Return to Transcripts main page
Jane Velez-Mitchell
Jury Deliberates Fate of Conrad Murray
Aired November 04, 2011 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Next, we watch the drama inside and outside of court in the Michael Jackson death trial. Shocking details about the King of Pop`s personal life. Fans screaming for justice. Disturbing audio of a drugged Michael Jackson slurring his words. Dr. Murray`s play-by-play of the moment Jackson died. But it all comes down to one question: was Dr. Murray responsible for the death of Michael Jackson?
ED CHERNOFF, ATTORNEY FOR CONRAD MURRAY: Dr. Murray did not kill Michael Jackson.
DAVID WALGREN, PROSECUTOR: It is gross negligence, and it`s a direct cause of Michael Jackson`s death.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`ll talk to a team of experts, and we`ll take your calls.
ISSUES starts now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On verdict watch at HLN. The jury has the case in the death of the King of Pop.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Murray! Dr. Murray! Dr. Murray!
WALGREN: What Conrad Murray was doing was a pharmaceutical experiment on Michael Jackson.
CHERNOFF: They want you to convict Dr. Murray for the actions of Michael Jackson.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve come to give Dr. Murray support. He saved my life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m here for justice, not only for Michael Jackson; for the last person that has to go through the same thing and the family has to suffer.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re here for Michael. And that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) down there, you know, for Conrad Murray, and it`s wrong. The man murdered Michael, straight up. He murdered him, and we are here to see justice served.
(CHANTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Will there be justice for Michael Jackson? It`s all in the hands of the jury right now. We are in verdict watch as we speak.
Good evening, everyone. Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live from Los Angeles, right next to the L.A. Superior Court building, where you can cut the tension with a knife. I`ve been out there all day.
Now, look at the jury clock. OK? It`s going to come up in a second. It`s there, OK? They`ve been deliberating for more than seven hours. OK, 7 1/2 hours, approximately. And they`re studying testimony that has been going on for six weeks.
That`s nothing compared to the white-hot battles happening right outside court. I was right in the thick of it and, wow, has it gotten heated out there. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: he murdered him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They said he murdered him. He did not murder him. Somebody else did.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The charges are manslaughter, and he should get more than four years.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This young lady called me the "B" word.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn`t kill him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was negligent. He was negligent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn`t murder him, though. He didn`t murder him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A doctor is supposed to help, not kill.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop all of this "B" word, "M.F.," calling people this. This is not what -- this is not the place for this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, and I agree with that, lady. We got to know each other today, and I agree. Things have to stay civil.
Back inside the deliberation room, the jury is nearly done for the weekend. But so far, they have not reached a verdict. They are still talking, last we heard. If they don`t announce one soon, guess what? We`re back here on Monday continuing with the deliberations.
Now that`s why tensions, I think, are heated. They`re really hitting a fever pitch out there. Even the Jackson family is on pins and needles. On Twitter, La Toya wrote, just a little while ago, "I`m so shaky right now waiting for a verdict. Every little noise has me jumping out of my skin." She said it well.
Late this afternoon, Michael`s parents, Katherine and Joe Jackson, checked into a hotel right near the courthouse so they can be close whenever a verdict comes in. We are all at the edge of our seats. When do you think we`re going to get a verdict? And what do you think that verdict will be? Give me a call: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. I want to hear from you.
First, straight out to Michael Christian, "In Session" reporter, producer, right at court. He is like -- almost got his ear on the -- on the wall of the courtroom. What is going on, Michael, right this second?
MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, REPORTER, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION" (via phone): You know, Jane, obviously the day is winding down. Spectators here in the hallway on the ninth floor ([h) seem resigned to the fact that there`s not going to be a verdict today, and yet, the jurors are still deliberating.
They basically can set their own hours for coming in in the morning, but really there`s no way they`re going to deliberate past about 4:15 local time. That would be 15 minutes from now. So clearly they`ve got to be winding down in that jury room, but they are still at it at this point.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. protesters outside are nothing, if not passionate. Check this out. This is what I was in the middle of all day long today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Michael!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Richard Herman, criminal defense attorney, the fans are mad. They want justice. They were hoping for a verdict today. But the fact that the deliberations have gone on even this long, does that show that this may not be the open-and-shut case that many say it was?
RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, whoever said it was an open-and-shut case doesn`t know what we`re talking about, Jane.
