T-Mes was on last night on Anderson Cooper::wub:
transcripts from the whole segment on the trial
Here's Randi Kaye.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the hours after Michael Jackson died, investigators scoured the bedroom of his rented mansion for clues to what killed him. Elissa Fleak, an investigator with the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, found 12 bottles of the powerful anesthetic Propofol in Jackson's bedroom. She told the jury yesterday, one of them was empty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you locate on the floor a 20-milliliter bottle of Propofol?
ELISSA FLEAK, INVESTIGATOR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE: Yes, I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And where was that located?
FLEAK: On the floor next to the left side of the bed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And was it empty but for some drops of fluid as it is here today?
KAYE: The coroner says Jackson died of acute Propofol intoxication. His doctor, Conrad Murray, denies charges of manslaughter. In court, the jury learned Murray's fingerprint was found on the 100-milliliter bottle of Propofol that prosecutors say led to Jackson's death.
The bedroom looked more like a pharmacy. These are all the medications Fleak says she discovered. She also said she found a syringe, an I.V. stand and an I.V. bag with Propofol in it.
On cross today, the defense tried to make her investigation look sloppy saying she didn't report Propofol was inside the I.V. bag in her report until nearly two years after Jackson's death.
ED CHERNOFF, MURRAY'S ATTORNEY: In fact, the very first time that you noted that there was a Propofol bottle in an I.V. bag was the 29th of March, 2011.
FLEAK: In case notes.
CHERNOFF: Isn't that right?
KAYE: The prosecution's case hinges on the fact that Propofol was inside the I.V. bag, which would mean Jackson could not have taken the fatal dose himself, as the defense suggests.
The defense pressed on, attempting to show Fleak made more mistakes, touching a syringe she'd found in the bedroom without wearing gloves.
CHERNOFF: This syringe has your fingerprint on it. Right?
FLEAK: Yes, it does.
KAYE: Investigator Fleak also took heat for not mentioning the I.V. bag in her original reports.
CHERNOFF: Would you consider that a mistake, Ms. Fleak, on your part?
FLEAK: I described something in detail later on. I didn't include it in the general initial narrative. Is it a mistake? I could have described more in detail.
CHERNOFF: You could have described it at all, right?
FLEAK: In the initial report, yes.
KAYE (on camera): On the stand Wednesday, a computer forensics examiner who analyzed Conrad Murray's iPhone. On it, a recording from May 10, 2009, of Michael Jackson sounding wasted and slurring his words. In a portion never before played in court, Jackson was speaking of his love for children and his own unhappy childhood.
JACKSON: I love them. I love them because I didn't have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain; I feel their hurt.
KAYE: Then suddenly, silence, and Dr. Murray's voice.
MURRAY: You OK?
JACKSON: I am asleep.
KAYE: Sleep. Michael Jackson wanted it so badly it killed him.
Randi Kaye, CNN, Los Angeles.
COOPER: So disturbing to hear those phone calls.
Digging deeper now, did the defense score points today? Joining me now is criminal defense attorney Tom Mesereau, who was Michael Jackson's former attorney.
Tom, thanks for being with us. The defense cross-examined the coroner's investigator, tried to prove that she made a number of mistakes during her investigation in Jackson's room. Do you think their argument was effective?
TOM MESEREAU, MICHAEL JACKSON'S FORMER ATTORNEY: I thought he did a very good job. He was very prepared. He left no stone unturned. He didn't bully the witness, but he was firm in his cross. I thought he did an excellent job. You know, no investigation is ever perfect and no investigator is ever perfect. The question is, would some of these imperfections or mistakes, whatever you want to call them, or inconsistencies rise to a significant level? Now, they may or they may not. It depends on how they play into other evidence that comes up later in the trial. Right now, I didn't hear anything that was fatal. But you don't know how it's going to connect with other things later on.
COOPER: The investor was basically saying, "Well, look, I didn't include this -- mention the I.V. bag in the initial report, but in a more detailed report later on, I did."
MESEREAU: That's right. And of course, he's suggesting it's suspicious that you were influenced by prosecutors, you were influenced by witnesses, that kind of thing. That's where he was coming from, in my opinion.
