings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you refer to an instrument, what are you referring to?

ALVAREZ: Myself.


ALVAREZ: Myself. As an actor, your instrument is yourself.



WALGREN: It is a sad recording. And for reasons unknown, it`s made by Conrad Murray on his iPhone and kept on his iPhone by a doctor who will not keep a shred of medical records to be reviewed.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutor David Walgren got down to brass tacks, saying, hey, people, get real. The reason he didn`t keep records was that he didn`t want anybody to know what he was doing. It was the kind of common sense argument that many believe resonated with the jury.

Enough with the medical gobbledygook and let`s get down to the real issues. We`re delighted to have Brian Oxman, the attorney for the victim`s father, Joe Jackson`s father. Brian Oxman, do you think the prosecution did what they needed to do to get a conviction?

BRIAN OXMAN, ATTORNEY FOR JOE JACKSON: Pretty devastating, Jane. It really was a -- I think, just a good -- an excellent job on the part of David Walgren. He pointed it out very well, went point by point, he told a story as to how Michael Jackson died.

There`s a lot of things we still don`t know about his death, but the one thing we do know is that Conrad Murray was at least half responsible, in my view, and the prosecution has proved it pretty substantially.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, at least half responsible? I don`t know if that`s going to cut it with the jurors, Joey Jackson. At least half responsible?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, you know, it`s going to take a lot more than that. Listen, there are a couple things to point out, Jane. One is that I don`t see this as a defense arguing about a grand conspiracy, I see them pointing out issues as they relate to certain witnesses.

Now, based upon the strength of the prosecution`s case, they have to do it. And if you look at Alberto Alvarez, if there`s a $500,000 motivation, the jury needs to know about it.

If you look at Dr. Shafer, and he otherwise has some motivation to get there and to be passionately invested in the case, it needs to be pointed out to the jury. And that`s what I see in terms of that.

Also, Jane, I think the defense did a very nice job threading the needle. You don`t want to blame the victim too much, because the jury, it`s going to have a back-lashing effect. So they merely pointed out that he was stressed, he had to keep his schedule, and as a result of that, he might be more inclined to self-administer or inject out of that desperation. But they needed to find that fine line.

And finally, Jane, on the issue of individual responsibility, very important; I thought it was significant when the defense pointed out, should there have been an alarm on his bed? I mean to what degree should Dr. Murray have supervised him or look at him? Was it unreasonable for him to have gone out of the room? Maybe in a negligent sense, but not in a criminal one. We`ll see what the jury says.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I think that that could be sort of the Achilles` heel of the prosecution. Yes, the guy`s reckless, we all agree. Yes, the guy did terrible things, we all agree. But did he kill Michael Jackson? Marcia Clark, ten seconds.

CLARK: Yes. Yes, he did. He did. I mean, he administered Propofol under these conditions that were impossible to ensure safety. Any reasonable person would have known better than to do that. And they certainly did not, at least from what I`ve seen, given us any other reason for Michael Jackson to have died.

Over and over again, the experts said, had he not acted the way he did, Michael Jackson would have lived.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they did say that there was a conspiracy. And they always seem to go for conspiracy when they don`t have a strong defense case. So we`re going to analyze the conspiracy on the other side. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: What would you say to the prosecutors for good luck?

K. JACKSON: I`m sure that they`ll do the right thing today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s about Michael? You`re crying about Michael?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s personal. This is personal.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What words for the prosecution today?

JOE JACKSON: Justice. Justice. That`s what I want.

WALGREN: For Michael`s children, this case will go on forever because they do not have a father.

MURRAY: My next question was where are the children? Daddy -- had passed away.

WALGREN: He wanted to do it for his children who had not seen their father put on such a performance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Michael. Justice for Michael. Justice for Michael.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Closing arguments just ended. The jury expected to get the case and begin deliberations tomorrow. And tonight I`m bringing you a rare glimpse inside the very private world of Michael Jackson, and his family life. An exclusive interview tonight with his former doctor and long-time friend Dr. Barney Van Valin; Dr. Van Valin is also the author of this new book "Conversations in Neverland with Michael Jackson".

So great to have you here, Dr. Van Valin --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You have so much to tell us, but I understand you were there the day that Michael Jackson brought little Blanket home. Tell us about that.

VAN VALIN: Yes. Well, Michael invited us to dinner, and he said he had a surprise for us, and as we walked in the house, my wife leaned over to me and said there`s a baby in the house. I said how do you know that? She said she had seen a little pram down the hallway, a little cream and blue tulle pram.

Certainly after dinner -- after dinner we went upstairs. Michael said follow me, and walked over to the crib, and picked up a baby out and brought him over and put him in my wife`s arms. He --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was little Blanket.

VAN VALIN: That was little Blanket, yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you have any explanation about where little blanket came from? Because that`s one of the mysteries of Michael Jackson.

VAN VALIN: Yes, he told me, but I think -- I kept that actually out of the book because I figured it would be something Blanket should know first and then he can tell who he wants, you know? It`s not something I feel comfortable discussing, you know?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Sure. Sure. I totally get it. I know you have the answer, but we`re not going to hear it tonight.

VAN VALIN: No. Sorry about that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I understand that. Now, I also understand that you know quite a bit about Michael Jackson and money and everybody said he had a bad relationship with money, and that was perhaps because he was an artist at heart. He was also brilliant because he bought the Beatles catalogue. You have a very quick story about the Beatles catalogue. He was offered a lot of money for what, and turned what down?

VAN VALIN: He was offered a lot of money to -- he kept seven songs out of the catalogue that weren`t publicly available, and he got a call one day --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are those Beatles songs? Beatles songs?

VAN VALIN: Yes. They are Beatles songs. Yes. Seven Beatles songs he kept out. He told me after had he taken a call that this Canadian company had wanted to buy -- or use one of the songs in a commercial, and they offered him $8 million. He said to use it for the national commercial and he turned them down. I asked him why. He said I`m not ready to use them yet.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. And also, I think that Michael probably didn`t want to use Beatles songs for commercials. He wanted to preserve the integrity of those songs.

More on the other side -- I think it`s absolutely fascinating that you have this glimpse inside the private world of Michael Jackson. More in a moment.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Michael Jackson`s former doctor talking about Michael Jackson, money and Michael Jackson`s children. What`s your story, doctor?

VAN VALIN: Well, I had written a book about all the conversation we had over the course of about five years, and it just gives you an idea what Michael was like on a personal basis. I just never thought in the --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What about the $4 million money he was offered for photographs of his children?

VAN VALIN: Yes. He told me -- he always kept their faces hidden because, you know, he said people will take the pictures and sell them. And he was offered $4 million for a photo session of the kids, and he turned that down, and he just was not interested.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So an excellent father?

VAN VALIN: Oh, my goodness. Yes. Very good. Never said -- said he had never spanked his kids, was always very good to them. You know, he just reprimanded in a kind way.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you, doctor. You can tell they loved him.

Good night.