Courts, Murray and Wikileaks

The weekend was spent producing a site for the purpose of compiling information about the Dr. Conrad Murray Trial. We launched the site called “Murray’s Tribulations” last night but had to take it off-line within an hour after discovering some links were mysteriously being directed to the wrong site or were not working properly (disruptive technologies galore). We’ll launch that site before the end of this week.

I’ve gotten quite fascinated by the Murray case that I now see it as an effective way to learn about the subtleties of litigation work. One of the questions that I was trying to answer was whether or not a system could be created so the same level of advocacy could be advanced by a person in a trial setting even if they do not have a background in the law. In other words, if a person had to bring an action to court as the litigator because he or she does not have money, could that person produce the same level of work as an experienced litigator? The jury is out on that one, but the idea of a wannabe litigator walking in a trial court and winning a complex case is a long shot. Apart from the technical aspects of litigation, such as knowing the local rules of court and evidence rules, a person must have a particular set of traits and skill-sets unique to trial lawyers. Unfortunately, that does not bode well for the majority of Americans as it means that the system is stacked in favor of those who have the financial means.

An important realization came to me several months ago that I wasn’t going to be able to go to law school. If I want to become a litigator, I’ll have to find an alternative way to become a lawyer in a short amount of time. Thus, I spend hours upon hours watching the Conrad Murray Trials, trying to dissect the case and discover the formula for winning cases. It has renewed my purpose and focused my efforts towards pursuits that are consistent with our goals. We'll just have to refine our approach so we can get more done with less.

Accordingly, the success of ROBERTS|JUSTICE will depend on being able to do two things very well. First, we must be able to do exceptional litigation work. Second, we must become a great provider of news and information. So, our mission is evolving into a hybrid that includes the following elements:

• To be the most trusted source of news and information about the US criminal-justice system.
• To uncover and expose abuses in the criminal-justice system and in government.
• To reform the US criminal-justice system.
• To serve as advocates for those who are aggrieved and could not afford.
• To ensure the government's adherence to the US Constitution.

Achieving this goal is not going to be easy. Consider what the US Justice Department and other government organizations around the world are now doing to Wikileaks. Under the mounting weight of pressure and disruptions they’ve just announced that they have lost 95% of their revenues because their bank accounts have been closed. As a result, they have made plans to curtail their services, meaning less embarrassing information about the government will be released. That can’t possibly be good for America.

I am very much familiar with the considerable armada used by the government to suppress potentially embarrassing information. That’s precisely where I find myself today. Until recently, I had in my possession information about the FBI and their corrupt relationship with judges and the judicial system. Now, all my possessions are gone, all I have are two bags of belongings. Gone were all the case files and information that the government does not want the public to see. Using government assets, they have sabotaged just about every opportunity that came my way, throwing me a bone here and there so I can have barely enough, so I do not starve.

So, to Wikileaks, I say this: You are most definitely making the framers of the Constitution proud. Keep at it. Keep hammering. Keep embarrassing the hell out of the government. They derive their powers from those who give them consent. It isn’t the other way around.

The Jackson Connection

My connection with Michael Jackson goes all the way back to my days in Manila. I was first exposed to his work around the time I first started learning how to dance. I was at a party one evening and one of my mischievous friends pushed me in the middle of the dance floor, in front of a girl who was already dancing. It would have been too embarrassing for me to retreat that I took on the challenge with all the ridiculous abilities possessed in my being. I remember flailing my arms in every conceivable direction and folding my legs so my foot was pointing backwards and then stepping forward and skipping. That was my version of a free-flow dance - indigenous style. Nobody had an inkling it was actually the first time I had ever danced in my life. I was so nervous that I could not even remember much about the 3 minutes of debauchery I perpetrated on the dance floor that evening. But I do remember listening to some of MJ’s tunes at the party.

Fast forward to October 2011 and here we are watching the testimony of witnesses, trying to piece together the circumstances surrounding his death. There were no prior plans to actually blog about it, much less to do a thoughtful piece. But things usually land on our laps, gently prodding us to figure out why we’ve met up with the information. I was surfing the net and ended up on CNN’s homepage and eventually the live feed from the Los Angeles courthouse. I started taking notes and as of this writing I’ve accumulated 148 pages of shorthand and difficult to decipher handwritten notes reminiscent of college lectures. What a great opportunity it turned out for me to learn from some of the country’s best attorneys.

