MsCassieMollie
Proud Member
TMez (Tom Mesereau) brief interview with Jane Velez Mitchell 10/4 :good:
CNN.com - Transcripts
CNN.com - Transcripts
TOM MESEREAU, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It`s fantasy. It`s speculation; it`s a desperate defense. And the only possible witness to that would be Conrad Murray, and after he didn`t come clean with the paramedics, the police, and the physicians at the hospital, how can you believe anything he says?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I am so delighted to be here with, well, one of the men I admire most in the United States of America, one of the best attorneys. I have always said -- jokingly, of course, but there`s a great truth in it -- if I ever get in trouble, I`m going to call Tom Mesereau, have him on my speed dial. One of the great attorneys, who successfully defended Michael Jackson in the 2005 child molestation trial.
And I watched you in action, Tom, and I learned a very important lesson. There`s no such thing as an open-and-shut case. When you defended Michael Jackson, a lot of people thought, it`s -- the prosecution`s got a slam dunk here, and they were kind of walking around like this. And you very quietly came in there and decimated their case. So taking a look at this case, how do you think the prosecution is doing thus far?
MESEREAU: So far, they`re doing very well. They`re presenting a very logical, orderly, clear, concise case, and I think it has impact. I don`t think they`re confusing anybody with what they`re bringing out on direct examination. I don`t think the defense has been able to do very much on cross yet, but you know, a trial is not over until it`s over. You can`t score it like a ball game. It`s not an inning-by-inning type of process. It all hangs together somehow at the end, and we may -- we may be in store for some surprises, you know, by the defense. So I wouldn`t sell them short yet.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, no. And if they`re not doing gangbusters in the prosecution`s case, then you know that the prosecution is really, really in trouble.
Now, I want to play a little bit more of the sound that we have, and Nicole Alvarez said something very interesting. She met Michael Jackson himself, and she was so excited about this, and he was very interested in her unborn child, the child she was having by Dr. Conrad Murray. Check this out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALVAREZ: Michael was very interested in the baby. He saw my stomach grow with the pregnancy, and he wanted to schedule visits so that he could see my son.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: It would appear that Dr. Conrad Murray, who didn`t even tell her that he was taking her, his girlfriend, to see Michael Jackson, and then she was just overcome with excitement, was using Michael Jackson as some kind of prize to reward his girlfriends or to show off to his girlfriends. Do you think that`s inappropriate for a doctor?
MESEREAU: I don`t find that`s terribly significant. You know, in the world of Michael Jackson, he was the -- he was the greatest celebrity on the planet. He was the greatest musical genius on the planet. And most people who met him, for any length of time, wanted to introduce friends, family, et cetera, so I don`t read too much into this. And I don`t think the jury in the end is going to care too much about the fact that he had a lot of pretty girlfriends.
What they`re going to care about is what they said in combination with all the rest of the evidence. And that`s where he`s got a real problem. He looks unprofessional. He looks mediocre. He looks narcissistic and selfish. At a time when he should be caring about his patient, he seems to be always caring about himself. And I think it may take him down.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. I want you to listen to this. It`s Sade Anding, the second of Dr. Conrad Murray`s lady friends to testify today. And she tells the court what Conrad said when police came to talk to her in the wake of Michael Jackson`s death. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDING: He told me, "What? Why? Why are they calling you? I`m so sorry that they`re contacting you. And, you know, now you`re in this, I`m going to give you my lawyer`s number. Call him and make sure before you speak to LAPD, you have my lawyer present."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So Dr. Conrad Murray wants to make sure, not that she sees any lawyer, that she is with his lawyer when she talks to the cops. What do you make of it?
MESEREAU: Again, I think this is a normal human reaction. He`s on the hot seat. He`s in trouble. He knows it. He`s already retained counsel. And now this -- one of his girlfriends is about to be approached by the police. He suggests she talk to a lawyer.
I don`t read a great deal into this. I think this is not something that`s going to take him down. And I think in the jury room, they`re going to be focused on the really damning evidence that came out of these women`s mouths, not the fact that they exist.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: What was the most damning thing, do you think?
