Skip to content

THOMAS MESEREAU on the AEG trial in an interview with Piers Morgan

April 3, 2013

Here is what Thomas Mesereau has to say on the lawsuit of the Jacksons’ family against AEG Live. Yesterday he spoke to Piers Morgan of CNN.  The video is followed by the transcript of their conversation.

As usual Thomas Mesereau is dotting all i’s and crossing all t’s:

http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1304/02/pmt.01.html

PIERS MORGAN LIVE TRANSCRIPT

Aired April 2, 2013 – 21:00   ET

PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: Tonight, you just heard Conrad Murray. This is what Michael Jackson’s mother says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATHERINE JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON’S MOTHER: He did a terrible thing. And it might have been others involved, I don’t know that, but I feel that.

……..

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, CNN’S AC 360: At the heart of this trial, of the AEG trial, is a simple question. Were you an AEG employee, someone they had a responsibility for, or were you an employee of Michael Jackson? Can you answer that question?

VALERIE WASS, DR. CONRAD MURRAY’S LAWYER: I don’t want Dr. Murray to answer that question.

COOPER: OK.

CONRAD MURRAY, MICHAEL JACKSON’S PHYSICIAN: No, I cannot. Not at this time.

COOPER: Okay. I understand that. Can I ask you, do you know — I mean, do you know the answer to that question?

MURRAY: Absolutely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Anderson Cooper just a few minutes ago talking to Conrad Murray and asking him the key question, who hired him? Murray’s lawyer wouldn’t let him answer, but the Jackson family is suing concert promoter AEG, saying the company is to blame for hiring Murray in the first place.

Joining me now, a man who knows Michael Jackson pretty well better than most people. Thomas Mesereau, who represented him, of course, during his molestation trial. Tom, fascinating interview that he had there with Anderson Cooper. What did you make of it, in particular that first clip there which I guess is into the key of all this. Who was employing Conrad Murray to be a practitioner for Michael Jackson?

THOMAS MESEREAU, MICHAEL JACKSON’S FORMER ATTORNEY: Well, there’s no question in my mind, Piers, that the concert promoter employed Conrad Murray. Michael Jackson may have introduced Murray to them. But they had their lawyers draft an employment agreement, they sent that agreement to Murray to sign, he signed it. Apparently there’s e-mail correspondence where they’re admitting they had employed him. And I think they’ll have a tough time getting out of that position.

MORGAN: How will that affect the litigation that’s about to start tomorrow with the family led by Michael’s mother suing for $40 billion? How will that affect that, if you assume that what you’ve just said is correct, which I concur with?

MESEREAU: I don’t think this Conrad Murray interview is going to affect that case at all. I think everyone knows that Murray was incompetent. He was convicted of criminal negligence. He caused the death of Michael Jackson.

The question is, was AEG, the concert promoter, also negligent, and they can’t just hide behind Conrad Murray. I think there’s an e-mail trail where they’re taking responsibility for hiring him. They’re instructing him what to do, they’re reminding him that they pay him his money. I think they’ll have a tough time. I think Katherine and the kids have a strong case.

MORGAN: Let’s listen to another clip. This is where he talks about Propofol, which is of course the killer drug.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: Yes, indeed, I did order Propofol to his home, but I was not the one that brought Propofol into his home. I met him at his own stash. I did not agree with Michael. But Michael felt it was not an issue because he had been exposed to it for years and he knew exactly how things worked. And given the situation at the time, it was my approach to try to get him off of it. I never knew he was an addict. He was going to Dr. Klein’s office and being loaded up with humongous — you know, levels of Demerol. That was his addiction. And basically, this was causing his insomnia and — because that’s a huge side effect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: And you hear — I listened to Conrad Murray when he came out. He obviously didn’t testify in his case but he then gave an interview to the Today Show at the time, and it’s sort of more of the same, I guess. Very much you can’t blame me, you know.

But in the end, he was the doctor who was being paid to care personally for Michael Jackson. It all comes down to him, doesn’t it, in the end?

MESEREAU: Well, not all of it. He is the doctor that treated Michael Jackson. He’s responsible for his death. The question is, should AEG, the concert promoter, have hired him? Should they have supervised him properly, and did they have enough information to know that he was a danger to Michael Jackson, should they have fired him?

There are three theories the plaintiffs are relying on. They’re saying they negligently hired him, they negligently supervised him and they negligently kept him around. Three different theories. They had agreed to provide medical equipment. Murray actually had asked for a CPR equipment, portable equipment. He asked for a gurney. He wanted saline. He wanted syringes. They agreed to provide this equipment to him and never did.

So, I think the negligent supervision issue and negligently keeping him on when it was obvious he was deficient and they had problems with him, I think is going to be a big hurdle to overcome.

MORGAN: I have two clips to play. This is from interviews with Jermaine Jackson and then Latoya Jackson. Both talking about the people around Michael Jackson, including AEG. Let’s listen to these back-to-back. First Jermaine, then Latoya.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERMAINE JACKSON, BROTHER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: They were only concerned about the show, moving the show forward.

MORGAN: These are people working for AEG?

J. JACKSON: These are people working for AEG, working for him, working for the show.

LATOYA JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON’S SISTER: They controlled everything that he did, the people that were around him. They knew he wasn’t healthy enough to do those shows, but yet they said he was fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Now, when you hear the family talk like that, not entirely surprising, but certainly a familiar pattern. From Michael’s father to his mother to the siblings, all repeating this same pattern about how they believed all these people were around Michael, forcing him against his health, really, to do this tour. How significant will any of that be when this trial starts?

MESEREAU: Could be very significant. Apparently, there are e-mails from his choreographer, Ken Ortega, warning AEG that he’s not well. He has serious physical problems, serious psychological and emotional problems, he’s asking for professional help. And I’m informed that there are some e-mails from AEG basically telling Murray you better get him to rehearsals.

So I think this issue is well founded by the siblings, and I think it’s going to be a big issue for the plaintiffs. And I think AEG will have a tough time explaining it.

MORGAN: AEG’s lawyer, Marvin Putnam, said it was the 2005 child molestation trial which you obviously were involved in, which caused Michael to dramatically increase his drug use. Do you think there’s any truth in that?

MESEREAU: I really don’t. Now, I was his lead criminal defense counsel in that trial. I talked to him throughout the trial. He was lucid, he was articulate, he was cooperative. I never had a problem working with Michael. My co-counsel, Susan Yu and I both thought he was one of the nicest clients we ever represented. And I did not see drug use as a problem during the trial.

Now, the verdict day, he didn’t look well, I will say that. He had been through over five months of trial, all the stress and strain, we were in court five days a week. And I do think that he suffered physically and emotionally during the trial. But I never saw him take a prescription drug. It would not have been unusual if he had, because people in situations like that are sleep-deprived, they are depressed, they have anxiety. If he did take something, it would not have surprised me, and it would not have been abnormal.

But he never was a problem for us when it came to talking to him, getting information from him, telling him what was going on. He was a delightful client to represent.

MORGAN: One of the e-mails you alluded to is from AEG Live CEO or co- CEO Paul Gongaware, which says, “We want to remind Murray it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. We want to remind him what is expected of him.” Quite explicit really there, you would think, in terms of who’s responsible.

I suppose on the flipside, Michael Jackson was a very well known, highly temperamental pop superstar prone to canceling concerts, having a variety of health issues of various types of severity, unpredictable. All those things, like many pop artists. Could that work against the family’s claim in the sense AEG may say look, we did try to get him to work but he was a bit flaky?