I fear for your safety with this crowd. Because, you know, no Propofol drip, you must acquit. This guy`s going to walk out of this courthouse like O.J. did. Jane, it`s going to be mayhem out there.
Yes, the longer it goes, the better it is for the defense here. I believe the sides -- the jury is polarized. There`s one side pulling for Michael Jackson, one for Murray. They`re just not going to give up their positions. That`s why there`s no flash verdict here like we saw in the Casey Anthony case. We`re going to be into next week with this, Jane.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, you`re in one ring. On the other side of the ring, Hamid Towfigh. And you are a former deputy D.A. in Los Angeles. So you represent the prosecution here. You heard a defense attorney saying he`s going to walk.
HAMID TOWFIGH, FORMER DEPUTY D.A. IN LOS ANGELES: Well, I doubt that. In any side is disappointed that it`s taking so long, it`s certainly the prosecution.
But two really good things for the prosecution happened today. One is that the jurors asked for highlighters and writing utensils, and then two, second is they still haven`t asked for any read-back of testimony. The reason the highlighters are actually significant is a Los Angeles County jury room is where they`re deliberating. There`s only a chalk board, a dry erase board and you`ve got the evidence with the jury instructions, and you`re not allowed to write on anything other than on the evidence. So the only thing you can write on is the jury instructions.
So I think the reason they wanted that is the jury is going straight to the jury instructions. They`re going to the law. And that`s always good for the prosecution.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, guess what? I went straight to the jury instructions. And I kind of call myself the 13th juror. Look what I did with the instructions. Take a look at that. I`m trying to make sense of it, OK? They`re very complicated.
When we tell you about it here on HLN, we boil it down and make it very simple for the viewers, very simple graphics. But this -- this stuff, page after page after page is extremely complicated. And I`ve got to say, if you take that and you add the medical mumbo jumbo that has been spewed in this trial, the jurors are going to have to sort through a whole lot. Because some of the stuff that was said by, particularly by the defense, I think, was really confusing. Listen to this from closing statement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHERNOFF: What did the prosecution tell you over and over again? Well, it`s just 126 of a pill. It`s just 1-300th of a pill. This is just math. You could keep going: 125 down to -- 075. Something like that. Keep going, ever 22 minutes, so finally you can get down to .08.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. You know what? Everybody, you can say, I knew that. I know what he`s talking about. I go around and I ask people, what -- using some of the phrases that have come up in this trial, what`s first-pass (ph) metabolism? What`s bio-availability? Nobody knows.
I want to go to Ian Halperin, author of "Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson." And actually, we`re going to -- he`s going to join us in a second.
But Susan Constantine, jury consultant, you`ve been studying these jurors. I -- my hat`s off to them. They have endured 22 days of often mind-numbing testimony. Do you think they are in quicksand tonight?
SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT: Really, right now, they`re exhausted. They`ve had several days that they`ve been in court. Now they`re in deliberation. This is a very savvy jury. You know, we`ve got most all of them, they`ve served on juries before. So they know how exactly how to sift through the evidence.
The thing is, I don`t think that -- where we`re missing this mark here is we cannot look at this like attorneys. These are the general public. They`ve got to go through line item by line item by line item and understand and make sense of all of the legal mumbo jumbo. So that`s what took up part of the time.
Now what they`ve got to do now is the reason why they`re asking for all of this information, because this is an evidence-based jury pool. They want to cross every "I" and cross -- dot every "I" and cross every "t" before they come up with the verdict.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s take a look at this jury by the numbers. Seven men, five women. Eight of them at least have served on a jury before. So they`re not novices here. They know what it entails.
Five of them have personal experience with addiction, and three of them watched the Casey Anthony trial.
Now, I understand we just got two buzzes. Two buzzes. That -- that is a question or a break, Hamid. That is not a verdict. It is -- we only have a couple of more minutes of deliberation for the day, because he said we`re going to follow a regular schedule, and it usually goes to 7:15. So what do you think two buzzes means?
TOWFIGH: It`s probably a question. I think their question could be, "Could we stay longer and deliberate?" That`s possible. We saw in the Casey Anthony trial, they actually went into the weekend. In Los Angeles, that doesn`t happen, because the sheriffs don`t -- can`t be paid overtime. There`s budget issues. They may want to stay longer in this case. That`s definitely a possibility.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. So you`re saying to me, if they want to stay longer, the judge can only allow them to stay a little bit longer because of overtime, because of financial constraints?