COOPER: One thing that we've been waiting to hear is this two- hour interview that Dr. Murray gave to police two days after Jackson's death. How significant do you think that piece of evidence is going to be?
MESEREAU: Well, I'm very surprised, as a criminal defense lawyer, that his lawyers allowed him to go down to the police station two days after Michael's death and give a detailed statement. At that point, they had no idea where this investigation was going. They had no idea what evidence was being -- was surfacing and how it could be interpreted. And to let him go down there and lock himself into very precise statements, particularly with respect of the time line, I think may prove to be a mistake. But we have to see exactly what he said.
COOPER: So your advice to a client in this situation is never to talk to the police or at least know what the police want to talk to you about?
MESEREAU: My advice to the client would be not to talk to the police and to blame it on me. The reason would be, "My attorney has instructed me not to speak." That never comes into a trial. It's a constitutional right that everyone has. And that would have been the better way to go, I believe. But, you know, we'll never know until this trial ends. If it's an acquittal, the lawyer will look like a genius. So I just think it was a mistake from everything I know.
COOPER: The toxicologist who studied the drugs that were in Jackson's body also testified today. Is this the key scientific evidence the prosecution needs for their case?
MESEREAU: Well, it's certainly very key evidence. I mean, no one's disputing that Michael was having Propofol put into his system in his home, under conditions that were less than desirable. No one is disputing how powerful an anesthetic this is. The question is, who's responsible for him having the Propofol in a toxic amount?
The defense, I think, is doing an excellent job trying to find a way to suggest Michael did it himself. I don't think it's going to fly at this point. He had Propofol all over his body: his eyes, his legs, his heart, liver, pancreas, his bloodstream, his stomach.
My understanding is the Propofol amount in the stomach was not large. And, while stomach contents can diffuse into the blood, by the same token, what's in the blood can diffuse into the stomach. So it may have come not from being ingested through his mouth.
COOPER: How much of a -- of a defense do you think the defense is actually going to put up? I mean, how much -- how many -- do you think they're going to call a lot of witnesses?
MESEREAU: I think they're going to have to. I don't think the cross-examination, while it's been very professionally done, has been enough to tilt the balance in their favor. They have to at least call some experts to talk about the amount of Propofol in his system, what would be deadly.
And if they can -- I don't -- if they can find experts to say that what Conrad Murray did met the standard of care, I'll be very surprised. But you never know. Very often you can find an expert if you pay them enough.
COOPER: There's no way they would put Conrad Murray on the stand, though?
MESEREAU: I think there is a way.
MESEREAU: If they think all hope is lost, if they think they have nothing to lose, they may put him up there. If they think they've established the possibility of reasonable doubt, then I think they won't, because the cross-examination is going to be brutal, given what he didn't tell the paramedics, what he didn't tell the police, what he didn't tell the hospital personnel, given the fact that he didn't call 911 quickly. There's so many things they're going to butcher him on on cross that I think they'd like to avoid it if they can.
COOPER: Tom, when you hear Michael Jackson's voice on that phone call, obviously in some sort of an altered state or, you know -- well, make of it what you will. What do you make of it? What do you hear?
MESEREAU: First of all, from a personal standpoint, I was his lead criminal defense counsel in his trial. And I worked with him nine months before the trial. The trial lasted almost five months. I've never heard Michael Jackson ever sound that way. He was always articulate, conscious, cooperative, just the nicest person to deal with. It just sickens me -- it just almost just horrifies me to hear him talking that way.
But what also horrifies me is the fact that his doctor would tape-record it and the purpose for what -- I can't imagine it being a good one. The only reason that I can think of him recording that was either to keep it as a souvenir or to sell it, and that just horrifies me to no end.
COOPER: Or to play it for girlfriends or something?
MESEREAU: It's horrible. You know, who it will help in the trial is an interesting question, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And how you interpret evidence is a subjective thing. The prosecutors are saying this shows the desperate state Michael was in, that he needed professional help, and he didn't get it. The defense is saying that he was an addict who caused his own demise. So it sort of spans both arguments. I think in the end, it's likely to help the prosecution more than the defense.
COOPER: Tom Mesereau, appreciate it. Thanks for your expertise.
Thanks for having me.