MESEREAU: Well, if they thought he was that flaky and they thought he was that disturbed, why did they enter into a contract with him to do all these concerts? They invested over $30 million before the concerts even began. If they thought he was that bad and they thought his reputation was suffering from all these other issues, why in the world did they go into business with him? I think it’s an uphill battle for AEG.

MORGAN: Let’s just play the final clip from the Anderson interview. Quite extraordinary moment when Conrad Murray burst into song.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: You know what surprises me, Anderson? Let me sing something for you. This is important to me. (SINGING) He’s a little boy that Santa Claus forgot. And goodness knows he did not want a lot. He wrote a note to Santa for some crayons and a toy. It broke his little heart when he found Santa hadn’t come. In the streets, he envied all those lucky boys. But goodness knows he didn’t want a lot. I’m so sorry for that laddie who hasn’t got a daddy –

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: I mean, it’s almost comical on one level, that. You can quite see why he didn’t testify, because clearly, I suspect his legal team weren’t entirely sure how he would behave on the stand. But when you hear Conrad Murray behave like that, that’s not the behavior of, as he would pitch himself to us, being a decent, honorable, straightforward physician, is it?

MESEREAU: No. He has never taken responsibility for what he did. He has always blamed Michael Jackson for everything that’s happened to him. He wasn’t professional. He violated medical ethics. When the paramedics came to the scene, they asked him what did you give him? He never mentioned Propofol. There was evidence that he tried to hide Propofol from the paramedics and the police. He can’t get out of this. He’s responsible for his death. AEG should not have retained him. They should have checked him out beforehand, and if they had any problem with him, they should have gotten rid of him. No, he’s not a good doctor. He shouldn’t be a doctor and I think he’s where he belongs.

MORGAN: Final question and very quickly, if you don’t mind. Is she going to win, Katherine Jackson on behalf of the family?

MESEREAU: She and the children are going to win, in my opinion. They have a very strong case. They have a great lawyer, Brian Pannish, the best in Los Angeles, for a case like this. And I think they have the evidence on their side. And I think they have morality on their side. So, I think the defendants have a tough go.

MORGAN: Tom, great to see you, as always. Please come back soon.

MESEREAU: Thank you very much, Piers.

MORGAN: Tom Mesereau. Can’t think of a better guy to talk to about Michael Jackson.

49 Comments leave one →
  1. July 9, 2014 4:24 pm

    —————–
    Thomas Mesereau says that everybody knew Murray was incompetent.And I could not agree more.So what was it with the jury? And just look at all the aftermath of that verdict. A mysterious juror nr 27, 4 jurors regretting their vote and the comes 7 almost identical,sure composed by one and the same person letters, confirming their No vote to question nr 2. And people all over the world have reacted to it, as I saw on the video now no longer there.

    Like

  2. April 27, 2013 5:19 pm

    AEG trying to limit all to the hiring.Well that is a valid point for sure.But they insist on bringing in the 2005 allegations and trial, no doubt to get the opportunity to throw dirt on
    the victim.What about all of their own shenanigans,the increase of shows,the early, fast and lucrative,for them,ticket sales.The background of T.Barrack to put Michael in economic slavery or bondage.The increase in shows, the very freqvency of shows. All done by Thome on the sly in cooperation with Randy Phillips and gradually.It was the ever groving greed of those 2 corprations that set this vicious circle in motion.And AEG did pay Thome.
    Thome did all the dirty work for AEG and ColonyCapital./ When asked what he does he says he is a businessman. Just take a look at his files,there is a good photo of them early in this blog.Well,yes,he is the ambassador at large for Senegal and a few other fancy things,You can buy all those titles somewhere,I forgot the name of the place, in Portugal. This info is from a serious documentary about blood diamonds.
    BTW Peter Lopez suicide left some questions. Depressions are relatively common, few result in suicide.–And the unusual,terribly strict confidentiality agreements by all the participnts in the rehearsals.

    Like

  3. April 27, 2013 2:17 pm

    Are Murrays appeal and the AEG going to run parallel.He has refused to testify onthe AEG
    case because of his rights not to selfincriminate,.He will never win the appeal anyway.

    Like

  4. April 27, 2013 2:15 am

    “What absolutely sickens me is the fact that Murray is trying to assert that Jackson had his own stash of propofol”

    Julie, I think it was Lynande who said that propofol is not available in ordinary drug stores and cannot be easily bought. It is sold in special pharmacies and only to medical personnel with a licence to it.

    Now while Michael was in Ireland in 2006 he did not even come into contact with any doctors except Dr. Treacy (who is fully above suspicion). In 2007-2008 when he was in Las Vegas there were no doctors either (except Murray). Even if someone had given Michael propofol before 2006 for example, its shelf life is 3 years, so that would have already expired by 2009. Murray is indeed a pathological liar.

    “Drip/no drip – how on earth does that justify the fact that Murray left Michael alone for 45 minutes to talk on the phone and let him drown in propofol? Are people really so ignorant that anyone would honestly believe that Michael woke up, realized Murray was on the phone, ran to wherever he supposedly kept his “stash” of propofol, injected it in himself and laid back down on the gurney and died. Really???

    Exactly. Very well explained. Add to it that he could not run as he had an IV stand and a catheter attached to him, so he either had to disconnect everything (and then reconnect) or he had to drag the IV stand to the closet behind him (Walgren showed the scene very well at Murray’s trial). It was much easier to call Murray. All these speculations are simply ridiculous.

    Like

  5. April 27, 2013 1:26 am

    And the missing line was in Murrays pocket. It takes less than a minute to sqeeze out the liquid from a dripline.He was also the still in Michaels bedroom when the ambulance was ready to go,seen by paremedic Blount…Murray not in such hurry then..

    Like

  6. Julie permalink
    April 26, 2013 7:38 pm

    What absolutely sickens me is the fact that Murray is trying to assert that Jackson had his own stash of propofol and if that were the case – why on earth would Murray have ordered 4 gallons of the stuff. What a narcissistic liar! I realize everyone deserves the right to a defense (which is why I could never be a defense lawyer), but I cannot stand to watch Valerie Wass repeat Murray’s garbage as if she is so completely ignorant. Drip/no drip – how on earth does that justify the fact that Murray left Michael alone for 45 minutes to talk on the phone and let him drown in propofol? Are people really so ignorant that anyone would honestly believe that Michael woke up, realized Murray was on the phone, ran to wherever he supposedly kept his “stash” of propofol, injected it in himself and laid back down on the gurney and died. Really????

    Like

  7. April 13, 2013 12:36 pm

    “There are no 100 ml syringes only 10 ml” -lynande

    Oh, do I understand it right that 10cc syringes have 10ml only? If this is the case then I will have to correct the post. I thought that a 10cc syringe was equivalent to 100ml. Sorry for my ignorance.

    Like

  8. April 13, 2013 12:21 pm

    “The reason that I think this is because of what was found in the syringe that was stuck in the port. It had propofol, lidocaine and Flumazenil in it.” – lynande

    When I was reading about Lidocaine (let me explain to others that it is a local anesthetic that goes together with propofol to ease the burning sensation) some sources said that Lidocaine also has Flumazenil as an antidote. Why I mention it now is because Murray definitely said that the ratio in which he was giving propofol and lidocaine was 1:1 (equal parts), instead of the required 1:10.

    What do you think of this 1:1 ratio? Could Murray indeed do it?

