Return to Transcripts main page


Conrad Murray Trial

Aired September 26, 2011 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go.

The death of Michael Jackson, Dr. Conrad Murray on trial. Critical questions about Michael Jackson`s kids. Will they testify? Should they testify? And what do they know?

And the 12: seven men, five women. How will fame, fortune and family impact this jury`s judgment?

Plus, jurors convict Bob Ward of murdering his wife. His behavior, their verdict, and what Casey Anthony had to do with it.

Let`s get started.

Thank you for joining us, and welcome.

Now, tonight, more than two years after the King of Pop died, we are just hours away from the start of the trial against Michael Jackson`s doctor, Conrad Murray.

Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Twelve men and women will decide whether Michael Jackson`s doctor, Conrad Murray, should be held responsible for the King of Pop`s death.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The jury of seven men and five women were sworn in on Friday. Prosecutors want the jury to hear how hard it was for the investigators to get Conrad Murray to cooperate right after Michael Jackson died.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am optimistic about the merits of our case. There`s always uncertainty when you have 12 people making the decision.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here is what we`re learning about that jury. Six jurors say they are fans or have a positive view of Michael Jackson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The big question is, are the two eldest children going to have to testify?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Both kids believe that their evidence, and what they know and what they saw on that fateful day will actually be enough to help convict the doctor.


PINSKY: Tonight, breaking news. The first witness called to testify in the Conrad Murray trial will be Michael`s "This is It" choreographer, Kenny Ortega. What will he tell us about Michael`s behavior in his final days?

Plus, the jury is sworn in. Who are the Michael Jackson jurors, and will it all come down to the Propofol?

Now, remember, Propofol is a very powerful sedative, it`s sort of a barbiturate drug. And Michael Jackson used to call it milk. Was Conrad Murray the only doctor who gave Michael drugs? And did he give Michael that fatal dose? Or was it Michael, the addict, so-called, himself who administered that drug?

Strait to my guests: Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman; and Michael Jackson friend and spiritual adviser, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and also the author of "10 Conversations You Need to Have With Yourself."

Thank you, Rabbi, for joining us.

And finally, host of "In Session" on truTV, Ryan Smith.

Now, Ryan, you`re going to be covering this trial live from down there at the courtroom in Los Angeles. What have you got for us now?

RYAN SMITH, HOST, "IN SESSION," TRUTV: Well, today, Drew, was all about last-minute things that need to be tied up before opening statements begin tomorrow. I can tell you what`s in and what`s out.

What`s coming in to the trial is an audiotape of a police interview with Dr. Murray where they questioned him just days after Michael Jackson died. So this is something the defense wanted to take out. It`s going to be redacted in certain areas so the jury won`t be able to hear certain parts. But the key is, this will come in and be very important to this case.

What is staying out is the request that the prosecution wanted to get in the police`s failed attempts to reach Dr. Murray after Michael Jackson died. They tried to reach him three or four times, he never responded. The judge has decided that that will not come in this trial. The prosecution, hoping to get it in to show that Conrad Murray was unresponsive to them after Michael Jackson`s death.

So, a very busy day, but they`re ready for opening statements tomorrow.

PINSKY: And Ryan, kind of what I expected, lots of legal maneuvering. Right? Are we going to see so much maneuvering, it`s going to be hard for us to even understand the story or where the truth lies?

SMITH: Well, I think there will be some. I think what the judge has tried to do here is, he has said very early on, I am cutting off a lot of stuff that happened before the day that Michael Jackson died. I think that takes a lot of maneuvering out of this, but I still think, just like every other trial, there are going to be issues that come up during the course of the trial where they are going to have to break off and decide a legal issue.

But, for now, this is set up to be a trial very much about the day Michael Jackson died and not about his lifestyle, which was critical for this judge. He didn`t want the trial to be about Michael Jackson, he wanted it to be about Conrad Murray.

PINSKY: Yes. That`s something that I am going to probably repeat many times here, is Michael Jackson is not on trial.

Now, we may be saying things about Michael that I can derive just as a physician, sort of reading the facts of what`s happened to him, what his life has been, where he`s been treated, what he has been treated for, but it`s not because he is on trial.

Now, the judge ruled the jury will not be allowed to watch footage of Michael announcing his comeback tour three months before he died, and it`s interesting footage.

Watch this.


MICHAEL JACKSON, MUSICIAN: I`ll be performing the songs my fans want to hear. This is it. I mean, this is really it. This is the final -- this is the final curtain call. OK? And I`ll see you in July.


PINSKY: Ryan, Murray`s lawyers say that footage shows Jackson was "under the influence" and in bad shape before his death, and he had been basically killing himself. I would say he looks pretty good-looking at that video. I mean, you certainly can`t make the case that he`s some sort of out-of-control, down-and-out outpatient.

Now, the question is, though, he may have been relying on doctors for all his medication, so he might have been in a pretty stable state. But as I said, Jackson is not on trial here.

My sort of thinking is, that if they try to attack Michael Jackson, I think they`re going to be treading into pretty dangerous territory. Don`t you?