MESEREAU: Oh, I think that he`s talking to them while he should be monitoring Michael Jackson. That he`s talking to them and concerned about them while Michael Jackson is basically dying. And -- and it just seems like everything he does is about me, me, me and not about the patient, patient, patient. It`s a real problem.
Even when Michael perhaps could have been saved, all he seems to think about is himself and his future and how he`s going to squirm out of this. It`s really -- really damning evidence.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, when we come back after the break, I want to talk about this little tiny thing here. Because I was trying to figure out what a milligram is. I`m like most people, I don`t know what the heck a milligram is.
MESEREAU: Don`t ask me.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s what I`m saying. You`re an attorney and you don`t know. Now, they keep talking about milligrams in this case, back and forth, both sides -- excuse me -- and it would seem to me that that`s going to confuse the jurors. A hundred and fifty-five thousand milligrams of Propofol. What the heck is that?
Well, we found out. We did a little research, and we found out it`s about four gallons, a little over four gallons. But I think the prosecution could lose the jury if they don`t start talking about gallons and a cap full, something that somebody can understand. Because this is a milligram.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact that he`s a cad and sees lots of women or cheats on them doesn`t make him not a good doctor, arguably. They should focus in on what`s important. And we`re getting into this side drama that all these big, high-profile dramas do. And I think it`s going to, in the end, it may hurt them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I am here with famed defense attorney, Tom Mesereau, and I want to tell you what happened, as soon as we went to commercial break, about five people raced at me, and they said, no, this isn`t -- what did I say originally? Anyway, this is 25 milligrams and this is -- you know what?
Here`s the point. What I`m saying is precisely the point. I`m not a doctor, and milligrams and milliliters leave me very confused. There has been a lot of testimony about milligrams and milliliters in this case, and it actually is very confusing to laypeople, such as myself, OK? That is extremely confusing.
So I want to go back to Tom Mesereau, because it was a perfect example. They told me, and I immediately got it wrong, because milligrams is not something I can wrap my head around. And unfortunately, for the prosecution, there is a lot of talk of milligrams of Propofol. Is that going to confuse the jury?
MESEREAU: I don`t think so, because they haven`t...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Just me? Just going to confuse me?
MESEREAU: Well, no, they haven`t called their forensic experts yet. Presumably, they`ll call good experts who will explain this very clearly, reduce it to very understandable terms, use visual aids to point out what they`re trying to explain to the jury. And I would think and hope that they will do their job effectively in making this very, very clear and understandable.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But you know that in past cases, what`s happened is that the prosecution has sometimes gotten bogged down. The 1995 Michael Jackson -- O.J. Simpson case was a perfect example of the DNA evidence dragged on and on and on. And it became overwhelming for the jury.
MESEREAU: Well, I agree with you. That was a time when DNA was not very well understood. In fact, half the trial judges in America were rejecting DNA at that point. It wasn`t known really whether -- how reliable it was. It wasn`t a household world like it is now.
And the defense did take advantage of that. You`re right. They did call experts. They did complicate it. And they also worked on -- remember CC`s of blood? They said CC`s of blood were missing, and the jury had to understand what that was. I think they did. The defense was able to explain what they wanted them to know and to confuse what they didn`t want them to know in that case. They did a very good job.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I really feel that the prosecution needs to say, OK, Dr. Conrad Murray told cops two days after Michael Jackson died that he gave him 25 milligrams of Propofol. That`s approximately this much, OK? That`s approximately -- show it, if you can, this much, right here. This much, OK? That I can understand. That I can understand.
And I think that`s what they need to get to and talk in gallons and pints and capfuls, as opposed to milligrams and milliliters. Your thoughts on that?
MESEREAU: Well, to me, the most important thing is how powerful whatever -- whatever he was given is. Whether you reduce it to some type of range that nobody understands is not the central issue. The issue is how much could kill him? How much should he have been given? What`s the impact of everything this doctor did? That all has to be explained.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Tom Mesereau, it`s so delightful having you on our show and you are just incredible at analyzing what`s happening during a case. Because we could think that the prosecution`s winning; we could think the defense is winning. We really don`t know what`s happening in the minds of jurors.
All right. We`re just getting started. Three girlfriends all talking about their Dr. Murray.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)