TOWFIGH: The judge -- absolutely. The judge can allow them to stay longer if he wants but probably because of financial and budget issues, he will not.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. This is fascinating.
The jury is going home. We just heard that the jury is going home. OK. Day one. You heard it here. Day one of deliberations done, and there is no verdict.
Michael Christian, you`re right outside -- the building we`re looking at, you`re right there at the action. What do you know?
CHRISTIAN: Approximately one minute ago, Jane, the jury buzzed twice. That is a signal for a request, and their request was to leave for the day. So deliberations have finished for the day. They will be continuing Monday morning, we believe, at 8:30 local time, again, 11:30 Eastern. But again, the jurors are finished deliberating for today, so deliberations in this trial will continue on Monday morning.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, you heard it here. We are here for the duration. The jury going home. But we`re going to be back on Monday.
But don`t go anywhere, because we have analysis of all of the drama, inside the court, outside court, the trial highlights, the low lights, the confrontation, of course. Hang in there. We have everything you need to know here. And also go to HLNTV.com, HLNTV.com. It`s your crib note for this trial. Everything you need to know.
We`ll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You see that? That`s why I love Michael Jackson. I love Michael Jackson.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right is right, wrong is wrong. That`s why we`re here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): When I had you to myself I didn`t want you around. The familiar faces always make you stand out in the crowd.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL JACKSON, POP STAR: This will be it. This is it. When I say this is it, it really means this is it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He entered into rehearsal full of energy.
JERMAINE JACKSON, BROTHER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: The legendary King of Pop, Michael Jackson, passed away on Thursday, June 25.
M. JACKSON: This is it.
DR. CONRAD MURRAY, ON TRIAL FOR MICHAEL JACKSON`S DEATH: He complained that he couldn`t perform. He would have to cancel rehearsals again.
WALGREN: Did Michael Jackson yell out for help? Did he gasp?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was negligent. A doctor is...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn`t murder him, though. He didn`t murder him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A doctor is supposed to help, not kill.
WALGREN: Would it still be your opinion that Conrad Murray is directly responsible for the death of Michael Jackson?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So what if he`s the junkie or he was a drug addict? He did not deserve to die.
WALGREN: Did he choke? Were there sounds? We don`t know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he said he was very happy, because he felt like we were accomplishing the dream.
M. JACKSON: This is it. And see you in July.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Michael! Justice for Michael!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This one gal here, I found parking. I could have very well stayed at home in my peaceful environment.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You told me that you were red-hot mad.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Red hot. Meaning whatever pepper is the hottest, whatever chili is the hottest. I was hot when I got down here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: That lady came down to court because she heard that Katherine Jackson was headed to downtown L.A. It was a game of telephone. Her relatives told her there`s going to be a verdict. She got down there and found out, no, no. Just because Katherine Jackson came to a hotel in downtown Los Angeles, that does not mean we`ve already reached a verdict. We did not.
The jury just finished their first day of deliberations moments ago. They deliberated for seven hours, 40 minutes and 42 seconds before going home moments ago.
Richard Herman, you see the passion out there. You see how worked up people have gotten. Was there sort of this false expectation of, "Oh, we`re going to decide this lickety-split, and we`re not going to go into that quicksand of the medical evidence again?"
Because my personal feeling is, once they go into that medical evidence, who knows how long it will take?
HERMAN: No, Jane. You`re right. I mean, and you`re an attorney. If you were confused with those jury instructions...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m not an attorney.
HERMAN: You were?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m the 13th juror.
HERMAN: OK. I`m sorry. Madam Juror, Madam Juror, you read those instructions. You were confused. These jurors have no legal training. They`re absolutely confused. They`re confused with the evidence; they`re confused with the medical evidence.
What happened in that room when Conrad Murray walked out? How did it happen? How -- who caused it? I mean, there`s so many questions, unanswered questions.
Passion is one thing. You have to look at the evidence. Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Conrad Murray`s actions caused the death of Michael Jackson?
You know, Michael Jackson was doing drugs for a long time. He was an addict. These jurors remember him dangling a baby out of a window. They remember his criminal trials. Look, they`re going to take it into consideration. You may not want that to happen, but they are.