SMITH: Oh, I think so, definitely, because there are so many people on this jury who are fans of Michael Jackson. And I think when you start doing that, you put the victim on trial, it`s a very dangerous perspective.

Now, Drew, this is going to be where the defense is really going to have to show their skill because, unfortunately, to bring their case, they have to attack Michael Jackson to an extent. They have to paint him as someone who had an addiction, who may have possibly taken this drug himself. So they`re going to have to find a way to do that in a way that respects Michael Jackson, because I don`t think anybody in this trial, the jury included, many of whom are Jackson fans, want to see Michael Jackson being dragged through the mud in order for the defense to try to get an acquittal for their client.

PINSKY: Right. I mean, every time I try to derive any sort of conclusions about Michael`s medical condition or his history, his fans attack through Twitter and other means.

We`re just trying to sort this thing out. We`re just trying to get it right, guys.

Now, as we said, the first witness called will be Kenny Ortega. He`s the choreographer for Michael`s "This is It" tour. Listen.


KENNY ORTEGA, MICHAEL JACKSON`S CHOREOGRAPHER: He had an "I can do this" attitude all along. And Tuesday night and Wednesday night, you know, not for the first time, but again, all of us that were there, the crew, the dancers, the singers, the band, we saw that he was headed for perhaps the greatest return and the greatest triumph of any artist that we have known.

He was on fire, and he knew it. And he was smiling and he was happy and he felt it. And at one point, I actually even walked up to him after one of the songs that he was rehearsing, and I said, "This may go down as the single greatest moment in rock `n` roll -- live rock and rock `n` roll history."


PINSKY: Brian Oxman, you were in the emergency room when he died, you`ve known the family. You`re still close to the family. This business of sort of trying to make Michael Jackson accountable for his own death, whether he was or was not an addict or not, it seems like a bad strategy to me. Doesn`t it to you?

BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: I think it is a poor strategy, but, Dr. Drew, you know that people who have a problem with medications, they have to be responsible for themselves. Nobody in this world can help them except themselves.

PINSKY: No, I agree with you, Brian. But my thing is, my patients who have issues with drugs, particularly if they get strung out because doctors are giving them drugs, I have deep empathy for them.

OXMAN: Oh, absolutely.

PINSKY: If something bad happens, I don`t make it their problem. I say we didn`t serve them well, we didn`t do what that patient needed.

Isn`t that where that will go in the courtroom?

OXMAN: Absolutely correctly. It`s going to sound bad to sit there and blame Michael Jackson.

PINSKY: Right. It`s the blaming that bothers me.

OXMAN: He bears responsibility, of course. We all know that. But there was doctors, not only Dr. Murray, who were responsible for giving excessive amount of drugs to Michael Jackson. And then there were the people who were around him. Michael Jackson didn`t show up for rehearsals at all, ever, except the last two days of his life.

PINSKY: Is that going to be heard in the courtroom?

OXMAN: You bet you that`s going to be heard. To say Michael was going to make the greatest return and comeback, excuse me. He only rehearsed two days.

Why was that movie so brilliant? Because Michael Jackson was the greatest performer we ever saw. When it was show time, Michael was there, and he performed magnificently.

PINSKY: Interesting. Brian, very interesting stuff.

Now, let`s talk about the jury. There are seven men and five women. Six say they are Michael Jackson fans.

One juror, a 51-year-old Mexican-American, who`s a mailman, watches "Law & Order," a fan of Michael Jackson`s music. Another, a 39-year-old who describes him as a Cuban-Mexican male, who is also a Jackson fan, saw the documentary, "This is It."

Also, a 54-year-old Mexican-American female. She says she watched Casey Anthony on trial on TV, and she -- and her daughter is a former alcohol and drug user.

Finally, a 54-year-old African-American male who says his father died from alcoholism. He watches HLN and MSNBC and says he liked the Jackson 5 as a kid.

Rabbi Shmuley, what`s sort of jumping out at me is that a lot of these jurors have family members who have been touched by addiction in some way and who also seem to have very positive feelings about Michael Jackson.

Do you think that`s going to figure into their adjudicating?

RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, MICHAEL JACKSON`S FRIEND & SPIRITUAL ADVISER: Well, that`s what makes this trial so interesting, Drew. The fact is that there are two trials. There`s going to be the narrow focus on whether or not Dr. Conrad Murray crossed the line and became a pusher, whether he behaved grotesquely, irresponsibly, by administering to Michael a hospital- grade anesthetic, and then left him and did not supervise the administration of that anesthetic, and Michael died.

But let`s face it, this is also a media trial. There`s a totally separate trial which is going to touch on issues of addiction and fame. And this is what makes your show so particularly appealing.

You know more about the corrosive nature of fame than almost anyone in this country. You have treated it. And there has never been a reckoning of the death of Michael Jackson.

Conrad Murray will have his day in court, but the rest of us also want to know, how is it that a man so famous and a man so accomplished couldn`t even fall asleep at night? How is it that his life was deteriorating at such a rapid rate? How is it that his talent was overshadowed by so much dysfunction?