    Like

  9. April 13, 2013 12:06 pm

    “One thing, how did he have time for all this as he was texting and phoning all morning.” – kaarin

    It is important to remember that Murray was taking care of the insurance which was the task imposed on him by AEG. This insurance is an extremely interesting point and not even because it is connected with the insurance premium. It is connected with the number of shows and if I have an opportunity I will try to write about it.

    The main idea is that when Michael and AEG agreed about the first 10 shows Michael easily obtained the insurance, but only for those ten shows. So the insurance itself is proof that Michael was right – the initial number was 10 only.

    But when in the first decade of March AEG increased the number to 50 the insurance company became more picky. What they could allow for 10 shows they would not allow for 50 shows and it was because of the increase in the shows that they demanded a new medical examination.

    Needless to say, Michael never wanted those 50 shows and therefore didn’t want the second medical examination. It was none of his business – they pressed on him the additional shows, so what did it have to do with him?

    Therefore Murray was arranging things which Michael did not even want to hear of.

    So for whom was Murray working? And on what was he spending his time instead of attending to his patient?

    Of course if it hadn’t been for AEG’s insurance assignment Murray could have also neglected his patient and talked with his girlfriends on the phone, but the assignment was there and Murray was extremely busy with it.

    P.S. The final AEG insurance policy was for 30 shows, and it means that it was already the second, amended variant of the initial policy and it was made sometime in March after the increase in the number of shows. So it was already at that point – when 10 shows turned into 30 – that Lloyds agreed to expanding the insurance but only on condition that a second medical examination was made.

    Like

  10. April 13, 2013 11:49 am

    “And just how Walgen said at the end in a press conference, he wondered how many near misses MJ had.” – nannoris

    With his system of administering propofol Murray must have arranged lots of near misses for Michael, and this is probably why he felt so bad in the middle of June. The awful thing Murray did was lack of any measuring device in administering propofol. Propofol is safe if the dosage is correct. But if the dosage is increased just a little bit a stop in breathing ensues and he can experience death night after night, and be resuscitated night after night.

    I am afraid that this is what was happening to Michael on a recurrent basis and he didn’t know about it.

    As far as I understand anesthesia may be different in its intensity – light when the patient is barely “sleeping”, balancing between the unconscious state and some kind of drowsiness and it may be deep and heavy when the brain is on the brink of shutting off. I am sure that due a totally uncontrollable way of administering propofol Murray kept Michael constantly overdosed. To keep the patient a little drowsy the dosage should be little and precise and in the absence of measuring equipment Murray could only overdose.

    Like

  11. nannorris permalink
    April 12, 2013 6:27 pm

    I get so much out of this blog..Thanks so much for putting all this info together
    .I had watched the Murray trial also, and as I recall during Walgren closing argument , to demonstrate, how Murray could have put the tube in his pocket and walked around unnoticed, they replayed Dr Paul White on the witness stand pulling the same kind of tube out of his own pocket..I couldnt believe how stupid it was of him to carry one in his pocket , if he was working for the defense.
    Somewhere I think I remember hearing how much Murray hated Dr Shafer…That would make sense because I think he figured out exactly what Murray was doing.
    And just how Walgen said at the end in a press conference, he wondered how many near misses MJ had.
    I have always felt Murray was pushing MJ to do this stuff, for his own job security..
    It doesnt make sense to me , that if MJ was so sold on this method and this particular doctor, he hadnt signed the contract.It was right in Murrays car..
    I would have thought it would have been brought in by Murray and signed by MJ right away..
    Instead the only signature on it , it the greedy doctor that needs the job…

    Like

  12. April 12, 2013 1:27 pm

    Even that tape was a breach of Dr-Patient confidentiality.In the end it spoke well for Michael though.

    Like

  13. April 12, 2013 1:21 pm

    One thing, how did he have time for all this as he was texting and phoning all morning. And most likely he started the second drip with a 100ml vial around 6 am when he claimed Michael voided urine. As Michael had a condom catheter he may ofcourse just have emptied the bag into the bottle found on the table.–My PDR states that 88% of all propofol ends up , spit from the fatty part, in urine. He must have supplemented the drip with small shots as well.Which makes sense with all the lines found.

    Like

  14. April 12, 2013 1:05 pm

    I think the propofol infusion and additional smaller shots are explained by the original Dr. Shafer explanation. It also answers the question of the saline bag with a slit and a propofol vial in it and lacking a line as this was in Murrays pocket. An unusual thing ,that bag with a propofol vial inside and the bag itself clean .But it all makes sense.—-I checked the Dr. Shafer demonstration last night,but was too tired to make a post about it..
    Thank you Lyn and Helena for the good job.

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    April 12, 2013 5:11 am

    I almost forgot one important thing. If Murray didn’t know about what Michael was getting from Dr.Klein and that was supposedly so dishonest did Dr. Klein know from Murray what he was giving Michael everynight? Of course not.

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    April 12, 2013 4:13 am

    That is right Helena it was infused with a gravity drip as Dr. Shafer explained but let me take that just a little bit further and tell you what I think Murray was doing that night and every other night.
    It think that Murray was actually using the saem amount of Ativan and Versed every night that he was using his junk science experiment on Michael.He would give him 2 mg of Ativan and then 2 mg of Versed IV push. Then he would start the infusion/drip of the propofol. The reason that I think this is because of what was found in the syringe that was stuck in the port. It had propofol, lidocaine and Flumazenil in it.Flumazenil is a drug with one purpose and that is it is an antidote to too much Ativan and Versed. Having that syringe stuck in that port was like telling everyone that he was lying about what he was doing to Michael because if he did not know what he was doing why would he even think that he might need that flumazenil?’I think he did this every night except for those two nights when Michael was doing better and feeling better, ready to rehearse and doing well because all of the symptoms that Michael had the one evening at rehearsals.When everyone says that Michael was frail and sick they have to remember that Michael did not look that way or feel that way until Murray started with his science experiment. Now AEG is also responsible because Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware not only agreed with Murray but they never once questioned if he was doing something to Michael and took Murray at his word when they prohibited him from seeing Arnold Klein which they did because of what Murray said to them about Demerol. Murray was lying all the way through this thing from beginning until now and Phillips and company just encouraged him.
    I think that it was those two nights just before Michael died that he said no to Murray because I am positive that Murray almost lost him the morning that he was feeling so bad.IN order to get Michael back on track I think that Murray played that tape for him and threatened him with telling Phillips and Gongaware so that they would cancel the shows.

    Like

  17. lynande51 permalink
    April 12, 2013 2:24 am

    There are no 100 ml syringes only 10 ml. at the scene. What the scene suggests is exactly what Steven Shafer demonstrated on day 14 of the trial.Murray hung the vials of propofol next to the saline bag on the IV pole and used what is called a gravity drip.
    The second IV was infused via the port with a second line called a piggyback line. What is done in the piggy back is that the saline line is stopped and second line with the propofol and lidocaine are attached with a vented tubing. The vented tubing allows air back into the propofol vial so the propofol is then allowed to drip without a control device to regulate the rate.With a gravity drip just as it suggests it depends on the length of the tubing and the angle of the tubing to the IV site ( where it goes into the body) and the positioning of the IV pole.
    If Murray had been pushing it in he would have been at Michael’s side to do it and he was not. He hooked him up to the IV drip and left the room to write emails and make numerous calls on the phone.If you watch Dr. Steven Shafer’s testimony he explains the apparatus tat Murray rigged up very well. The only reason that the IV bottle was in the bag was because Murray knew what he was doing was illegal and he wanted no trace of his fingerprints on the bottle. He actually would adjunct the drip with a push but he would use the smaller vials for that.They are the 20 ml vials. Believe me that Murray could drip it in that way and the earlier urine propofol just proves that he gave Michael propofol much earlier in the day than he said he did.