This is rife for a jury nullification. This is rife for some jurors to say, "No, we`re not going to blame Murray. Michael has to take responsibility for himself, and we`re not going to put it all on Conrad Murray."
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, OK. Now, we`ve boiled it down to pretty simple terms, saying there`s two theories that the jury has to consider. One is, did Conrad Murray commit a lawful act, giving Michael Jackson Propofol, but doing it was criminal negligence, doing it in his room?
The second one is did he fail, as his doctor, to perform his legal duty? For example, abandoning the patient, not calling 911, lying to the paramedics, lying to the E.R. doctors, failing to tell them that he gave him Propofol.
Now let me say this, we`re delighted to have Dr. Nat Strand, an anesthesiologist who has educated us here on set over the last many weeks about Propofol and the administration of Propofol, how hard is it going to be for them to deliberate the medical evidence?
NAT STRAND, ANESTHESIOLOGIST: You know, I really don`t think it`s going to be too hard. It`s a pretty cut-and-dry case. Of course, if they get into the details of blood levels and urine levels and how this is going, I think that they can get lost in it. But let`s remember, we don`t need the drip to acquire that, saying no drip, you must acquit. That`s an over-simplification. Look at what we do have. He wasn`t in the room. He wasn`t monitoring. He`s not...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: More on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael Jackson trusted Conrad Murray.
WALGREN: Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case is overwhelming. The evidence in this case is abundantly clear that Conrad Murray acted with criminal negligence.
(MUSIC: "Man in the Mirror")
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The last phase of the trial.
ALBERTO ALVAREZ, FORMER MICHAEL JACKSON SECURITY: We have a gentleman here that needs help, and he`s not breathing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The man murdered Michael, straight up he murdered him. And we are here to see justice served.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: What goes on during the hours and hours jurors are finally allowed to talk about the case amongst themselves? Check out HLNTV.com. We`ve got all of it, the total scoop behind the curtain of the deliberations. We have the breakdown of all of the scenarios. We`ve got all the action leading up to the verdict. You`ve got to check this out: HLNTV.com.
Now I want to take a look at some of the other famous trials and how long juries deliberated in those cases. O.J. Simpson, this is infamous. Less than four hours. Casey Anthony, ten hours, 40 minutes. Phil Specter, you know, the music mogul, murdered Lana Clarkson, 30 hours. Scott Peterson, seven days.
OK. So we have already hit seven hours, 42 minutes and 42 seconds. Ian Halperin, author, "Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson," what do you make of day one of deliberations coming and going with no verdict?
IAN HALPERIN, AUTHOR, "UNMASKED": Well, first off, Jane, congratulations to you. Big kudos for doing an outstanding job during this trial. You made it very exciting. You were very fair to both sides.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you.
HALPERIN: And it was an extremely compelling television. So again, congrats.
Look, the bottom line here, I really sincerely hope they deliver a guilty verdict. And this scares the willies out of every doctor in North America who have done malpractice in the past. This could be a strong precedent for what`s obviously going on in the room right now. They`re having problems. You know, it`s just going to take one person in that jury room to destroy a guilty verdict, and I think that`s what might be happening now. I hope I`m wrong.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, there is one woman with a biochemistry degree. It`s been a long day. A biochemistry degree. She is one of the most avid note-takers. And you know what they say, Dr. Nat Strand. You`re an anesthesiologist. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It could be that she or one of the other jurors is like, "You know what? I know the skinny on this complex medical testimony, and you`re going to need to agree with me." And all you need is that one person to set themselves up as an expert or one person to say, "I don`t understand it," and in confusion there is reasonable doubt. And if you have confrontation over the medical testimony, it`s so complicated. It can go on for a long time.
STRAND: I`m sure you`re right. If you`re one person that`s kind of rallying to everybody else to see what she sees, but even as a biochemistry major, or whatever degree she had in biochemistry, she`s still not really going to be familiar with Propofol. Let me just remind everybody that anesthesiology is four years of working about 80 hours a week before you`re certified to administer Propofol. So an anesthesiologist takes that long to really know the nitty-gritty about this drug.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think you`ve proven my point. Years to learn about Propofol. So how are they supposed to come up with a verdict in a couple of hours? Seven hours, 40 minutes, 42 seconds. What does next week hold? We`ll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURRAY: I am an innocent man.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Most people who have ever tried to get inside the courtroom are here today.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s not here to speak for himself and that`s why we`re here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The most basic, the most commonsense thing that we all learn as young children, that you call 91 immediately.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m here to get justice for Michael Jackson.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re ready to see justice done.