Now, I don`t have a lot of sympathy for Conrad Murray. Of course, he has the presumption of innocence, but the bigger question here is, why didn`t fame and celebrity bring Michael the joy that all of us Americans think it will?

Eighty-six percent of high school students, when asked, "What do you want to do with your life?" They say they want to become famous.

Kenny Ortega is sitting there saying we knew that Michael was going to -- give me a break! Anyone who was around Michael -- and let me be absolutely clear, I was not there the last few years. But anyone who was around Michael knew that there were very serious issues. These are games that are being played.

When his funeral was a game that was played -- the man died, a human being died. They made it into a concert.

No one has mourned this man properly. There are three children who are orphaned. And the only question we ask is, are they going to be witnesses?

This is a human tragedy, Drew, and that part has to be focused on.

PINSKY: Rabbi Shmuley, I agree 100 percent with you. Interestingly, Brian Oxman is shaking his head vigorously in agreement as you say this. And we will continue to address this issue.

And I do appreciate you coming on, because we`re going to keep this train a running.

Now, up next, trials in the spotlight -- Casey Anthony, Anna Nicole Smith, O.J. Key players join us next.

Plus, do Michael`s kids want to testify? I`ll tell you if I think that`s a good idea or not.


PARIS JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON`S DAUGHTERS: We`ve adjusted over the past years, and I think that coming here and seeing our dad`s old house, and all the fans coming out, I think it`s really sweet that they did that.



PINSKY: Now, tonight, the trial against Michael Jackson`s personal, so-called doctor, Conrad Murray, begins tomorrow here in Los Angeles. The jury is locked and loaded. We`ve heard the first witness will be Michael`s "This is It" tour choreographer. And you`ve heard commentary tonight that that may or may not be valid, what he has to say.

Now, will Conrad Murray be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and spend up to four years behind bars?

Marcia Clark joins us now. She is the O.J. Simpson prosecutor and author of "Guilt by Association." Also, Judge Larry Seidlin is here. You may remember him from the Anna Nicole Smith case.

Ryan Smith, host of "In Session" on truTV is back with me.

Ryan, some of the jurors feel celebrities get special treatment, and that special treatment, I think, based on O.J. and Casey Anthony, sometimes cuts both ways.

Tell me about that.

SMITH: You know, it`s very interesting. I think it`s one thing to say celebrities get special treatment, but then you have to ask the question of, how do they feel about those celebrities getting that treatment?

I did see a trend with some of these jurors that said that they believe in that system, but those same jurors said they really like Michael Jackson, they care about him, they`re a fan of his music. So I`m not sure that they were necessarily holding the idea that he might get special treatment against him.

In fact, Drew, this could actually weigh against the defense, because some would say, well, yes, maybe these people get special treatment, but maybe in that same vein, someone like Dr. Murray should have been giving him that special treatment, instead, as the prosecution says, of deviating from the standard of care and being reckless, as the prosecution will say, and that recklessness causing Michael Jackson`s death. So that could cut both ways.

PINSKY: Interesting.

Radar Online is reporting Michael`s kids, 14-year-old Prince Michael and 13-year-old Paris, want to testify against Conrad Murray and tell the jury what they saw the day their dad died.

Katherine Jackson thinks this is a terrible idea. I think if they truly want to do this, it might give them an opportunity for some closure and some opportunity to feel like they participated on their father`s behalf. But, boy, this would have to be handled carefully. I mean, you never know what the defense is going to do.

Judge Seidlin, if those kids take the stand, is that going to be very bad for Conrad Murray, do you think?


What happens is the prosecutor wants to win the hearts of the jury. They want to show that Michael Jackson is more than just an entertainer, that he`s more than the King of Pop. That he was a father of three children, and they want to have two of those children to testify.

It`s going to hurt Conrad Murray. The judge is going to have to make inquiry of both these children to make sure they know the truth from falsehoods, to see whether or not they know reality. And that`s going to be difficult.

And I would find it very difficult to put those children through this kind of mess. It`s going to have a very strong emotional problem on these two children, as you know, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Yes. I mean, it could go bad, there`s no doubt about it. I mean, it`s bad enough their father is gone, but then to be sort of emotionally assaulted, perhaps, as they might be on the stand, it really could go bad for them.

But one thing that`s interesting is that having gotten to know some of the people around Michael now, the one thing that they all say is what a great parent he was. That seems to be a universal sort of appraisal of his parenting.

Now, Conrad Murray, of course, maintains his innocence, and he recorded this YouTube message after Michael`s death.

Listen to this.


DR. CONRAD MURRAY, ON TRIAL FOR DEATH OF MICHAEL JACKSON: Please, don`t worry. As long as I keep God in my heart, and you in my life, I will be fine.

I have done all I could do. I told the truth, and I have faith the truth will prevail. God bless you and thank you.