    Like

  18. April 12, 2013 1:22 am

    “The assumption that Murray gave 25 mgs is for the birds.”

    Of course it is absurd. But I was talking about the syringe version upheld by Valerie Wass and the fact that the same 200ml (or even more) propofol could be administered by a syringe – by Conrad Murray (or someone else).

    I think that this theory may be possible, only it does not make Murray’s life easier – this way he may be accused of a murder. And there is a powerful argument against this theory – propofol was also found in the jug with urine, and this means that propofol was given for several hours and not in a single shot. So the syringe version may be wrong after all (sorry for confusing you).

    As regards Dr. Shafer’s demonstration I’ve now watched it to the end and see (how could I forget?) that he offered a perfect explanation why the top part of the tubing was clean and the bottom part of it had propofol. Now I’ve even transcribed that part of the video and put it at the end of this post complete with the pictures: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/conrad-murray-trial-week-4/

    I tried to make it as simple as possible (this text was corrected on April 14, 2013):

    Walgren says that the IV stand in Michael’s room had a saline bag with tubing attached to it. The upper tubing was clear of propofol, while the lower part tested positive for it. This means that a syringe with 25ml of propofol Murray spoke of was inserted into the infusion port and from there on it went down into the body.

    There was one more saline bag on the scene of crime – an empty one with a slit on it which Murray hid into a bag. The tubing to it was never found (Walgren assumed that Murray had taken it away in his pocket). It should have been the same type as the tubing left hanging on the IV stand as it was shipped by the same company.

    Dr. Shafer begins his demonstration by attaching a catheter to the tubing and showing that the fluid from the Saline bag on top of the IV stand is drifting freely from it. The saline bag is plastic and shrinks as the liquid flows from it.

    However with propofol it does not work. Propofol comes in glass bottles and therefore needs a vented infusion line which allows air to come into the bottle in replacement of the propofol coming out of it.

    Without the air going into the glass bottle propofol will not drip out as there will be a vacuum inside.

    Therefore the infusion set purchased by Conrad Murray for administering Propofol was different from the usual set – it had a small vent cap in it. When it is open the propofol flows freely down, when it is closed the propofol stops.

    This special tubing is meant to be used with an infusion pump and usually has a special device for attaching it. The infusion pump is used for precise dosing of Propofol.

    The infusion port is in the middle of the tubing, approximately three feet from the catheter which was attached to Michael’s body. The bottom part is a shorter part of the tubing. It is separated from the top and longer part of it by a clap (the clap is used for shutting off the infusion).

    Murray claimed that he clapped the tubing and slowly infused 25mg by a syringe into the middle port of it, so Dr. Shafer repeats his actions.

    He takes a 20cc=20ml syringe (Murray’s was 10cc), pierces the stopper of the 25ml vial, draws up the air into it and fills the syringe with one/tenth of it – 2.5ml of propofol (=25mg).

    Then Dr. Shafer injects this propofol into the port (wire connector) in the middle of the tubing and it flows down, and here we see that 25ml is so little a quantity that propofol does not even reach the end of the tubing and therefore does not reach the patient.

    This is why the tubing should not have been clapped and the saline on top of the IV should have been allowed to flow as a carrier for propofol. Without the saline pushing it propofol would simply sit inside the tubing.

    So the way Conrad Murray described the process, the propofol should not have flown at all. It was to sit in the tubing until it was unclapped and the saline was allowed to push propofol to the patient.

    Then Dr. Shafer hung the 100ml bottle (previously spiked) on the IV stand.

    We see that when the vent is opened propofol races down. When it reaches the end Dr. Shafer attaches a needle to it. The needle is inserted into the wire connector in the middle of the tubing.

    Parallel to it is a saline bag which is also attached to the wire connector to allow propofol to flow freely.

    The arrangement has the form of a Y letter – the propofol and saline lines join each other at the wire connector and then turn into one line.

    This arrangement is extremely unsafe as two fluids are competing with each other. The speed of the propofol drip depends on the relative height of the saline bag – if the saline bag is raised there will be more force on it and the speed of propofol will slow down.

    Since there is no pump control the drip is fully dependent on gravity and may drip quicker or slower depending on the height and weight of the saline bag on the other side of the IV stand. This is why the infusion pump was a must (but was nevertheless missing).

    The only way to control the rate of propofol under this system is by using the roller claps (on the propofol line and on the saline line). The rate appropriate for sedation would be 12 seconds between each drop and Dr. Shafer tries to set this rhythm by means of a roller clap, but it is really difficult (and this is why the infusion pump is needed).

    If the roller clap is wide open propofol runs incredibly fast – like a stream.

    Walgren notes that in the arrangement shown by Dr. Shafer the top (long) part of the saline line remains clean, while the bottom part of it, beginning with the port where it is joined by propofol, has propofol in it.

    They also talk about the recovered saline bag with a slit in it and a propofol bottle inside it. Dr. Shafer never saw that kind of an arrangement.

    But he puts the bottle inside the bag and we see that it stays in the same vertical position as it was before when it was hanging on its own.

    When all propofol flows down from the bottle and is finally empty, Dr. Shafer takes a spike out of it and disassembles the propofol line.

    Walgren notes that the tubing with propofol inside it fits into the palm of a hand and would easily fit into the pocket. It is indeed very small.

    The tubing left on the IV stand has the form of letter Y that has lost one of its lines on the top but retained its bottom line. The top part of the tubing is clean while the bottom part has propofol in it – and this is just the way it was found on the scene of the crime.

    Dr. Shafer explained it perfectly well.

    I think that Dr. Shafer’s explanation is more exhaustive than the syringe version of Wass. You can see it for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lggDgSLFh-M#!

    As regards the quantity of the propofol given to Michael I will try to explain it in a separate post. Everyone forgot everything (I myself forgot some points) and we need to have a summary.

    Like

  19. April 12, 2013 12:56 am

    Whether it was only Murray or not it is sure he will keep his own mouth shut.

    Like

  20. April 12, 2013 12:22 am

    Propofol is eliminated in 3 diffrent stages and modes.The high blood level speaks for a very recent injectin or infusion. The fact that it was also found in the liquor in his eyes, where there are no bloodvessels at ,all speaks for stage 3, ie propofol given some hrs ago.
    They can easily estimate how much propofol, approximately ,was in the bloodstream. Also they checked the liver,kidneys etc.A consultation with a pharmacologist knowleable re propofol could give a reasonable estimate of times and amounts given.
    The assumption that Murray gave 25 mgs is for the birds.Or that Michael gave any that would result in that bloodlevel for the matter.—Do you recall when Murray claimed that he had Michael void urine.—-After Michaels death Thome went to Carolwood.What for,well to fire all staff and maybe some other things. I would think it outrageous to go to Michaels private quarters like that.Rent and salaries were paid monhtly ,thats what is customary.
    There is foul play one way or the other.

    Like

  21. April 11, 2013 9:18 pm

    “Dan Anderson (and the defense) made it clear to the court that judging by the clean state of the tubing propofol was delivered by a syringe.”