DAVID WALGREN, PROSECUTOR: What Conrad Murray was doing was a pharmaceutical experiment on Michael Jackson.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve come to give Dr. Murray support. He saved my life.
WALGREN: Conrad Murray left Prince, Paris, and Blanket without a father.
(INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m feeling like Conrad Murray is going down.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re here standing up for Dr. Conrad Murray. He`s an innocent man and we stand up for him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Conrad Murray has been accused of infusing a dose of Propofol and leaving this patient.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he should have called 911 sooner. I do not, however, think it would have made any difference in the outcome of this case.
JOE JACKSON, FATHER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: Justice. Justice. That`s what I want.
MURRAY: I told the truth and I have faith the truth will prevail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We have just concluded our first full day of jury deliberations in the Michael Jackson death trial. The jurors deliberated seven hours, 40 minutes and 42 seconds. They went home just a couple of minutes ago. Outside, Michael Jackson supporters were hopeful that there would be a verdict today and as the minutes and hours passed, tensions rose. Check this out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Michael.
Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Michael.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Susan Constantine, you`re a jury consultant. You read the jurors. Now, seven men, five women; about half of them Michael Jackson fans; but then, by the same token, about half of them have had experience with addiction in their families. So is that going to play off each other?
SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT: You know all of this is going to play. But what I`m looking at Jane, here is we`ve got again, seven men, five females. Females are generally harder on crime. So I think that the seven males is actually an advantage for Conrad Murray.
But let me tell you something, here we have juror number ten, and you mentioned this briefly; exactly what I wrote down. This person is going to have a tremendous amount of influence in that deliberation room even though this person does not have a medical background. The jury pool in itself will look to this person because they`ve got chemistry background.
Number two is head of business. This person could rally up the team. This is the one that is used to taking charge and has medical background -- or chemistry background. When I`m looking at the jury pool as whole, we`ve got a jury that -- again, what I`m going to mention is they are evidence- based, not emotion-based. I did not see any caretakers in this group here. They are going to make sure they`re going to get the exact right verdict. And that`s what I want to emphasize. That`s the reason why it`s taking so long.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, Marcia Clark said that she thinks that they are going to wait until Monday to make it look good. That they could wait until Monday to make it look good. In other words, if they come in too quickly, a lot of times people are going to say, oh, they didn`t really ponder the evidence.
So that`s what a lot of people said, for example, about the Casey Anthony case, that they just didn`t spend enough time. So if they come back on Monday and spend a good few hours studying it and then come with a verdict that might be respected a little bit more.
We`re going to go out to the phone lines. Cleveland, North Carolina; your question or thought, Cleveland?
CLEVELAND, NORTH CAROLINA (via telephone): Hello, Jane.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hi. How are you doing?
CLEVELAND: I love your show.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you.
CLEVELAND: I just want to speak really quickly about planting seeds in the jurors` minds and I don`t want anyone to get me wrong. Mr. Walgren and Ms. Brazil, did a stellar job, a laser job -- they were laser-focused. But on their closing rebuttal argument, right near at the end I just wish Mr. Walgren had not said at all what he said about, we may never know -- I can`t quote him verbatim -- but he said something like we may never know what exactly happens in the bedroom.
I wish the jurors hadn`t heard that because right at the end, after the 22-day trial, that plants seeds in the jurors` minds.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: A very good point, Cleveland.
Let`s go back to Hamid Towfigh. You`re a former deputy DA. He may have a point there. I mean why emphasize that nobody really knows what happened?
HAMID TOWFIGH, FORMER DEPUTY DA: Well, as a prosecutor, you never want to say, "You never know". Because a jury looks to you to explain to them what happened. You have to be confident. You have to have a firm theory of the case.
Walgren did have a firm theory of the case. But sometimes when he made that statement, I kind of questioned how the jury is going to look at that. They might glance over it.
One problem I had with this case all along is that the statement of Dr. Murray, which was integral to the case, Dave Walgren on the one hand is telling his experts, let`s take this as true and on the other hand he`s explaining to the jury that, well, this is was self-serving and he was trying to stay ahead of the game so maybe some of the stuff that he said wasn`t true.
So the question that the jury might have at some point is, which one is it? Are we to take the whole statement as true or not?
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re talking about when he talked to the cops.
TOWFIGH: Yes.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: When Dr. Conrad Murray talked to the cops --
TOWFIGH: Two days after the death.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- at the Ritz Carlton Marina del Ray two days after the death, before they knew that it was a homicide.
TOWFIGH: Right.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I thought that the prosecution did a very good job in explaining that one of the reasons they didn`t do everything right is that they didn`t know it was a homicide, originally. And they`re not psychic. So they didn`t know there was evidence to pick up because they weren`t regarding this as a homicide.
Now, one thing that certainly strikes me as very bizarre is all the time, more than 20 minutes that Dr. Conrad Murray took to call 911 or order that 911 be called. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALGREN: He left a voice mail message and he could have used that time to call 911. He should have used the time much earlier to call 911 but we know for a fact that at 12:12 he made this phone call to Michael Williams and made no mention of 911 whatsoever because Conrad Murray knew what he had done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Richard Herman, criminal defense attorney, there are a lot of people who say hey, he exhibited 17 extreme deviations from standard medical care. Any one of them could get him convicted on this. So that raises the question of why it`s taking so long. Any one of those numerous deviations from standard medical care, like not calling 911, could get him convicted.
RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, that`s what Dr. Shafer said, and I don`t buy it Jane. Dr. White when Dr. Murray when back in the room, Michael Jackson was dead; so it didn`t matter if he had called 911, that had nothing to do with the causation of Michael`s death.
You made a great point, a caller did. If the prosecution doesn`t know what happened in that room and one of more jurors believe that Conrad Murray only gave him a 25-milligram shot of Propofol, waited there for 20 minutes to a half hour when within seven minutes the Propofol was out of his system, he had every right to walk out of that room, he didn`t have to monitor him.
And if there is a superseding factor, intervening factor i.e., Michael Jackson drawing down some Lorazepam which was found in his stomach and/or injecting a lethal dose of Propofol, it`s over. Conrad Murray is going to walk out.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I have Dr. Nat Strand here who is an anesthesiologist and who has emphasized over the course of this trial, how many times Dr. Murray did extreme deviations from medical care. So what do you make of Richard Herman`s argument?
DR. NATALIE STRAND, ANESTHESIOLOGIST: Well, I have to say that one thing to remember is that Propofol was not the only drug in Michael`s system at the time. There were several different benzodiazepines as well as, we`ve talked about narcotics possibly playing a role.
That is why monitoring is the key. Even the defense expert from the anesthesiologist`s side said that Propofol was a great agent for monitored anesthesia care. Monitored is integral here. We don`t know because there are no medical records. What was Michael`s respiratory rate? What was his heart rate? What was his oxygen medical saturation?
If they have 20 or 30 minutes, maybe they would have a better case there but we don`t. We have no idea.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. But the very fact that he didn`t keep records is one of the extreme deviations from standard medical care. I could see this debate and this argument going on in the jury room today with some people saying like me, hey, any one of these, not keeping the right equipment, that`s a standard deviation, an extreme deviation, let`s convict him.
With someone else saying, wait, hold on. We don`t know the cause of death. Let`s go over the medical evidence again. And that could be the tug-of-war. Ten seconds.
TOWFIGH: It could be. That`s why I don`t think they should have kept on the biochemist on the jury. You don`t want people with so-called specific education on these issues. You need to keep it simple and when you have a biochemist in the jury room, they could make things complicated.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. Yes, it is complicated. But we`ve got our handle on as the jury have very specific rules they`ve got to follow. As a matter of fact, it`s wild. And we`ve got 12 pages of jury instructions. The very thing that the jurors looked at today, you can look on at hlntv.com.
Check out the jury instructions. See if you understand them. Or see if they seem very, very, very convoluted. Because one fan told me she thinks that Conrad Murray could walk because nobody could understand these jury instructions.
Check it out, hlntv.com. We`ll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These high school students are waiting to take a test that could change their lives. Not an SAT, but an EKG provided free through Screens for Teens. The tests can detect hidden heart conditions.
Mary Beth Schewitz started a program in 2007 after her son died from sudden cardiac arrest.
MARY BETH SCHEWITZ, SCREENS FOR TEENS: Max was a 20-year-old perfectly healthy adventurous boy who loved dealing with dangerous, venomous reptiles. But we never knew that the greatest risk to him was inside his own body.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With donations, Mary Beth sets up screenings in High Schools north of Chicago. Trained parent volunteers perform the EKG tests and cardiologists review the results.