PINSKY: Marcia, the legal team is saying that Dr. Murray, whom we saw there, is trying to wean Michael off of drugs. Do you buy that? Is that a good defense?

And by the way, at the same time, they`re blaming the patient and attacking the patient. I`m not so sure there`s a clear defense here, is there?

MARCIA CLARK, O.J. SIMPSON PROSECUTOR: Well, there will be, I can promise you. But yes, they have a very delicate line to walk. The number one thing is, even if Michael`s children do show up on the witness stand, there`s no way the defense, if anyone has a brain on that team, is going to hurt those children or be assaultive or be in any way confrontational with them.

PINSKY: So it might be good for them to appear.

How about this business of them claiming that Michael is responsible for his own death?

CLARK: Well, they have to do that. I mean, that has to be the defense. And they have to be very careful the way they do that, because if they blame him in a way that is off-putting to the jury, they`re sunk.

PINSKY: And then also, this idea that he was being weaned off drugs, let me just say, as a physician, I know doctors do that sometimes. It`s a terrible strategy.

The fact is, when somebody is badly addicted to drugs, you give them a cross-tolerance substance, you take them off everything. And he was getting a combination of drugs. Just in and of itself could be fatal.

I have to take a break.

Marcia, you`re going to stay with us.

Thank you, Judge Seidlin.

Up next, it hasn`t even started -- and also, thank you, Ryan, of course.

It hasn`t even started, and you can`t stop talking about this Murray trial. Your questions and comments are up next.

And later, the conclusion of the Bob Ward trial. How did Casey Anthony impact that case?

Stay tuned.


PINSKY: As we have been discussing throughout the show now, a jury is seated in the Michael Jackson death trial. They will decide whether Conrad Murray is guilty, whether or not he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

The focus of the trial, how did the King of Pop really die? That`s what we`re going to try to figure out.

Now, our Web site, Facebook and Twitter pages have been flooded with your comments and questions, so let`s begin with a post on Facebook.

Alice asks a simple question. She asks, "Why did you say that having a personal physician is a terrible idea?"

I didn`t say having a personal physician is a terrible idea. If that`s how it came across, that`s not what I mean. You should each -- we should all have personal physicians.

But to have one doctor dedicated to one patient as his or her sole job day-in and day-out, that`s not OK, that`s not a good situation. That adulterates the patient/doctor relationship. That makes that doctor not a doctor, but sort of an employee strictly of that patient to meet his or her needs as they see fit.

And it`s an adulteration. It`s not a good situation, particularly for celebrities who are special people. And when doctors are sort of gratified by taking care of a special person, again, severe adulteration of that primary relationship between the patient and doctor.

On the phone, Nikol in Florida.

Go ahead.


PINSKY: Hi, Nikol.

NIKOL: I just wanted to say that Dr. Murray should have known better than to prescribe the medication outside of a hospital setting. But I do believe that Michael Jackson was an addict. Unless he would have sought treatment for his addiction, or some type of pain management, the result would have happened eventually because of his addiction.

PINSKY: Well, you might have a point. I mean, addiction is a chronic illness.

Now, I want to explain something. People get upset when I say Michael Jackson is an addict. The reason I say that is he was very public about the fact that he was treated in London some years ago.

If you remember this, it was quite public. He was treated in London for painkiller addiction. That is a lifelong condition.

That`s not something that`s like you go in for treatment like you go into a car wash and you come out the other side and it`s over. It`s something that stays with you forever. That sort of mechanism is now turned on in your brain.

So, we know for sure. And in order, by the way, to be admitted to a program like that, you must meet criteria for addiction. You have to be an addict to be admitted to an addiction program.

So, by definition, he had that condition. Then, when you add to that the fact that he was getting addictive drugs, that suggests activity of that disorder.

Now, whether or not he would have gotten them anyway, there was a doctor responsible. And we need to hold doctors responsible for patients, whether addicts or otherwise.

Jackie writes, "Regarding Michael Jackson`s attempt to sleep, explain what you meant by insomnia being a symptom and not a diagnosis."

That is simply the case. Insomnia is description of a symptom -- I can`t sleep. Is that insomnia caused by depression, by anxiety, by drug withdrawal, by some other primary sleep disturbance that is yet unidentified, or even other medical conditions like hyperthyroidism or something?

There`s many things that can lead to or contribute to insomnia. Insomnia is a symptom, much like a fever is a symptom. And yes, insomnia can be a primary issue, but again, without a diagnosis, you don`t have a treatment.

And in his case, they were clearly flailing around with this symptom, and obviously the treatment was not appropriate.

Up next, the millionaire real estate mogul Bob Ward was found guilty of murdering his wife. But could he be the victim of a Casey Anthony backlash -- think about it -- or did the jury get it right? It was the same courtroom. They were still thinking maybe about Casey Anthony there.

That`s up next.



PINSKY (voice-over): Florida jury convicts millionaire, Bob Ward, of killing his wife in the same courtroom where Casey Anthony was acquitted. Is she to blame for his conviction? His lawyer says yes, and I`ll tell you why.