    I’ve read my notes up to week 4 of the trial, and on October 17 Dr. Shafer assumed that the tubing with propofol inside it could have been taken by Murray away in a pocket (which is why it was never found on the scene of crime). This is perfectly possible too and in this case propofol could of course have been administered by dripping.

    However the variant described by Wass in her “appeal” is no better. If in case of dripping Murray was only grossly negligent, in case of a syringe it was murder. If she manages to prove that it was not Murray who committed it, but someone else I won’t object. We need to know the truth.

    The only important thing to note is that Michael could never do it himself. NEVER.

    P.S. My notes of week 4 did not go as far as Dr. Shafer’s explanation about that tubing but I remember him demostrating the process and putting it into his pocket to show how this could have been done. You can see it on Youtube.

    Like

  22. April 11, 2013 6:45 pm

    “On appeal can the defendants crime be upgraded if new info comes out.”

    Kaarin, though Wass is making an appeal on the basis of this information I cannot understand how she can prove that it wasn’t Murray who did it. Initially – when I had no ideas about a third person in the room yet – I also understood it that it was Murray who wanted to fool everyone by staging this scene (make it look like it was not a syringe but an IV tubing from which propofol was dripping).

    But now I am asking myself a question what good that game could do him? The only goal of the game could be pretending that it was death by an accident and not a murder. So if Valerie Wass actually proves this theory during her “appeal” the situation may turn out into an even worse scenario for Murray – he may be convicted of murder unless they find proof that it was someone else who did it to Michael.

    Well, she claims that it was Michael himself who pushed propofol by a syringe. But this is crazy – there were no Michael’s fingerprints anywhere at all and to prove that he administered propofol himself they first need to prove that he put on gloves on his hands before doing it.

    And she claims that Michael delivered himself 20-25ml of propofol (by a syringe) while he actually died of more than 200ml – which is at least two bottles 100ml each.

    If we divide it by the volume of a syringe it should be several syringes all in all!

    Like

  23. April 11, 2013 6:26 pm

    Checked the trial notes. You are right. Michael got 100ml shot directly into his bloodstream. Can they get Dan Anderson back, he seems to have gotten it right. And strange that just a big part of his testimony is lacking. On appeal can the defendants crime be upgraded if new info comes out.

    Like

  24. April 11, 2013 6:22 pm

    “he received more than 2063.xx that night” – kaarin

    Exactly. Michael received more than 200ml of propofol – it was proven at the very end of the trial by Dr. Shafer. But since it was the end of the trial we forgot what was said during the second week of it. And during the second week they discussed whether it was delivered by a syringe or via IV. And Dan Anderson (and the defense) made it clear to the court that judging by the clean state of the tubing propofol was delivered by a syringe.

    However at the time they were mostly discussing the 25 ml vial Murray spoke about and there were only some indirect signs that the quantity of propofol was much bigger (it was not proven yet at that stage). This is what I wrote about it on October 6, 2011 about day 8 of the trial:

    Here is a short review of Dan Anderson‘s testimony based on my notes again.

    One of the crucial pieces of his evidence at the trial was a diagram of the IV stand and various tubing attached to it. Unfortunately when Dan Anderson was commenting on it the signal from the court was very poor and much of the information was lost for the viewers. However I managed to make a screenshot of the diagram.


    The legend on the diagram reads:

    A. IV bag
    B. Syringe
    C. Y-connector
    D. Short Tube
    E. Clear Tip
    F. Long Tube
    G. White Clamp
    H. White Thumb Clamp
    I. IV bag plug

    Initially the news that the saline bag on the IV stand was clean and didn’t contain propofol looked like being in the defense’s favor but the more I think of it the more it looks like it is not.

    The diagram shows that part of the tubing system on the IV stand – from the saline bag (with an empty propofol vial inside it) to a clamp somewhere in the middle of the tubing – was cut off and all propofol went via a shorter side route, from the syringe direct into MJ’s body.

    This means that the whole cumulative quantity of the propofol used (which is at least 180 ml judging by the vials calculated above) was pushed manually. The syringe via which it was pushed was hanging on the stand.

    But if all propofol was administered manually by a syringe how come an empty 100ml vial got into a bag on the top of the IV stand?

    This question is not idle because it means that someone first pushed all that propofol by a syringe (one 20ml vial dropped on the floor, another 20ml from the bag, three more partially empty 20ml vials and finally a big 100ml vial) and then stood up and put the empty vial into the bag through a slit on it.

    Michael is ruled out for obvious reasons and the only other man who could have done it is Murray. Why did he stand up and put it there I wonder?

    But let us first see whether Michael could have used a smaller vial of Propofol. An empty 20ml propofol vial was lying on the floor beside the bed. (Isn’t it interesting that Murray collected everything including scraps of paper and some torn packages except this vial as if leaving it on purpose?)

    The 20ml vial was accessible to Michael but in order to extract propofol from it one needs syringe with a needle as the cap on the vial was still on and otherwise it is not accessible.

    A syringe with traces of propofol and lidocaine in it was conveniently left on the nightstand – only it didn’t have any needle. And what Fleak thought to be a needle on the floor turned out to be a catheter. The needle mysteriously disappeared – and it won’t suprise me if it went into Conrad Murray’s pocket.

    Let me make an important point that the syringe did not have Michael’s fingerprints on it. In fact no Michael’s fingerprints were found on any vials, bottles or saline bags in that bedroom (Prosecutor Walgren read out a special fingerprint analysis report, people’s exhibit 160).

    We never believed that Michael could administer any propofol to himself anyway – simply because with the first drops of propofol his muscles would relax and he would be falling asleep, but the absence of fingerprints is the last blow to the ”self-administration” theory presented to us by the defense. Michael wasn’t wearing latex gloves as Conrad Murray did and there was no way he could avoid leaving the fingerprints!

    If we go once again over the possible scenario of the events, we’ll see that first Murray pushed all that propofol via a syringe, then took the needle away and put the only big 100ml bottle of propofol on the top of the IV stand to produce the impression of it being administered via dripping. The vial was even placed there upside down for better effect and he just didn’t have time enough to attach an IV tubing to it to imitate the dripping.

    The main point in all this riddle is that the vial could not go into the bag on its own. Someone put it there on purpose – to produce the impression they wanted to produce.

    Draw your own conclusions from the above.

    I think that Murray is a big liar and maybe much more than that. His demeanor during the trial and the quiet way he related his story to the detectives shows that he is quite emotionless and is capable of the worst. He may tell us whatever he likes but the facts are testifying against him and telling us a somewhat terrible story.

    I would be only happy if someone refuted my understanding of this situation. Please do.

    Let me break it for a second and say that over here I meant that Murray delivered all the quantity by a syringe and then pretended that it had been done by dripping. In other words he murdered Michael by pushing a big quantity of propofol by a syringe and then pretended that it was an accident. But now I do not rule out that it may have been a third person who did it.

    My notes of that day go on and refer to the table I also copied from the screen:

    Here is medical evidence # 1 and #2 submitted by Ms. Fleak and analyzed by the coroner. It is the analysis of separate parts of the IV tubing system from the point of view of where propofol and lidocaine (and flumazenil) were found and were they were not. Two syringes were also examined – the one on the night stand and the other one hanging on the IV stand.

    Propofol and lydocaine were found in both syringes as well as the short tubing. But they were not found in the saline bag and the long tubing on top of the IV stand. This means that the empty 100ml propofol bottle didn’t belong there and was put there by someone on purpose.