In the criminal-justice system, the small "M" - for manslaughter - carries severe consequences enough to take a piece of a person’s life away, incarceration being the most probable. For the juror’s careful consideration is the fate of an individual who “The People” have accused of causing the artist’s death. This makes the advocacy inside the courtroom some of the most riveting. There were great exchanges - rapid fire witness examinations from both the prosecution and the defense - questioning and redirecting to get the witness to say something favorable to their case. With my laptop as my screen and earphones for listening, it took but an instant to understand that I was ringside for one of the great court battles of the year. For a student of the law such as myself, the cafe I frequented became my virtual classroom. 

Around the second week of the trial, I heard testimony that made me consider a number of important issues. For instance, the chief coroner, Dr. Christopher Rogers reported that MJ had 0.169 ug/ul of Lorazepam in his blood work. Through careful questioning the defense helped me determine that the amount would equate to 9-10 pills. Oddly, Dr. Murray had stated previously to having administered 4 pills the evening before MJ’s death. That begs this question. Was it even probable that Dr. Murray handed MJ 9-10 pills? And, why didn’t the coroner find a enough digested Lorazepam in his stomach to be consistent with that amount? That along with many other questions became the basis for the decision to create a “Special Report Series” about this trial. Such work can be time consuming, requiring us to research and investigate contradictory information being offered to the court. For instance, did you know that the date tag on one of MJ’s coroner pictures was erroneously dated? That seems ministerial and could easily be corrected. But, if that’s the case what other pieces of information on the coroner’s report was erroneously recorded and should be corrected? Is it enough to ultimately affect the results of this case?

You now get a sense why this needs a more thoughtful approach than mere blogging will afford us. Despite the fact that this is actually our first attempt at legal analysis, we will put our most devoted effort to this project. Unlike Leonardo’s Mona Lisa (took 4 years) and the other projects we have on the hopper, we will endeavor to publish it with the least amount of delay.

Tuesday Brief (October 11, 2011)

We got hit by a double whammy last week. I contracted a form of coughing cold that slowed me down a little bit. I tried to follow the Conrad Murray Trials and made copious notes while it was happening live. Half the time I was nodding off, the results of lack of sleep and physical fatigue. Fortunately, I was able to find a site that posts segments of the trial, which I could now utilize for this series. That should get us caught up in a few days, before the defense starts calling its witnesses to the stand.

The other reason is that our system (R|J Blog) was being tampered with remotely. I have taken screen shots of some very strange and disruptive things happening to our computer and stored information. For a long time, I’ve suspected a sort of screening system preventing people from viewing our site in its entirety. We have now found evidence of this being done to our referring site - www.robertlacambra.com. We’ve also discovered evidence of tempering on our YouTube and Twitter pages causing data to be altered and viewers deprived of our information. We’ll report on this as we continue our series on the FBI. We’ll include screen shots we’ve taken documenting various altered states.

Have a great rest of the week.

Murray Trial (Synopsis) | Day 4

I felt he was dead, Maam. (Fireman Martin Blount to Prosecutor Deborah Brazil)

September 30, 2011 - Day 4 of the Murray Trial.
Prosecution calls to the stand Robert William Johnson, Robert Russell, Richard Senneff, Martin Blount and Richelle Cooper, MD. Dr. Cooper's testimony will resume on Monday. R|J will have a synopsis of her testimony after the conclusion of her appearance.

ROBERT WILLIAM JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson is the Director of Regulatory Affairs for Nonin Medical, a Plymouth MN based manufacturer of medical equipment. He is responsible for regulatory compliance, clinical research, quality assurance and product approval with the FDA and other regulatory organizations worldwide. Nonin Medical is the manufacturer of the pulse oximeter found in the bedroom of Michael Jackson the day he was discovered unconscious. Mr. Johnson was examined on the witness stand by District Attorney David Walgren.

The primary objective of any prosecuting team is to attach the blame exclusively on the suspect so named on their complaint. Because this is a criminal proceeding and the standards require the showing of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, all uncertainty as to who is ultimately at fault must be removed. This means depriving the defense the chance of deflecting blame and passing it on to anyone else. Since this case have a medical dimension, the question of faulty equipment or an erroneously prepared instruction manual has to be resolved so the jury can arrive at one and only one conclusion - that the doctor, with the actions he took is solely responsible for the artist’s death.

Walgreen began his examination by asking Johnson about his background, laying the foundation for a series of medical equipment related questions. He then showed the jury “People’s Exhibit 33”, a picture of the Nonin 4500 Pulse Oximeter, an instrument that measures a patients pulse and blood oxygen saturation level.

“Is that the Nonin 4500? What is that model for? How many models of pulse altimeters do you have?”

He worked up a crescendo, asking the same question of other models. He went up the ladder, introducing the jury to more and more expensive equipment that featured a higher level of sophistication. Little by little, it became clear why he called Johnson to the stand. It was to show that Dr. Murray did not have the right equipment to properly monitor MJ. The artist slept next door to him. And it came down to a $275 piece of equipment that measured pulse rate but did not have an audible alarm. Furthermore, the Nonin 4500 Pulse Altimeter was only meant for “spot checking”, Johnson said. Without asking it directly, he posed the question to the jury. Had an alarm been heard the moment MJ’s heart stopped, could the artist be alive today?

The defense’s Flanagan had to clear the question about the adequacy of the Nonin 4500. It goes to the competence and the judgment of the doctor. “What do you mean by spot checking? Does it detect change? What do you mean by continuous? Is there a time limitation?”

Spot checking means that the instrument is only supposed to be used for limited consultation to determine a pulse rate every now and again. It is not supposed to be left on a patient for extended periods of time. The data it was designed to provide can be acquired in about 10 seconds. Johnson said that he was not comfortable having the instrument used longer than that and on a continuous basis.

That’s when Flanagan threw in his hay-maker: “But if you are looking continuously (more than 10 seconds), its adequate?” Yes, Johnson replied. “No more further”, Flanagan replied and promptly sat down.

ROBERT RUSSELL
Mr. Russel is a National Service Manager and a previous heart patient of Dr. Murray. He was in the middle of his recovery from a “stent implant operation” when Dr. Murray announced that he was going on a “sabbatical” to care for Michael Jackson. He was told that the doctor will be a part of MJ’s staff traveling with him on a concert tour in Europe. He was examined on the stand by Deputy District Attorney Deborah Brazil.

Russell began his testimony by saying that Dr. Conrad had saved his life. Around March 2009 Russell suffered a heart attack and came under the care of Dr. Murray. At the hospital Russell had made up his mind to put on his clothes and leave but was stopped by the doctor who said that “(he) was moments from death.”

The treatment included a “stent placement operation” that later tests determined to have been successful. A recovery regimen to help him develop a stronger heart was soon prescribed. The regimen was to last for 7 weeks and included a heart stimulation program that progressively increased in intensity until the heart is able to simulate the equivalent exertion of finishing a marathon.

The timing of Dr. Murray’s departure was a sore sticking point to Russell. His situation was precarious. Close to the doctor’s planned departure to Europe, he was yet to be referred to another cardiologist. There were also missed appointments, the last being on the 22nd of June 2009. Asked by the prosecutor how he felt, he said, “he felt abandoned.” The feelings percolated, finally leading to a phone call expressing his frustration. In fact, he threatened to file a lawsuit against the doctor opening up the action with a restraining order prohibiting the him from leaving the US.

Defense attorney Chernoff’s questioning started with a show of confidence.

“Mr. Russell, we have never met before. Have we?” It turned out, they have not.

It raises this question: If Russell’s testimony was so damaging why wasn’t he deposed by Chernoff himself? That is a difference between a good attorney and a great attorney. A juror could be mislead by this question, however. The prosecution should have asked during redirect whether or not there was another person from Chernoff’s team who questioned him before the trial.

The line of questioning brought the jury back to those positive statements made by Russell earlier during the prosecutor’s questioning. The lingering thought left for the jury to consider was the fact that the doctor saved Russell’s life.

RICHARD SENNEFF
Mr. Senneff is a member of the Los Angeles Fire Department. Cumulatively, he has 27 years experience working as a Fireman/Paramedic. He is responsible for preparing the paramedic’s report. He was also the first emergency responder to arrive at the side of Michael Jackson. He was examined by Deputy District Attorney Deborah Brazil.

The call was received by Fire Station 71 Bel Air in Beverly Hills at 12:22PM on the afternoon of June 25, 2011. The call was for a man who suffered a cardiac arrest. CPR was being administered by individuals at the residence.

Senneff told the court that the emergency team was at the front gate of 100 Carrolton (Jackson Residence) at 12:26PM as timed by Seneff. The gate was already opening for them and they were directed by the security. He was the first to arrive upstairs where he found MJ on the bed with Dr. Murray and Alberto Alvarez performing CPR. The patient was wearing pajamas (top & bottom) and a surgical cap. He thought that the artist appeared underweight and thin.

It took them no more than 10 minutes to get by MJ's bedside. He testified to the following observations about the artist:

• Skin was cool to the touch
• Eyes were open, dry and dilated
• Mouth was open
• He had no vital signs
• He was attached to a heart monitor and was flat-lined
• He had a Captography count of 16

Dr. Murray informed Senneff of the following:

• The cardiac episode occurred one minute before the call (later corrected)
• He was treating MJ for dehydration and exhaustion
• He gave MJ Lorazepam so he can sleep

The team of responders that went upstairs comprised of:

• Brett Herring: He performed chest compressions with two hands.
• Martin Blount: He administered the Ambu Bag and performed an intubation procedure
• Mark Goodwin: He was operated the EKG machine
• Jeff Mills: He was an observer standing by to assist
• Gary Brigandy: Not known

The prosecution was able to show that the fire/paramedic team’s actions were exactly what could be reasonably expected of them under those conditions. Based on the time marks, they arrived at the property in 4 minutes and proceeded to administer emergency care and did not stop until they arrived at the UCLA Medical Center despite signs that the patient had long expired. In all they timed their treatment of MJ to have lasted 42 minutes.

Mr. Gorjian cross-examination included re-stating all the steps and procedures taken by the fire/paramedic team from the time they arrived until the body was brought to the UCLA Medical Hospital. He was trying to uncover or point out to any mistakes or negligent omissions that could have worsened MJ’s situation. He brought up points that may or may not have any consequences to the final outcome. For instance, he asked Seneff whether he was aware that MJ suffered a fractured rib as a result of the chest compressions. Senneff said that “(he) was not aware of that.” Furthermore, he recalled Seneff’s testimony that they gave MJ chest compressions while walking down the stairs. Gorjian pointed to the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines which stated that compressions should be done where the patient was found, and precisely not when the patient is being carried down the stairs. He also corrected Senneff’s earlier testimony that Dr. Murray told him the cardiac arrest occurred “a minute before the 911 call”. They agreed that it occurred 20 minutes to 1 hour before the 911 call, which conformed to the testimony he delivered at the preliminary hearing.

Seneff testified that from the time they arrived until they were able to deliver MJ to the UCLA Medical Center the emergency team administered the following drugs:

• 4 units of Epinephrine
• 2 units of Atropine
• 2 units of Sodium Bicarbonate

Senneff also testified that Dr. Murray asked him if he could administer Magnesium to MJ. He said that he didn’t have Magnesium in his medical starter kit. The most significant piece of testimony came from Senneff, himself. He said that Dr. Murray did tell him that he had administered Propofol to the artist.

R|J NOTE: We were surprised that the defense did not key in on this statement which goes to the character of the doctor. The effects of repeating that for the jury more than once is very difficult to determine. However, one of the things that the defense could have done was explain to the jury that nothing could have been done even if the doctor mentioned he had administered Propofol. The outcome would have been the same.

MARTIN BLOUNT
Mr. Blount is 20 year veteran of the Los Angeles Fire Department. He was a part of the group of Fire/Paramedic team that treated Michael Jackson at the artist’s residence. Deputy District Attorney Deborah Brazil conducted the examination.

Blount’s testimony about the events that happened between the time they left the firehouse until the time they brought MJ to the ambulance was a re-statement of the facts brought up by Seneff except for some minor variances. He was one of five Fire/Paramedics that huddled around MJ trying to revive and was privy to the conversations with the doctor.

Blount was asked by Prosecutor Brazil to share what he saw when he entered the room. Blount said, “I felt he was dead, Maam.” He also saw Alvarez and Dr. Murray who he characterized as being flustered, frantic and sweating profusely. Attached to the artist he saw a long tube and a nasal cannula attached to his nasal passages. He also observed an I.V. needle attached to his right leg. He then asked the doctor if the artist ingested any recreational drugs. The doctor said, “No.”

The most thought-provoking part of his testimony came when he told the court how he saw the doctor scoop up three open bottles of Lidocaine, and placed it in a bag. He described Lidocaine as a “heart drug.”

During cross-examination, the defense asked a number of clarifying questions, essentially  restating the testimony of Senneff and Blount. Blount recounted a moment when the doctor told the team that he felt a Femoral Pulse in the artist’s groin region, causing them to halt the compression to check for a pulse. It appeared to have been a false reading but they continued attempts at reviving the artist. They did so until MJ was transported to the UCLA Medical Hospital.

R|J NOTE: Blount’s testimony is the first time we discovered a discrepancy in the recounting of details. Alvarez said that an I.V. tube was attached to MJ’s left leg. Blount said that it was on the right leg. The obvious question is, were there two I.V.’s inserted, one on each leg? There were two I.V. bags on the stand before Alvarez took one down. This should be should be clarified.

RICHELLE COOPER, MD
Dr. Cooper’s questioning will continue on Monday. We will have a full synopsis after her testimony is complete.