Plus, why else might the jury have convicted Ward? Was it his bizarre behavior, outburst in court, laughter in jail, dancing behind bars? More importantly, why would a man guilty or innocent behave in such a way after his wife`s death?


PINSKY (on-camera): Welcome back and thank you for staying with us. Now, just when many had lost faith in the ability of jurors to convict murders, Bob Ward, the millionaire real estate developer was found guilty of shooting his wife to death. But why would Ward shoot his wife and why did jury find him guilty? Of course, we`re always trying to figure out why people do the things they do.

Remember, when Bob Ward called 911 and said he shot his wife, but it wasn`t long before he recanted that story and said his wife was shot during a struggle as he tried to prevent her from shooting herself. Shooting herself that is. Now, the jury began deliberating Friday morning, and 14 hours later, they came back with a guilty verdict.

Did the jurors get the verdict right or was Ward`s guilty verdict inspired by Casey Anthony`s not guilty verdict? In other words, does that motivate them to make sure they get some -- find somebody guilty who they think might be guilty? And what role, if any, did Ward`s seemingly arrogant behavior play in his conviction?

Let`s get to my guests, prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson criminal case and attorney, Marcia Clark and criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, Mark Eiglarsh, also, consultant and body language expert, Susan Constantine. Susan, I`m going to start with you. You`ve been following this case very, very closely. Were you surprised in the verdict?

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: Yes, I was, but, you know, not so much in other ways, because this was really the courtroom where Casey Anthony was acquitted. We sat in the same places. So, I believe that what this was is kind of a trickling down effect of, you know, this jury pool did not want to be known as the most hated jury that there is across the nation and then have two of them here in Orlando.

So, this jury pool really did their work. They dotted every I, they crossed every T, and they really paid attention to the evidence.

PINSKY: Now, there were a few very well publicized outbursts by Bob Ward during the trial. It`s interesting to speculate to what extent they may have played upon the jury. Watch this. Watch this tape.


ROBIN WIKINSON, PROSECUTOR: You were not there when your mother ended up shot in the face.

BOB WARD, ACCUSED OF KILLING HIS WIFE: If it was not a $10 million life insurance policy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Ward, that`s number two. You will not speak out here. You hired attorneys for a reason. You must speak with them.


PINSKY: Marcia, do you think the jury was affected by seeing these outbursts in court?


PINSKY: Yes. You -- it affected you.

CLARK: It affected me. I was watching, I can`t believe I saw what I just saw. Yes, that, and then you have those terrible jail tapes where he`s dancing and prancing around. But worst of all is he calls 911 and he says, I shot my wife. No affect, no remorse, no upset, nothing else, and he said it a number of times, not once, several times, and then belatedly, he recanted. No, no, she shot herself.

Look, the jury had to come back guilty. I don`t care if they were in a courthouse on the moon. They were going to convict this guy.

PINSKY: Oh, you think so?

CLARK: Yes. I do.

PINSKY: I just smell a lot of mental health stuff in this case. I mean, they were both drinking, and she was having an alcohol issue, and she was on anti-depressant. And he looks manicky sometimes. In that 911 call, he sounded so depressed. I mean, reasonably so after what just happened, but his outbursts in court is almost like he couldn`t contain himself.


PINSKY: Do you ever had clients like that?

CLARK: Yes, I mean, I have, you know? And, of course, as a prosecutor, you know, you love it, because the jury gets a real view of the person. You know, usually, they`re clamped down and they`re all dressed up and trussed up and that`s not the way they look when they were out on the street doing what they did. So you like the jury seeing that.

PINSKY: So, does seeing Casey Anthony all in a bun was exactly what the defense wanted, not so much what the reality is.

CLARK: Of course.

PINSKY: After the verdict was read Saturday morning, Ward got a chance to say goodbye one last time as a free man to his daughters he left in handcuffs. Well, watch this.






PINSKY: Mark, I want to go out to you. What do you make of all that? I mean, you know, it`s -- on one hand, we see them dancing in front of cameras. They must have known cameras were rolling. They must have known they were being watched here. It`s almost like I`m suspicious that whatever dad suffers from, the daughters have a little taste of as well.

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. I don`t get it, and it`s not my area of expertise. What I do see, though, is a guy that`s very arrogant and a difficult kind of client. I don`t love these types of clients. These are the ones who tell you like on the eve of trial, hey, let`s see if we can get us probation, maybe a lesser included offense like shooting into occupied clothing.

You know, this is not the kind of guy that you love to have as a client. And let`s just make one thing clear. I disagree with Susan. I agree with Marcia. Let`s make one thing very clear. Casey Anthony had nothing to do with this verdict. The evidence had everything to do with this verdict. He says as Marcia says over and over again on a 911 call that I shot my wife.

He even then says on the 911 call she`s dead, she`s gone, I`m sorry. You need David Copperfield to get rid of the evidence, not a great lawyer. He had motive. There`s scientific evidence. There`s testimony that she was e-mailing people, she meaning the victim, which would be inconsistent.