    The only fingerprints on the 100ml empty propofol vial were those of Conrad Murray.
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/conrad-murray-trial-week-2/

    But wasn’t that clean bag with a slit on it exactly the bag which had some other person’s fingerprints? And this person is still unknown to us?

    Like

  25. April 11, 2013 5:55 pm

    “The hypothesis is interesting indeed. Maybe special medical witnesses will be necessary again.”

    Kaarin, it isn’t a hypothesis – it is a fact. The information that the bag with a bottle of propofol inside it and the tubing running from it were CLEAN is a fact determined during the trial. And my hair is standing on end also because now it seems that Dan Anderson’s testimony is missing 15 minutes of it “due to technical reasons” and this is exactly where they discuss this point.

    I managed to make a screenshot when watching the trial. Now it is missing – at least I cannot find it:

    Conrad Murray Trial – Day 8, part 4

    However I need to watch his testimony once again from beginning to end. Part of it was on Day 9.

    Like

  26. April 11, 2013 5:51 pm

    one ie 1 ml equals 10 mg of propofol.He must have gotten more than 200ml.
    The amount in blood and other organs was not taken into account in that propofol found in the bladder. My recall is bladder,2063.xx.Did not check the old notes but it has stayed in my mind.So he received more than 2063.xx that night. There might have been some residue from that removed when he voided urine sometime 5/6 am. Murrays 2.5 ml.ie 25 mg is insufficient to account for the excess.

    Like

  27. April 11, 2013 5:29 pm

    Helena you will have a lot of calculating to do. The hypothesis is interesting indeed. Maybe special medical witnesses will be necessary again.

    Like

  28. April 11, 2013 5:01 pm

    “Murray obviously started infusing the propofol long before he said he did because there was appparently 2 empty 100ml vials”

    Lynande, yes, it is necessary to remind everyone that the quantity given to Michael that night was more than 200ml of propofol. But you know what? Now that I am reading my own notes about the trial I find very strange things which make me believe that someone was trying to stage the scene as if Murray had given Michael that propofol by dripping, while in reality all 200ml were probably delivered by a syringe.

    200ml are TWO BOTTLES. And this means that someone opened one bottle and pushed it in, and then opened the second bottle and pushed it in again (by a syringe!) and then put the second bottle in the bag. The bag itself was CLEAN of propofol and the tubing that ran from it was CLEAN too. This scene could be staged only by someone who wanted everyone to think that Michael received all that quantity by dripping .

    In the hurry and anxiety of Murray’s trial (and not yet knowing the real quantity of propofol given which became known only in the last days of the trial) we were unable to fully grasp the meaning of it. But now we can. Someone pushed all those 2 bottles into Michael by a syringe and not by IV, and the proof of it is the tubing starting from the bag on the top and running all the way down up to the place where the syringe was connected to it. The tubing was CLEAN – so no propofol had run down it – so in this particular case no IV was used.

    Please read Dan Anderson’s testimony on the 2nd week of the trial and see what your impression of the whole thing will be: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/conrad-murray-trial-week-2/

    I would like to make a clearer summary of it (not ready yet) but even in the process of refreshing it in my memory my hair is already standing on end. This is what I wrote about it in October 2011:

    The diagram shows that part of the tubing system on the IV stand – from the saline bag (with an empty propofol vial inside it) to a clamp somewhere in the middle of the tubing – was cut off and all propofol went via a shorter side route, from the syringe direct into MJ’s body.

    This means that the whole cumulative quantity of the propofol used (which is at least 180 ml judging by the vials calculated above) was pushed manually. The syringe via which it was pushed was hanging on the stand.

    But if all propofol was administered manually by a syringe how come an empty 100ml vial got into a bag on the top of the IV stand?

    This question is not idle because it means that someone first pushed all that propofol by a syringe (one 20ml vial dropped on the floor, another 20ml from the bag, three more partially empty 20ml vials and finally a big 100ml vial) and then stood up and put the empty vial into the bag through a slit on it.

    Michael is ruled out for obvious reasons and the only other man who could have done it is Murray. Why did he stand up and put it there I wonder?


    Please pay attention to the cut (clamp) at the end of the long tubing (F) – up to this point the tubing was CLEAN.

    Now that I look at this diagram I would like to ask a different question – was Murray interested in creating the impression that all propofol was administered via dripping? Isn’t it much more probable that someone else wanted to create this impression? And they simply forgot that not only the bottle should be up on the IV stand but the tubing should also contain traces of propofol?

    I am not ruling out that Murray himself could deliver everything by a syringe and then try to create the impression that propofol had been dripping. This is how I understood it when I was writing about it in November.

    But whether it was Murray or someone else in both cases it means that 200 ml of propofol were delivered by a syringe.

    What it means please decide yourself.

    P.S. Please give me some time to make a summary of it.

    Like

  29. lynande51 permalink
    April 11, 2013 3:22 pm

    Yes that’s right. I think he was in danger of losing his ability to bill medicare and Medicaid.

    Like

  30. April 11, 2013 1:56 pm

    On Rose Speaks there was written that Murray owned a huge sum for overbilling. That seems to have been forgottten.

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    April 11, 2013 3:45 am

    Well Murray obviously started infusing the propofol long before he said he did because there was appparently 2 empty 100ml vials which would be 2000mg of propfol. In his statement he says it is around 6:30 AM when he has MJ stand and empty his bag. He got 450 ml of urine from the bag. It also had propofol in it which, if he was telling the truth, should not have been there because he said he did not give the propofol until 10:40 AM and had not given it for 2 days prior to that.
    I think Wass will have quite the uphill battle with an appeal because in order to appeal the verdict you first have to prove a reversible error. I am not sure what they think that error was but everything that Murray says now was actually covered by Steven Shafer and David Walgren. Murray is also trying to say that they tampered with evidence when Dr. Shafer used the decal haging tab on the propofol during the demonstration.
    Murray is basically a hopeless sociopath looking to get a life back that he does not deserve. Did you know that on 11/9/11 a nuclearcardio company sued him for unpaid services or equipment for $147,000.00. Apparently they found out before the rest of the world that Murray was getting paid by MSNBC or NBC for his interview and they wanted to get paid.To me that is just one more thing that tells me that Murray never had or ever will have any integrity.

    Like

  32. April 11, 2013 12:51 am

    According to the propofol found in the bladder Michael had been given 2063.xx mgs of propofol.That does not include the amount that still was in his blood. And the bottle on a table containing urine had just a bit less.

    Like

  33. April 6, 2013 1:48 am

    “Helena, here’s the video of Mesereau’s second interview with Piers Morgan. This one also includes Murray’s attorney as well” – sanemjfan

    David, thank you. I’ve finally read the transcript of it and was amazed to see this woman openly telling us LIES. She says Murray did not give any propofol at all while Murray admitted that he did (25ml of it). Then she says that Michael self-injected those 25ml, though the trial proved that it was technically impossible.

    But even this is not the point. Dr. Shafer showed that to reach the level of propofol which was in Michael’s blood Murray had to give him not 25mln, but something around 200ml or even more.

    The theory of 25ml was thoroughly examined at the trial and was proven to be totally wrong. Well, if Murray is sure that it was only 25ml, then somebody else must have given Michael the remaining 175ml. Let Murray name this person then.

    Thomas Mesereau also gives a very good comment on Conrad Murray’s contract with AEG. Now it is late here but tomorrow I’ll try to update the post with his comment.

