THOMAS MESEREAU on the AEG trial in an interview with Piers Morgan
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.
* * *
Related articles
- Thomas Mesereau on upcoming trial between Jacksons and concert promoter: “I think it’s an uphill battle for AEG” (piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com)
Vindicating Michael 
—————–
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
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.
LikeLike
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..
LikeLike
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????
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
Even that tape was a breach of Dr-Patient confidentiality.In the end it spoke well for Michael though.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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):
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.
LikeLike
Whether it was only Murray or not it is sure he will keep his own mouth shut.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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:
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:
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?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Helena you will have a lot of calculating to do. The hypothesis is interesting indeed. Maybe special medical witnesses will be necessary again.
LikeLike
“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:
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.
LikeLike
Yes that’s right. I think he was in danger of losing his ability to bill medicare and Medicaid.
LikeLike
On Rose Speaks there was written that Murray owned a huge sum for overbilling. That seems to have been forgottten.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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:
LikeLike
My e/mail addressill change soon
LikeLike
Helena, here’s the video of Mesereau’s second interview with Piers Morgan. This one also includes Murray’s attorney as well:
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Attorney Thomas MESEREAU – L.O.V.E., The king of justice.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
Thomas Barrack and AEG you have taken advantage of a vulnerable man.
LikeLike
I hope Katherine is able to get justice for MJ 😦 This is all making me depressed…
LikeLike
“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).
LikeLike
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!!
LikeLike