Those e-mails would be inconsistent with someone who was going to off herself. The evidence did not fit the defense`s theory. The prosecution carried the day. Casey Anthony did not have anything to do with this.

PINSKY: Susan, I`m going to let you react to that. I mean, we heard of some pretty compelling evidence in the Casey Anthony case and no one was convicted there.

CONSTANTINE: Yes, and you know what, I agree with him. I totally agree with you there. I don`t believe it has everything to do with the fact that he was convicted. I think that his demeanor and his confession, we did -- we had the first person singular pronouns, I, me, and my. Two different times, he confessed, and he did that over and over again.

His demeanor, him losing control, I could see the pot boiling, because every time he didn`t like something, you could see him scratching his head. He was kind of rubbing his finger on the inside of his collar. The heat was starting to pour. When he didn`t like something, he slammed his fist down. So, what I`m saying, you can put that all together, you compile all together, being in the same courtroom, his demeanor, his confession and the guns.

That jury pool, we had 60 jurors on that pool at the very beginning during voir dire. And let me tell you something, almost every single person in there either owned a gun, shot a gun, or had some sort of knowledge about guns, and that was a problem, especially when they called out and said they wanted to see all of that evidence, the evidence tray, and they wanted to see the gun.

PINSKY: Those of you that know the player in the movie "Chicago," you can`t help but sneaker (ph) at the reaching for the gun defense. I mean, it really something right out of a musical, Marcia. My question, though, is there opportunity for an appeal here? Will there be an appeal? Is there anything to an appeal?

CLARK: There is absolutely going to be an appeal. In every felony conviction, there is an appeal. Whether there`s anything to it, it`s a different matter, but they will find things to argue. Evidence that should have come in, evidence that should have come in that didn`t that kind of thing, maybe even problems with jury selection.

I wouldn`t be surprised to see the defense trying and argue that the Casey Anthony verdict had some impact on this jury. It won`t fly.

PINSKY: And Mark, finally, the last question is to you. All of these outbursts were seeing from the family and from this gentleman himself, is this all going to figure in the appeal? Is that stuff going to be admitted in and work against them? Should they really watch how they`re being filmed and what they`re saying and doing now?

EIGLARSH: His appellate lawyer`s job is to do everything he can to set aside the verdict. His outburst and what you just talked about will not set aside this verdict. I think this is going to be clean. I think the appellate court is going to uphold the conviction. And now, he`s looking at 25 years minimum mandatory up to life. For a 63-year-old guy, even if you got the 25-year minimum mandatory, it`s like a life sentence.

PINSKY: Wow. I mean, the whole case is so very sad. And once again, for me, as a doctor, I look at these things, and I think, you know, I wish -- I just smell mental health issues throughout. If somebody had just intervened -- I know you guys can`t bring this stuff into the courtroom because you`ll find somebody to say exactly the opposite, of course. I know you will.

CLARK: Dr. Drew, almost all of this criminals do have some kind of mental health issues.

PINSKY: OK. Well, that`s even sadder, because then, why don`t people intervene before the legal consequences occur. That`s what`s really sad.

CLARK: And figure question.

PINSKY: Yes. Well, it is a good (ph) question. Mark is snickering. You got last word, Mark?

EIGLARSH: Yes, because it was reasonably foreseeable that this guy was going to shoot his wife? Hell, nobody knew that. If they did, you know, nobody is a crystal ball. I mean, it`s always easy after the fact to say we should have done something. Who the heck knows that he`s going to of his wife, you know?

PINSKY: Mark, I`m going to say something. If somebody wants to learn something from the case we`re reporting on tonight, it`s, hey, if you`re a parent and you got a kid that`s dropping out of school but telling you she`s in school, get her evaluated, because when she becomes a mom, she might do something crazy.

And in case like this, if you got a couple of parents that are acting out and drinking and getting into fights, go get them some help because it can go to a terrible, horrible place. It`s all I`m saying.

EIGLARSH: Agreed. Agreed.

CLARK: Yes. Agreed.

PINSKY: All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you to the panel, Susan, Marcia, Mark, as always.

Now, wait until you hear who the attorney blamed for the jury`s guilty verdict. I think you`ve sort of heard somebody this now. It`s not Zanny the Nanny, but he specifically blames, well, you`ll find out.



KIRK KIRKCONNELL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He`s disappointed. You know, he`s a strong guy. He knows there`ll be a motion for new trial. He knows there`ll be an appeal. He knows we have good grounds to appeal. I think he remains optimistic. He hates leaving his family, obviously, as any man would.


PINSKY: And welcome back to the program. Now, according to the jury, Bob Ward shot his wife point blank in cold blood and killed her. We saw before the break this very perplexing family behavior and his outbursts. Look at the scene on Saturday after the verdict of guilty. Watch.






PINSKY: Come back to haunt them during the appeals case. Then, there was his daughter and his sister-in-law`s jailhouse kind of a dance off. Take a look at this.