    Here is the conversation between Thomas Mesereau, Valerie Wass and Piers Morgan:

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    CONRAD MURRAY, MICHAEL JACKSON’S FORMER PHYSICIAN: (Singing) He’s a little boy that Santa Claus forgot and goodness knows he did not want a lot, he wrote a note to Santa for some crayons and a toy, it broke his little heart when he found Santa hadn’t come.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    MORGAN: A surreal moment from Anderson Cooper’s interview with Dr. Conrad Murray when the convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Michael Jackson’s death burst into song on live television last night. Meanwhile, jury selection continues in Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit against AEG, seeking $40 billion.

    Now Conrad Murray’s attorney, Valerie Wass, is here to go head-to-head with Michael Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau.

    Welcome to you, Valerie Wass. You weren’t happy watching Tom and I discussing this last night. Why not?

    VALERIE WASS, ATTORNEY FOR DR. CONRAD MURRAY: Well, I felt that he was — he was viewed in a — in a wrong manner. I feel very strongly about Dr. Murray, and that he’s a compassionate man and I believe that he is an innocent man. I believe he was wrongly convicted. And I don’t know if Tom really knows the facts of the case and has read the record and all of the evidence, such as I have done for the last year.

    THOMAS A. MESEREAU JR., DEFENDED MICHAEL JACKSON IN MOLESTATION TRIAL: I haven’t read — I haven’t — I haven’t read the record, but I watched a lot of the trial. And every single physician in this courtroom, including the — including Murray’s own expert, thought that having propofol in the home and administering it the way he did was a gross deviation from the medical standard of care.

    Nobody justified having propofol in their house. Nobody justified administering it the way he apparently did. He didn’t have the equipment, he didn’t have personnel assisting him. He didn’t have backup equipment. He didn’t have the medications you need if something goes wrong. He didn’t have the power supply if something goes wrong. Everything he did, in my opinion, was a disgrace, and I think he caused the death of Michael Jackson.

    MORGAN: Valerie?

    WASS: Well, even if he deviated from the standard of care, he didn’t cause the death of Michael Jackson because on the night Michael Jackson died, he was not on a propofol drip. And that’s what nobody understands. And using propofol in a home is not — is not illegal. It’s not — it’s not illegal. It’s an off-label use. And off-label use —

    MESEREAU: Did you read the toxicology?

    WASS: Absolutely.

    MESEREAU: The toxicology — the toxicology examined eight specimens from his body. The stomach, the liver, the heart, the veins, the femoral artery. He had propofol in every single of the eight specimens, OK?

    WASS: That’s correct. And the toxicology results are — MESEREAU: I mean, he was loaded with propofol.

    WASS: He was loaded from propofol from a 25 milligram bolus injection that Michael Jackson self-administered shortly before he died. It matches up with all the toxicology findings.

    MESEREAU: First of all the — the amount of propofol grossly exceeded the 25 that Mr. — Dr. Murray said he administered. First of all. Second of all —

    WASS: That’s right. Because Jackson administered another 25 milligram dose.

    MESEREAU: Well —

    WASS: And when he administered rapidly, that’s what caused cardiac arrest and it comports with the toxicology results.

    MESEREAU: Well, the jury came back in eight hours, finding that Michael Jackson did not self-administer propofol, that your client was grossly negligent and caused his death. And now listen, I don’t think he intentionally did this. He wasn’t charged with premeditated murder, he was charged with gross negligence, involuntary manslaughter, and every single expert that testified admitted he had committed gross negligence in a variety of ways.

    One expert said there was 17 acts of gross negligence. Propofol in the home, administering it the way he did —

    WASS: That’s right. But he was not on a propofol drip on that night, how can he be — there was no cause.

    (CROSSTALK)

    MESEREAU: Your client told the police —

    WASS: No, the two months that Dr. Murray administered propofol to Michael Jackson on a drip, Michael Jackson was fine. It was after he stopped administering the propofol drips that he died.

    MESEREAU: Well, that’s your argument. I understand that. And I think you’re doing a commendable job defending him. The problem is, the jury rejected it in eight hours and every single medical expert rejected it as well.

    WASS: I actually spoke to one of the jurors last summer and found it really interesting that they adopted this slit saline bag theory. It was a ludicrous theory that was — that probably came about because the prosecutor popped the tab on the Exhibit 30 bottle and they were forced to find another way to hang the bag. It was an absurd method. No — even the prosecution’s expert had never heard of such an absurd method of hanging a drip.

    MESEREAU: Well, your client ordered propofol, took it into his home. I think he had it delivered to his girlfriend’s apartment, took gallons into his home and that alone was a gross deviation from acceptable medical standards.

    WASS: That’s right. But it’s not — it’s not a causative factor. That’s the difference.

    MESEREAU: It’s not a causative factor? Then what caused his death? Every single specimen was loaded with propofol. It was a propofol induced death. That was the cause of death and nobody really disputed that. The argument was, where did the propofol come from, and Murray should not have brought it in the home. It doesn’t belong in the home. It’s not a treatment for insomnia.

    (CROSSTALK)

    WASS: Michael Jackson had his own stash of propofol when Dr. Murray first started treating Michael Jackson. There’s evidence that he was on propofol —

    MORGAN: OK. Let me — let me jump in and speak — it’s been fascinating to watch you both go at it. He’s obviously already been tried and is in jail as a result. Let’s move to what this new trial is basically going to come down to, which involves a responsibility aspect of who was really employing Conrad Murray.

    And I’ll remind you of an e-mail from the AEG Live co-CEO Paul Gongaware, which has emerged. We simply want to remind Murray that it’s AEG, not MJ, Michael Jackson, who is paying his salary. We want to remind him what is expected of him.

    Now, Valerie Wass, what did that e-mail mean? What was expected of Conrad Murray, and is it true that it was AEG paying Conrad Murray directly, not Michael Jackson?

    WASS: First of all, I’d like to point out that Conrad Murray never received a dime for caring for Michael Jackson. He took care of him for two months and was not paid a dime. The contract was supposed to be retroactive to May 1st and he still has not been paid a dime for his care of Jackson.

    MESEREAU: But he was supposed to be paid. He signed an agreement prepared by AEG which said AEG would pay him. He signed it.

    WASS: He did sign it —

    MORGAN: So he was going to be paid. The reason they haven’t — the reason they haven’t paid since — obviously he was paid to take care of Michael Jackson. And Michael Jackson died in his care. So —

    WASS: Isn’t a doctor paid — if you render services for two months, aren’t you paid for those services if your patient dies and suddenly you aren’t — you don’t get paid for the two months that you took care of a patient?

    MORGAN: But that becomes an issue of litigation between Conrad Murray and AEG, I guess. But — so what you’re saying is —

    (CROSSTALK) WASS: You’re assuming that he was — you’re assuming that he was employed by AEG. I don’t think that’s been established. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk case like Tom believes.

    MORGAN: Well, all I’m assuming is that — I’m not assuming anything. I’m reading an e-mail from one of the bosses of AEG, saying we want to remind Murray that it’s AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. It’s pretty clear —

    WASS: Well, AEG was advancing all three production costs. I believe it was $40 million of pre-production costs were paid at the time Michael Jackson died. Just because they were advancing those costs doesn’t mean that AEG was the employer of Conrad Murray.

    MORGAN: So when AEG say — they should be reminding Murray it’s AEG, not Jackson, who is paying his salary, they didn’t know what they were talking about.