SCHEWITZ: Every cardiac problem has a remedy if you find it in time.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Screens for Teens helped Caitlin Flery (ph) find out that she has a heart disorder.
CAITLIN, STUDENT: Without the testing -- the testings I had, I would just think they`re normal.
SCHEWITZ: Once you know, knowledge is power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We all have that sense of anticipation, what is going to happen? What is the jury going to decide?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If the people here for Michael Jackson stand for what Michael Jackson lived and stood for, it would be about peace. It would be about love.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: More and more people gathering here behind me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re here for Michael. And they`re carrying those signs out there, you know, for Conrad Murray and it`s wrong.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A doctor is supposed to help heal, not kill. We are (INAUDIBLE) for medical physicians; they are not to enable.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He had his own.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: The tempers are flaring.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Wild scene all day at the L.A. Courthouse, Day one of deliberations just concluded moments ago. They deliberated seven hours, 40 minutes, 42 seconds over the fate of Michael Jackson`s doctor, Conrad Murray.
Yes, it`s in the hands of the jury but, boy, outside one of the most intense days, the fans of Michael Jackson facing off against the passionate supporters of Dr. Conrad Murray.
We`ve got folks on both sides of the issue here with us tonight. We begin with Erin Jacobs, Michael Jackson fan, co-founder of JusticeforMichaelJackson.com. Why do you think it got so heated outside court today and what would you say to that gentleman who you had been arguing with?
ERIN JACOBS, CO-FOUNDER, JUSTICEFORMICHAELJACKSON.COM: I think it`s gotten heated because everybody is anxious, waiting for this verdict. We`ve been two years in the making here, waiting for Michael to have justice. And I think that that man that stands out on the curb every day, holding signs for an alleged killer is an idiot. And it`s a disgrace that he would speak negatively to the Jackson family when they walk into the courtroom. It`s just inappropriate.
They have a right to stand out there and look like fools if they want to. But absolutely to be disrespectful to the victim`s family is beyond comprehension.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Willie Hampton, a friend of Dr. Conrad Murray, what do you say to that criticism?
WILLIE HAMPTON, SUPPORTER OF DR. CONRAD MURRAY: First of all, she`s not talking about me. I have been very respectful to the Jackson`s family. I have tried to control my co-workers and asked them not to say things disrespectful to Michael`s mother, Mrs. Jackson. That`s the only person I`m concerned about.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So you`re saying, you did absolutely nothing inappropriate but why do you Willie think it got so heated outside court? Several times today there were verbal confrontations between the Michael Jackson fans and the Dr. Conrad Murray supporters and sometimes it was almost like a duel with the signs.
HAMPTON: Yes, we`re dealing with people who are emotionally disturbed and emotionally imbalanced. They don`t want to deal with the fact that the doctor is innocent. He did not kill his friend, his patient, Mr. Michael Jackson.
Mr. Michael Jackson was a superstar and hard-headed. Conrad Murray tried to help Michael. Conrad did everything he could. Michael was a hard case. Dr. Murray got in over his head with his patient, Michael Jackson. He was difficult to deal with.
But either way, somebody else was in that house and somebody else killed Michael Jackson. And the facts do indicate that something else happened and it was not brought out sufficiently by the defense attorneys, by the LAPD or the prosecutor or the defense team. Nobody dealt with all the other information that was available.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Erin, there is a sentiment among a lot of people that maybe we don`t have the whole story. Maybe there are other people who bear the responsibility. What do you say to that?
JACOBS: I completely disagree. I don`t agree with the conspiracy theory. We have no proof, substantial proof that there is anything involved other than what we`re dealing with in this courtroom.
And I wanted to point out something that Willie said. His co-workers, we all know that they are being paid to stand out there every single day with their professionally-made signs and for him to say that Conrad Murray is not guilty when we had doctor after doctor get on the stand and show how he broke the standard of care 16 different times is ludicrous.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, I asked Beatrice who is there, she is right there. She`s walking around. That`s Beatrice; we`ve all gotten to know her. I`ve gotten to know all the fans who are marching. That`s the lady walking right there with the hat and she has those signs that you say look professionally-made up.
She told me, Willie, that she`s not being paid. Is she being paid or is she not, in your opinion?
(CROSSTALK)
HAMPTON: No, nobody is being paid. No, ma`am, absolutely not.
JACOBS: Why did you say your co-worker? You`re a liar.
(CROSSTALK)
HAMPTON: We`re here on a mission to help Dr. Murray and to project his image correctly. Nobody is getting paid. Those signs -- I`m responsible for those signs. I have a law degree. I know Dr. Murray from Texas. He`s my friend. We have the same best friends. My friends in Texas and in Atlanta are relying on me to help Dr. Murray. I`m responsible for this. I am the team organizer. I am responsible. I did this.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I got you. Ten seconds, Erin respond.
JACOBS: I don`t believe you. I think you`re a liar and a fraud.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Uh-oh. All right. Well, listen Beatrice told me that she`s not being paid and I take her word for it.
A wild day and we`re going to keep you abreast right her on HLN.
Up next, more analysis from Nancy Grace.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The jury will have to decide whether he`s guilty or not guilty based on the he presented in court.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defendant is charged in count 1 with involuntary manslaughter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are here in Los Angeles on verdict watch. What is the jury going to decide? Who better than Nancy Grace to weigh in, former prosecutor extraordinaire? Nancy Grace I`m going to put you on the spot, a prediction -- guilty or not guilty.
NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: Well, you have to consider the source, Jane Velez-Mitchell because I was the one that said Simpson would go down on double murder and Tot Mom would get convicted. But I don`t think that there`s no way the jury can let Conrad Murray off the hook. Because that would mean that in this country, America, you can walk into a superstar`s mansion, dope him up with Propofol, let him die and then walk free.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, there are Conrad Murray supporters outside with signs that say "If there`s no drip, you must acquit", obviously a takeoff on the O.J. Simpson case. If you can listen for a second to Ed Chernoff, the defense attorney making this point --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED CHERNOFF, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CONRAD MURRAY: They spent six weeks trying to prove a drip because without a drip then what Dr. Murray gave Michael Jackson absolutely would not have harmed him without an unusual and intervening circumstance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. So, there`s Ed Chernoff talking about the prosecution saying that there has to be a drip when he`s saying there is no evidence of said drip.
GRACE: Well, there is evidence of a drip, number one. And I appreciate that Chernoff after all of these weeks of testimony he can boil down the whole case to a rhyme or one of the protesters can. You know what; that`s better suited to a rap musician not a homicide trial.
There is evidence of a drip. Number one, Alyssa Sleek (ph) the crime scene technician that saw it and testified to it; and number two, bodyguard Alberto Alvarez who stated that Conrad Murray asked him to dismantle the drip and put it away into a bag where it was later found.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Chernoff also spoke about a conspiracy theory. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHERNOFF: Alberto Alvarez has been offered $500,000 for his story. Now, how did Alberto Alvarez go from a story that`s worth $9,000 to a story that`s worth half a million dollars?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So, Nancy, what do you make of the conspiracy theory?
GRACE: The same thing I made of practically every conspiracy theory that`s ever been advanced. They really don`t exist. Come on. Do you really think that many people can stick together with a big fat lie and endure cross-examination? No. No, no, no, Jane. FYI -- if you`re ever going to commit a homicide just do it yourself. Don`t involve anybody else. As soon as you do they start blabbing. No way can this conspiracy theory hold up. It`s another loony theory advanced by Chernoff.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nancy Grace, thank you so much for weighing in. We appreciate your time. And we`ll remain on verdict watch. This is it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nancy, what`s next on "Dancing with the Stars"?
GRACE: Well, we`re in week eight. There are five couples left. We`re going to do the tango and the jive. And I`m not really sure exactly what the tango is all about? What is it Tristan.
TRISTAN MACMANUS, "DANCING WITH THE STARS": The tango, I mean we got a preview of the tango last week. We`ve done it with the group dance. This week we have our own dance. So I guess it`s pretty intense one. It`s going to be a fun one.
This week we have an instant jive as well. And the difference with the instant dance is that you only get your music maybe 20 minutes or so before you do that.
GRACE: Did you hear that, Jane? We`re going to have two dances one of them is a secret dance and we find out right before we go on the dance floor.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think that any secret that you unveil is going to be spectacular. I`ve said it before, I`ll say it again. Nancy, you rock. Tristan you rock. You can win this thing. I know you can.
END