PAULA SAARE, BOB WARD`S SISTER-IN-LAW: I`ll make sure that -- no, I wouldn`t do that. Do you want to hear? She`s had, you know, hundreds of phone calls about you, and everybody is very, very supportive, you know?


PINSKY: Marcia, it leaves me sort of baffled, Marcia, how somebody presumably knowing they`re on cameras could behave like that. Again, for me, trying to understand why people do what they do, it looks kind of manicky. Could they have been sort of, I don`t know, sort of -- I don`t know how to explain it. I just don`t know how to explain it, unless, they just didn`t think of what they were doing.

CLARK: They may not have been thinking what they were doing. I mean, to put the best blush on it possible, it might have been they could explain it as I just tried to lift everybody`s spirits, making a joke out of something that`s very, very serious. On the other hand, you`re in jail for murdering your wife, these children`s mother.

PINSKY: Yes, their mom. Yes, their mom.

CLARK: So, all of it is bizarre to me. And whatever is going on in that family dynamic, it wasn`t right, so to speak.

PINSKY: Yes. It`s hard to understand. It seems like there`s pieces missing, and it`s kind of disturbing a little bit. All right. So, now, Ward`s attorney, Kirk KirkConnell, says he will appeal, as you heard, but guess who he blames specifically? Now, we kind of brought this up in the last segment, but he`s explicit that it`s Casey Anthony that he blames for the jurors` actions. Watch.

KIRKCONNELL: Certainly, what happened in Casey Anthony makes it more difficult for any defendant in this, probably anywhere in the state of Florida, to get a fair trial, and that`s a concern.


PINSKY: Now, Mark, in the last segment, you said no way, that that has nothing to do with the case. How do you react to this attorney`s statement?

EIGLARSH: Let me say that there`s some merit to the argument. Number one, I`d make it if I`m the defense lawyer in this case, because, obviously, there`s this feeling that she got away with something in that very courtroom, and it`s our job to somehow, you know, convict. But that being said, I`m telling you, still, these jurors did not convict this guy because Casey Anthony got away.

There was beyond all doubt here. There was all doubt, they`d have to have seen it, but, beyond a reasonable doubt, for sure, you have all of the evidence. You`ve got the motive. You`ve got his business failing. He`s spending on cars and homes, and his wife was going to be the one to testify against him.

The timing was brilliant. Everything here, you just lay it all out. There was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and I really do take exception to people who say, oh, it`s because of Casey Anthony. No, it`s because the evidence tipped the scales to the highest burden under the law, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

PINSKY: However, Mark, you taught me very diligently how defense attorneys think, and you`ve taught me that even if there was a confession and somebody have witnessed the event, there`s still reasonable doubt.

EIGLARSH: Well, depends if the check clears. I`m joking. My point is, that`s our job.


EIGLARSH: Marcia knows that the prosecutor`s function is to seek the truth, the defense lawyer is to create reasonable doubt, period, end of story. I mean, we want justice, but the justice from the defense perspective.

PINSKY: Now, this case, the defense seemed to blame the verdict, as we`ve said, on the Casey Anthony acquittal. Now, is this similar to what happened in the O.J. case? I`ve heard of people talking about an O.J. reaction. Have you heard -- do you think that`s a real thing?

CLARK: Look, I think it`s absolutely fair to say that jurors are aware of cases when they`re high profile like that and what happens. And they`re aware of public reaction. And they`re affected by it. They can`t not be, they`re human. They come into the court and think, gee, I don`t want to be that guy -- that guy being the jury that is so reviled.

On the other hand, does it make them vote guilty when they, otherwise, think the evidence is not there? That, I don`t think it -- I don`t think it goes that far.

PINSKY: I think my buddy, Mark Geragos, told me once that he felt that he was seeing juries have a sort of reaction to the O.J. case which was a rush to judgment to be sure that they didn`t end up, sort of anti- O.J. kind of reaction.

CLARK: I heard that, too. I heard that there is a rash of convictions the like of which they didn`t see downtown, usually, after the Simpson case.

PINSKY: Right.

CLARK: But I`ve got to say, let them actually show you what the evidence was and see if you agree that, otherwise, they would have been acquitted, because I doubt it.

PINSKY: Maybe the convictions just happen more quickly or more easily for the jurors. I don`t know. Now, Susan, you`re a body language expert. You sat in court. Tell us what you were able to see in the daughters` behavior, and importantly, the aunt, Bob`s sister-in-law. Again, we`re trying to understand this family. Can you have any insight for us?

CONSTANTINE: Certainly, I can. And, they were seated on, right behind, actually, where the estate was seated, because the media was on the other side. They sat in the back row. And we had Mallory who is the one who got call in the jailhouse rock. Her behavior at times if you looked down, she seemed to be kind of distanced, but when she would get up, there was this drama in this family.

There didn`t seem to be sadness that I saw in Sarah. Sarah was broken. She was beaten up. She was so sad, which was consistent with a grieving daughter. Mallory, it was kind of a detachment. Now, the sister- in-law, she seemed to kind of take over that mothering position, and when the girls would leave, she`d follow right behind them.

And then, we had the three gorillas. They were always out there in the hall way, and any time one of them walked out there, they were there, standing there like the secret service men or something, watching over like they were, you know, afraid that somebody was going to attack these kids, which was ridiculous.

So, there was a lot of drama. You know, almost kind of celebrity- like, you know, that he felt that he was James Ward (ph), and the children, not Sarah, but Mallory, kind of fell ride along with that. She kind of enjoyed it all.

PINSKY: Susan, I want to be sure I understood that. You said there were -- do you say three gorillas waiting out in the hall, body guards?

CONSTANTINE: Yes. Three -- there were three body guards. One gentleman, my God, he must have been, you know, 6`7", great big guy, and then, two other great big guys, dressed in black suits and white shirts, and they were always positioned, you know, at the corners in the courtroom upstairs.

So, when one of them would leave to go to the restroom, what have you (ph) , they were all waiting there, watching -- making sure that the kids were protected, and James Ward, because I went up to him and asked, I said, who are you here for? Are you body guards? They said no, we`re here for his transportation. Really? They were body guards.

PINSKY: Transpor -- lot of chaos. Thank you, Susan, Mark, and Marcia.

Now, I have a question. Has social media coupled with all the new technology made it harder for defendants to get fair trials or have the so- called Sunshine Laws brought more justice or more sunshine to the legal system? We`ll talk about it after this.


PINSKY: During the O.J. Simpson trial, everyone thought all the media would make it impossible for a fair trial. It was the first time we were seeing a trial on TV, and everyone was watching. That was 1995, almost 16 years ago. Now today, we are flooded with information 24/7.

The Conrad Murray trial begins, and the tweets and Facebook posts and water cooler debates have begun. The question is, is all the social discourse on social media just what the judicial system needs? Is this the answer to more open trial, more fair trial, or just the opposite. Marcia, your thoughts on this.

CLARK: It doesn`t matter what we think, because it`s going to happen anyway. There`s no way to stop it, and this is the problem. You know, the more we have media proliferating in different avenues, you have the iPad, you have the tweeter, and you have the Facebook, the more you`re going to have, period. And you can`t stop it.

You don`t go backwards. So, it`s out there for all of us. One thing for sure I have to tell you, Dr. Drew, is that it effects the way lawyers try cases, because they monitor what people are saying on Facebook and on Twitter, and they guide their case appropriately.

So, if they hear everybody, like for example in the Casey Anthony trial, you know, they`re not loving George Anthony, something sinister about him. They play to that, and they actually guide the defense that way in order to answer what people seem to be saying about a case and the witnesses involved.

PINSKY: Mark, I have the same question to you. Is this a good thing that we have all this social media or is this complicating things?

EIGLARSH: It`s definitely complicating things, but again, I find myself agreeing with my dear friend, Marcia. You know, why fight it? It`s there. It will be here for the remainder of time and embrace it. And if you can find ways to utilize it for your defense, it`s almost like having a practice jury to try to find out what they`re thinking about the different issues. It`s out there. You can use it as they did effectively in the Casey Anthony case to utilize for your defense.

PINSKY: Do either of you think that it changes the jury pool selection process, because it seems like nobody --

EIGLARSH: Absolutely.

PINSKY: Can be free of an opinion. It does, huh?

EIGLARSH: But that`s not the issue. Yes. And I`ve stood in front of jurors post O.J., and it doesn`t necessarily have to be a high-profile case. I`ll say, you`ve read things either on the internet or you`ve read things in blogs, and I need to know whether you can promise me and my client right here, right now, that you can set those things aside and base your decision exclusively on the evidence, and it`s not what they say.

Half the time they say yes because they think the guy in the black probably has the robe wants to hear yes, but I look at them, and I look at their face and I get a sense of whether they`re really being honest, and I challenge them. I challenge them hard. And once I get the feeling that they really can do it, I then move on and I accept.

PINSKY: And you know, Marcia, Mark is a big fan of yours, because he thinks you`re a TV star.


PINSKY: He was in the same room with you, and Mark blushed, and he talked about it and twittered about it.

EIGLARSH: Love her. Love her.

CLARK: I love Mark. Mark, I was saying, I love you, too. I`m a big fan. We have too much fun together. They`re going to separate us pretty soon.


PINSKY: On the contrary, both these folks will be back with me, because tomorrow -- thank you, guys -- it officially begins. The Conrad Murray murder trial begins tomorrow. HLN is the place to be for the coverage of this trial. I will try to bring you my thoughts on this. Again, as a physician, I may have a point of view that you can`t hear in other places. I understand what it is to deal with difficult patients.

I understand the potential ethical violations, and I will be getting opinions on the legal aspects of this case, because that`s not my area of expertise, but I`m going to try to understand this thing. Michael Jackson, himself, not on trial. I want to emphasize that over and over again. It`s not about Michael Jackson, if I say things, about him and his condition, it`s just trying to be factual and understand these things.

So, we`ll see you then. Thanks for joining us tonight. See you next time.