    WASS: Well, for one thing, that e-mail did not come out in trial. Suddenly all these e-mails appeared that the defense did not have during the trial. And I’m curious why those e-mails were not produced during discovery in the criminal trial. But any event —

    MORGAN: Well, Tom, I mean — Tom, from a legal point of view, that e- mail is going to be pretty significant, isn’t it?

    MESEREAU: Very significant. Because AEG’s lawyers drafted an employment agreement, they sent it to Dr. Murray and Dr. Murray signed it. I don’t know if he actually returned it or not, AEG is now saying we never actually signed it. But that’s not going to hold up. Under the law, all of this evidence, the agreement they prepared, the fact that Dr. Murray signed it, the e-mails, the discussions that took place, all of this is going to show there was an employment understanding between Murray and AEG.

    WASS: Right, but —

    MESEREAU: Look —

    WASS: But don’t you know that in Dr. Murray’s statement to the police two days after Michael Jackson died, he stated that he was — it was his understanding that he was employed by Michael Jackson, and he subsequently learned that he was to be paid by AEG. So he said Michael Jackson’s —

    MESEREAU: How long was the agreement —

    WASS: — lawyer and AEG was going to be paying his salary.

    MESEREAU: He may have said it, but who prepared the agreement and who was the agreement with? It was with AEG. In fact, that agreement, as I understand it, required AEG to provide medical equipment to Dr. Murray. And when the agreement terminated, the equipment was supposed to revert back to AEG.

    MORGAN: Well, doubtless we will — we will find out more of this as this trial develops. So it’s been great talking to you both. And a good legal battle there. And there will be more to come the next few weeks. And please come back and we’ll debate it again.

    Thank you both very much.

    MESEREAU: Thank you, Piers.

    WASS: Thank you, Piers.

    http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1304/03/pmt.01.html

    Like

  34. kaarin22 permalink
    April 5, 2013 10:55 am

    My e/mail addressill change soon

    Like

  35. sanemjfan permalink
    April 4, 2013 8:22 pm

    Helena, here’s the video of Mesereau’s second interview with Piers Morgan. This one also includes Murray’s attorney as well:

    Like

  36. Marie permalink
    April 4, 2013 8:33 pm

    Thank you for this post and for all the work you have done to help untangle the complicated lies and attempts to defame Michael over the years. I hope that this current trial will finally expose AEG’s terrible treatment of Michael and provide some sense of vindication for his family. I feel confident that Tom Mesereau will make a significant contribution with his testimony.

    Like

  37. lynande51 permalink
    April 4, 2013 7:38 pm

    The key to winning this case is in the drafts of the contract with AEG, Michael and Murray. People don’t seem to understand that Michael was not in control with that contract AEG,AEG was. That contract that he had with AEG basically made Michael an employee of AEG,one that owed them money.At least those were the thoughts of Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware based on emails between the two of them.
    Then as the rehearsals became a matter of importance to them they pushed Michael to do Murray’s bidding putting Murray in charge of Michael not only getting to rehearsals with the threat that they would pull the plug on the tour. That is the conversations that Prince will be testifying to.

    Like

  38. April 4, 2013 5:51 am

    If it were not for Tom Mesereau Michael would have not legal representation. As with the Murray trial it is Michael who is once again on trial. Michael and we are fortunate that Mr. Mesereau is someone who not Dimond, Grace, Oprah or Morgan will challenge him and what he knows. He is the only attorney who Michael had that defended him then and does so now.

    At this moment he and Murray’s Appeals Attorney are discussing the Wrongful Death Suit and Conrad Murray.

    Got to record this.

    Like

  39. Sina permalink
    April 4, 2013 3:20 am

    I agree wholeheartedly with TM . He never failed Michael, that is true loyalty.
    I wonder how Prince and Paris feel that there are fans who choose to side with AEG over supporting them. How loyalty flies out of the window when ego takes over.
    Michaels life story.
    AEG s lawyer is already getting the backlash for his disgusting behaviour .After his derogatory talk about Michael he is now trying to get a gag order, probably after hearing how ignorant he sounded next to TMs poignant professionalism.
    But I believe the judge wont have it. He should have gagged his ignorant self.

    Murray again showed his coldheartednes again blaming the victim. He just proved that he is a threat to society and should never ever again be allowed near any human being for any kind of medical treatment. How embarassed must his patients be who once rallied for their beloved doctor.
    I was thinking his texting or making a call about Michaels medical exam to the insurance company or to AEG. Wasnt it at a time when Michael must already have been in coma.

    Like

  40. April 4, 2013 2:18 am

    Isn’t it great to see Tom Mesereau as the Jackson expert vs. Dimond? Murray is a disgrace and simply going by what his lying lawyers and television personalities told him. He knows full well that Michael wasn’t an addict and that the amounts of propofol can only be traced to him. Not only that, he’s bringing up Demerol – where did that come from – there were no pain killers in Michael’s body when he died.

    Like

  41. April 3, 2013 11:49 pm

    Thomas Mesereu saw clearly what was going on. Instead of being supportive and ecouraging, going easy in the beginning with the original 10 shows as planned AEG plunged in with force, increasing pressure and with a demeaning attitude towards Michael. And the highly biased contract.

    Like

  42. April 3, 2013 11:27 pm

    Clearly, there is no more articulate, credible spokesperson to speak to the issues surrounding Michael Jackson’s senseless death than Tom Mesereau. His response to Piers Morgan as Piers was suggesting that Michael was temperamental, unpredicable and fraught with issues as so many pop stars, was brilliant. Mesereau responded by asking why AEG would enter into a collaboration with Michael if he was so unstable in the first place? AEG has blood on its collective hands. I began to suspect their involvement before the Murray trial began. All we can hope for is that the jury is competent and weighs the evidence fairly and they’re found guilty.

    Like

  43. April 3, 2013 8:17 pm

    Attorney Thomas MESEREAU – L.O.V.E., The king of justice.

    Like

  44. nannorris permalink
    April 3, 2013 7:53 pm

    Tom does an excellent job of explaining the Jackson side of this suit. When he speaks, people listen. I hope his is front and center during this awful trial

    Like

  45. April 3, 2013 6:55 pm

    “This is all making me depressed…” – ettelra

    This is true. It is extremely depressing to look into the face of Evil – not even frightening, but disheartening and nauseous. It is with a sinking feeling that you look into this bottomless black hole with no chance, no hope and no help from anywhere at all.

    But now we can at least imagine how Michael Jackson felt when he found himself face to face with the AEG machine.

    Like

  46. April 3, 2013 6:18 pm

    Thomas Barrack and AEG you have taken advantage of a vulnerable man.

    Like

  47. April 3, 2013 6:17 pm

    I hope Katherine is able to get justice for MJ 😦 This is all making me depressed…

    Like

  48. April 3, 2013 3:27 pm

    “I saw that interview with Tom.� And I have to say, that he seems to the only one who really is on Michael’s side and tells the truth.� Go Tom Mesereau!!”

    Well, pegasus dogs, I am surprised to hear that Thomas Mesereu is the only one to support Michael’s mother (are all the rest too blind not to see the truth?), but even if he is really the only one, his professional opinion is worthy of the opinions of thousands of laypeople who are brainwashed by AEG’s provocateurs working all over the internet now (and ever since Michael’s death).

    Like

  49. pegasus dogs permalink
    April 3, 2013 2:45 pm

    I saw that interview with Tom. And I have to say, that he seems to the only one who really is on Michael’s side and tells the truth. Go Tom Mesereau!!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: