A Call to Action

I’ve always felt an affinity with the moon and the stars; I feel as if there is a fine, invisible thread that connects me to them and to the vastness of space. Perhaps it is because, in part, I feel recognition within my spirit of the unseen forces of the Creator and creation. Up there in the sky, in reality, is where we began and how we came to be; the Universe is our celestial Mother and Father, God, and Goddess. And don’t we all gaze up in wonder? Don’t we all feel inspired by the sight, yet at the same time, feel inconsequential compared to the beauty and power combined which collided in a mystic and fiery dance of existence?

I have been watching the moon wax and wane in the last month, and I realized how the moon’s cycle compares to Michael’s life at times. Michael, at his fullest and brightest, shone with an intense light that enveloped all who came near him—it was a light pulsing with energy—but, there always seemed to be a darkness lurking in the background ready to eclipse his light with negativity. And when it encroached, when it surrounded him with its malicious intent, his light flickered and dimmed much to the delight of those who had cast him into that darkness.

Now we have the Conrad Murray trial being played out in a Los Angeles courtroom, and once more Michael’s life is surrounded in controversy and speculation. I have no idea at this time what the verdict will be—whether it will be one to celebrate or one to mourn. But, I do know this much—it appears that two trials are being carried out. On one hand, Conrad Murray stands charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, on the other hand, Michael Jackson stands charged of being human, with flaws, weaknesses, and idiosyncrasies. Can you hear them? Can you hear the voices of the past that still resound today, propounding his imperfections, as if in justification of their deliberate and well-structured campaign that was set in motion years ago, to portray Michael’s life and humanity as a carnival freak show?

Noticeably, the media seems to be largely ignoring certain important and vital facts that have come from the testimony so far, most noticeably being—no Demerol, metabolites, or narcotics were found in Michael’s system.  This obvious omission from media reports, to me, indicates one of two things, 1) The media is suffering from an extreme case of guilt (or perhaps eating crow) after years of perpetuating the misguided theory that Michael was a hard-core drug addict, which only intensified in their reports after his death in 2009, or, 2)  after years of making careers for themselves and raking in large amounts of revenue for their negative, intrusive, accusatory, and vilified reporting on Michael’s personal life, the resounding truth echoing from the courtroom is a threat to their livelihood and ratings.

Rather than see Michael as human, rather than show compassion and understanding, they prefer to continue surrounding his name and life in a cloud of innuendo and negativity. Truth doesn’t sell nearly as well as sensationalism, and for an industry that has largely built itself upon a foundation of dehumanization—Michael Jackson being one of their biggest targets and most prominent victims—setting the record straight is not an option. There simply is too much to lose on their part. A leopard can’t change its spots.

But, while “Jacko”, “Jackson Trial”, and “Jackson Drug Death Trial” remain headliners, while not reporting all the facts pertinent to the expert testimony is prevalent—while Michael’s words ring out from the audio tape recorded by Murray and while the image of his body that is stamped on our collective conscious is undervalued by the media, nothing can overshadow or diminish Michael’s humanity as it has been exposed to the world; a humanity laid bare; a humanity that belies the years of unjustified persecution, allegations, and degradation of this man at the hands of extortionists, the media, and public alike. It is there for the world to see and hear, and it will never disappear no matter how hard people try to ignore or hide it, because as with the moon and its cycle, Michael’s life and name will once more shine full and bright long after this trial has ended, through us, and through those who are committed to his legacy. This is what we need to build upon and build up—as supporters and fans, we have always known the beauty and innocence of Michael’s soul—because in reality, for this trial to be the last thing Michael is remembered for, would be the truest injustice of all.

So, it falls to us again—and will continue to do so, until Michael is fully vindicated and recognized for who he was—to project upon the media and public screen an image of Michael both truthful and positive, and embrace and live the love that was at the center of his being.  This is not only vital to the recognition and continuation of Michael’s legacy, but to our own as well, because both are inextricably entwined through mutual respect and that powerful, life-changing emotion called, love.

 



© Valmai Owens, 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This article appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive, and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/



Commentary on the Conrad Murray Trial By Matt Semino

Conrad Murray Trial: Jane Velez-Mitchell, Matt Semino, Marcia Clark Talk Closing Arguments (11-3-11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysBM8lxe8w8&feature=youtu.be 

  Interview with IN SESSION'S Christi Paul on Strength of the Prosecution's Case (11/3/11)
Video One

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKv8xg6d3mc&feature=youtu.be 

Video Two 

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvwpPkFR8fA&feature=youtu.be

Video Three

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2KhtxXXb1M&feature=youtu.be 

Video Four

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH71HproWHo&feature=youtu.be 

  

 Conrad Murray Trial: Dr. Paul White Cross-Examination Discussed by Christi Paul and Matt Semino (11/1/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWKybmvlXMk&feature=youtu.be 

 IN SESSION with Christ Paul (10/24/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9hg684LUqQ&feature=youtu.be

IN SESSION: Parts 1 (10/20/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSjAwFcqJns&feature=youtu.be 

IN SESSION: Part 2 (10/20/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLgPbo8yGc0&feature=youtu.be 

IN SESSION: Part 3 (10/20/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0DPkiuzKAw&feature=youtu.be

IN SESSION: Part 4 (10/20/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVgBzvW76A&feature=youtu.be

Conrad Murray Trial: HLN's Jane Velez-Mitchell Interviews Attorney Matt Semino (10-19-11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI4f0aIGyrc&feature=youtu.be

IN SESSION: Part 1 (10/17/11)

                       

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8AJ7o-TRUU&feature=youtu.be

IN SESSION: Part 2 (10/17/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyQWsq37CnA&feature=youtu.be

IN SESSION: Part 3 (10/17/11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxaPfIEuqt4&feature=youtu.be

IN SESSION Interview with Christi Paul (10-6-11)

                        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQDewFbcFZ0&feature=youtu.be

  Conrad Murray and the Voices That Ring True

“He’s the greatest entertainer in the world.  I’m taking that money, a million children, children’s hospital, the biggest in the world, Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital…”

This last sentence taken from the haunting audio recording of Michael Jackson under the influence of “unknown agents” is a key element of the involuntary manslaughter case that the state of California is currently building against Dr. Conrad Murray. Hearing this voice cracked the door open for the jury into the private state of mind of the deceased and exposed the intimate knowledge that the accused had of his celebrity patient. The recording also presented a window of truth to the global humanitarian that Michael Jackson truly was. Would a man with these grand hopes and dreams actually risk taking his own life for a few hours of sleep?  
It was shocking, disheartening, and enraging for many to hear Jackson in such an eerie state of sedation. The slurred pattern of speech contrasted so sharply with his known vocal genius. Could that have even really been him? A tidal wave of emotion swept through the courtroom as Jackson's voice echoed in the hallowed halls of justice. Who was the person responsible for putting Michael Jackson into this dangerous state? Why did Conrad Murray covertly record this personal telephone conversation? What was the real power dynamic in this lethal physician and patient relationship? Why did everything go so horribly wrong on June 25, 2009?

The audio recording was a dramatic, yet effective focal point of deputy district attorney David Walgren’s opening statement. Coupled with frantic 911 calls, voicemail recordings and cell phone records, collectively, the voices that emanated from Michael Jackson's home have begun to paint a very disturbing picture of the defendant and timeline of events. They reveal the ill-fated decisions of a man who acted repeatedly with a consciousness of guilt as he abandoned his patient in a desperate attempt to cover up his negligent acts. Although painful to listen to, it was Jackson's voice that was the first bold brushstroke needed for the messy portrait that is now taking shape right before our eyes.

With each new hour of testimony, it is becoming clearer that a once strong man was gradually rendered powerless in the hands of a greedy, unethical, and highly unprepared enabler. The prosecution's evidence and witnesses have successfully started to demonstrate that Dr. Conrad Murray repeatedly acted with gross negligence through multiple and extreme deviations from the proper standards of medical care.

As the audio recording so vividly reveals, Murray had knowledge of Jackson’s career motivations, as well as his mental and physical states, in the months prior to his death. Even while heavily sedated, Jackson revealed his underlying rationale for pursuing what may have been the most grueling professional endeavor of his life. Michael Jackson’s words indicated that he wanted to make history for the sole purpose of helping children.

Even with this knowledge, Conrad Murray continued to deceptively stockpile and feed his patient excessive and ultimately deadly amounts of sedatives and propofol. As a medical professional, did Murray truly believe giving Michael Jackson all of these drugs would help him be "the greatest entertainer in the world"? It is highly unlikely. Did he really think that Michael Jackson would ever be able to create the children's hospital of his dreams if he continually plied him with debilitating substances? Probably not. Or, was he just acting like an employee aiming to please his employer, in order to keep a steady $150,000 per month paycheck rolling into his bank account? Definitely, yes.

The defense’s far-fetched theory that Jackson self-administered a highly lethal combination of sedatives and propofol behind Dr. Murray's back is also undercut by the audio recording. Depicted as seemingly forward thinking, it is clear that Michael Jackson had too many goals he wanted to accomplish and too much that he wanted to give back to the world. Why would he then risk taking his life into his own hands?  Could he have even killed himself in the manner that the defense described in their opening statement?  Ultimately, this case may boil down to a battle of the experts who will debate whether the “perfect storm” theory of Michael Jackson's instantaneous death really holds any merit. It already looks weak on its face.

Through a close examination of Jackson’s cultural legacy, it is clear that he always strove to serve a humanitarian purpose through his work. He gave millions of dollars to charity throughout his life. Therefore, it is not a stretch to believe that all he wanted to do was accomplish that objective again, but now on the largest scale possible. As his voice reveals, the intentions were grand, yet also singular in their focus. Jackson likely believed that the “This Is It” concert series would help him travel to the furthest possible point on the road of his lifelong humanitarian dream. He trusted Dr. Conrad Murray, as his personal physician, to help him arrive at his destination safely. As the evidence presented so far in the trial indicates, Murray failed miserably in that task.

Whatever the verdict in this case will be, perhaps the world will eventually notice how much potential good was cut short by this avoidable tragedy. Michael Jackson's voice and all the other voices of this dramatic tale are starting to ring true. They are telling the story of a doctor intoxicated by celebrity and lured by money, who all but abandoned acceptable standards of medical practice and professional ethics to serve his personal needs. As prosecutor David Walgren argued, it was the “acts and omissions” of Dr. Conrad Murray that led Michael Jackson, his only patient, to a “premature death at age 50”.  As the morbid image of a lifeless Jackson laying on a hospital gurney and labeled "Homicide", spread virally around the world, it became burned into the public's consciousness and will never be forgotten.  Understandably sickening to many, the dreary image also serves as an extremely powerful symbol and stark reminder that in Michael Jackson's valiant attempt to save the lives of others, this wounded messenger unnecessarily lost his own bright future. Finally, the voices of justice are saying that this should have never happened to such a man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-semino/conrad-murray_b_991591.html

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/issue/facing-the-challenge/article/commentary-on-a-trial-by-matt-semino

  

IN SESSION's Interview with Attorney Matt Semino on the Dr. Conrad Murray Trial (9-27-11)

                          

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAXvTb90G0A&feature=youtu.be 

Defending the Victim in the Conrady Murray Trial

Should Michael Jackson be blamed for his own death? Jury selection is underway and opening statements are set to commence in the Dr. Conrad Murray involuntary manslaughter trial. International headlines are shouting, “Michael Jackson drank propofol moments before he died!” These questionable pronouncements allude to the defense theory that Murray’s legal team is expected to soon present in a Los Angeles courtroom. Symptoms of a “blame the victim” syndrome are already showing. 

While sensational, it should be of no surprise that Murray’s lawyers may argue that Michael Jackson took his own life by either injecting himself with propofol or ingesting it. Story-making is surely nothing new when it comes to the King of Pop. Turning the tables on the voiceless is also now in vogue with high-profile criminal defendants. It worked for Casey Anthony, why shouldn’t it also work for Conrad Murray?  While “blaming the victim” may be a tempting and ultimately effective defense strategy, it is morally suspect when based in fabrication and driven by unsubstantiated factual claims. 

Although attorneys are charged with representing their client’s best interests in court, ethical boundaries can be crossed in their dogged pursuit of that goal. As seen before, a clever defense lawyer can twist scraps of evidence, public perception, and ingrained social stereotypes about a victim and the alleged crime into a convoluted narrative that lacks any element of truth. This unscrupulous practice can become the legal weapon of choice when the only objective is to place just a shred of reasonable doubt in the mind of one impressionable juror. It is a weapon that can be lethal if taken too far, denigrating the victim with each cut and ultimately corroding justice to its bone. 

The Casey Anthony saga is just one recent, glaring example of where such defense tactics went overboard in the courtroom. Anthony’s legal team introduced an outlandish explanation of the victim’s cause of death and leveled severe accusations at family members during their opening statement. All of their distorted claims eventually went uncorroborated during the trial. In the process, the victim’s memory was soiled and witnesses’ reputations were destroyed under the guise of an impassioned client defense.  The judicial process is only cheapened when such machinations run unchecked in a court of law. The Conrad Murray trial also risks running amok if precaution is ignored. 

While millions of trial observers thought Anthony’s defense theory was pure fantasy, it stuck in the minds of the jurors who ultimately acquitted her. As Casey Anthony enjoys her freedom, Caylee Marie Anthony will never able to tell us whether she actually climbed up that ladder into the pool and drowned. Her cause of death remains a mystery. Similarly, Michael Jackson will also never be able to tell us how he departed from this earth. When it is only the words of the accused against the silence of the deceased, who is there to defend the victim from false accusation and innuendo?

While it may become easy for some to forget, Dr. Conrad Murray is currently the individual on trial, not Michael Jackson. Use of the same Machiavellian strategies that were employed to defend Casey Anthony will need to be corralled and monitored vigilantly by judge, jury, and the viewing public, as the Murray case proceeds. The disastrous obfuscation of truth that occurred in Orlando only a few months ago can be prevented from repeating itself in Judge Michael Pastor’s courtroom.

Unfortunately, Murray’s legal team seems to have already taken more than a few pages from Jose Baez’s playbook. In several pretrial hearings, it became evident that Murray’s attorneys had intently studied the dynamics of the Anthony trial and the procedural factors that would ensure a favorable outcome for their client. They referenced the global media attention that the Anthony proceedings garnered and the potentially harmful influence of commentary from legal pundits as a way to rationalize sequestering jurors and preventing the trial from being televised. Judge Pastor made the intelligent decision to deny these requests, which would have placed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of the public, press, and jury.  Complete transparency is one positive step toward preserving the rights of the victim during this trial.  

If Conrad Murray’s legal team is planning to use a “blame the victim” defense strategy, their opening statement and witness questioning will likely conflate negative perceptions and stereotypes of Michael Jackson into a twisted theory of death. Attempts were already made by Murray’s attorneys to drag Jackson’s financial affairs, physical and mental health, as well as past legal battles into the vortex of controversy. Witnesses were expected to testify for the defense on these salacious and highly irrelevant topics.  Judge Pastor wisely ruled to exclude many of these witnesses, arguing that their testimony lacked sufficient probative value in addressing the primary legal questions of the case. A thorough examination of Dr. Conrad Murray’s medical practices, ethical choices, and standard of care is what really needs to take center stage in a court of law at this time. Michael Jackson’s past has no legitimate place in this present trial. 

Asserting the appropriate element of judicial control through the pretrial phase, Judge Pastor has made a strong effort to prevent the impending court proceedings from devolving into a tawdry examination of Michael Jackson through unnecessary character assassination. He has attempted to act fairly toward both sides while also standing firmly to protect the victim. Pastor will continue to play a pivotal role in the coming weeks by ensuring that the prosecution and the defense act within the boundaries of professional ethics and follow proper trial procedure. It is also imperative that he clearly impress upon the jury their important role, responsibility, and obligation in seeking the truth even through all of the smoke and mirrors. 

Ultimately, it will be up to members of the jury to keep all that is stated at trial by the prosecution and particularly the defense, in its proper perspective. Inflated proclamations are just hot air if not grounded in provable facts. Jurors shouldn’t be distracted by such hyperbole. They must think critically and logically about whether the hard evidence that is presented in court actually comports with the claims made by the lawyers in their opening statements and witness questioning. It is only then that justice can be properly served without the victim ever being victimized again. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-semino/conrad-murray-trial_b_975131.html
http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/issue/a-call-to-action/article/commentary-on-the-conrad-murray-trial-by-matt-semino
http://www.michaeljacksontributeportrait.com/article.php?article_id=411

© Valmai Owens, 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This article appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive, and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.



Interview with Tom Mesereau

Tom Meserau was not sure he wanted to be a lawyer; in fact, his first career choice was journalism. But after taking his father’s advice, Tom graduated from Harvard University (cum laude) with a major in International Relations; he received a Master of Science from The London School of Economics and graduated from The University of California’s Hastings College of Law.

He first gained national attention in the Robert Blake murder case preliminary hearing which was widely televised, and became internationally known for acquitting Michael Jackson in a case seen by many as unwinnable. In one year alone, Tom Meserau obtained 7 acquittals and 2 hung juries. Now he is deemed as one of the best trial lawyers in the country and the recipient of many public service awards and honors. But there is another side to Tom that he sees as perhaps his greatest accomplishment in a career both long and distinguished, and that is his humanitarian and charitable work.

Apart from his pro-bono work, Tom operates a free legal clinic in south central Los Angeles, called “The Mesereau Free Legal Clinic” and donates his time to such inner city organizations as the N-Action Family Network, Save Our Sons, Women of Watts, and Families to Amend California Three Strikes.

In this exclusive, heart-to-heart interview, Tom gives us his insight not only into the upcoming trial of Conrad Murray, his “lawyer” persona and Michael Jackson, but also into the man he is inside; a man dedicated to justice, the community and educating the young against gang violence, and to giving people a sense of worth and value in lives that might seem to them hopeless and pointless.

Transcribed by Valmai Owens

Valmai:  Tom, you were educated at Harvard University (cum laude), The London School of Economics and The University of California’s Hastings College of Law. Was it always in your heart to become a lawyer?

Tom:  No, actually. My father was a graduate of The United States Military Academy at West Point in New York, and he took a law course while he was in college. He always said to me, "Consider law school, particularly if you’re not sure what you want to do; it’s a great background for many things." I always had it in the back of my mind, but I never was sure that I wanted to be a lawyer; in fact, I thought seriously of being a journalist.

My major in college was government; I concentrated in International Relations. After college I tended bar in Denmark for the summer, and then I was a speech writer for a United States Congressman from New York. Then I went to The London School of Economics and received a Master of Science in International Relations. So I applied to law school; I still thought about being a journalist, but ultimately I decided to be a lawyer.

Valmai:  Well, we’re awfully glad you did.

Tom:  Well, thank you.

Valmai:  Now you specialize in both criminal and civil trials and are widely recognized as one of the best trial lawyers in the country. You have also received many public service awards and honors. What do you consider as being the greatest achievement of your career to date?

Tom:  Well first of all, you have to understand that every life is valuable; I don’t value one life as more important than another life. So whether the case is high-profile or low-profile, a life is a life. When I save a life, it’s just as important to me whether the person is rich or poor or known or unknown, valued or not.
But I would say, to answer your question, my greatest accomplishment has been my ability to blend the practice of law with charitable work. I do a lot of pro-bono work. I founded my own free legal clinic in South Central Los Angeles, called The Mesereau Free Legal Clinic, where judges, lawyers, law students, college students and activists donate their time at least two Saturdays a month, to assist the poor who have legal problems. I’m talking about every kind of legal problem, both civil and criminal. It could be landlord/tenant, it could be healthcare, it could be Social Security, it could be probate or criminal, you name it.

I think because I’ve gotten to be a high-profile defense lawyer, it’s made it easier for me to spread the word that lawyers must get back to the community, that we can make a tremendous difference and that a lot of the idealism we had in law school that we lost through the hard knocks of living can be recaptured. So I think my greatest accomplishment has been to serve as an example of lawyers who get back to the community.

Valmai:  So that would be your motivation behind your civil rights and pro-bono work,  to get lawyers back to the humanity of law?

Tom:  Yes!  First of all, there’s a selfish motivation as well as a charitable motivation. The selfish motivation is that I feel better as a person and I feel better as a lawyer. It’s good for the soul; it’s good for the spirit. So, when I talk to law students and lawyers about the need for pro-bono work, the need to find a certain percentage of your practice that is devoted to giving rather than receiving, I always tell them there is a selfish component: You will feel better as a human being.

Valmai:  You also assist local organizations and churches in drug recovery and youth counseling?

Tom:  Yes, I speak at schools whenever I can, including middle schools and high schools, about the need for education. I try to encourage students to consider being lawyers, and I also speak out against violence, particularly gang violence. I try to educate kids on the justice system because Los Angeles is the gang capital of America. The gang problem is worse here than any other city in the country. Some of these gang families are now multi-generational. The grandparents, the parents and children have been associated with violent street gangs, and because it is so deep in a cultural way, I think people have to direct these young people as to what is really going on in the justice system when it comes to gang arrests and gang prosecution. A lot of these kids don’t realize that the tattoos they put on themselves or the nicknames they have, the way they conduct themselves, could get them convicted even of crimes they didn’t commit. There is such an anti-gang fervor in Los Angeles, it’s considered to be a form of urban terrorism.

I also just try to give positive direction to young people to let them know they have value, that they’re brilliant, that they’re smart, that they’re creative and that they should have high goals for themselves. I look at a lot of these young people and they can’t believe that someone is telling them they can be a lawyer, because no-one ever has. So I do like to go to the schools whenever I can.

I also counsel people at my clinic. Very often parents will bring young people in who are troubled, and I will do what I can to talk to them. I also have associated with various organizations that deal with youth. I march through the Projects once or twice a year with the Women of Watts and their children, against gang violence. These are some of the most violent Projects in Los Angeles. We usually march in June through the city with the police department, and we sometimes have shorter marches through individual projects, where we will light a candle on a spot where a young person was shot to death in gang violence and say a prayer. We try to focus attention on just what is wrong with all of this.

I’m also on the advisory board of a group that deals with women and drug recovery or who are in jail, and also homeless children, particularly children whose parents are in jail. So we try to do what we can to help people transition into a better form of life. I get called from time to time to participate in various functions that deal with issues like this in the inner city.

Valmai:  Tom, what is your advice to young people with drug problems or going through recovery?

Tom:  Well, I don’t pretend to be an addiction expert. I can only give people the advice that I think is helpful. I try to let people know they’re not the only ones who are troubled, that all of us as human beings go through ups and downs. We all have our problems. Their problem might be drugs; for other people it may be emotional or it may be depression, maybe self-esteem. They may have turned to drugs for a reason; other people turn to other forms of anti-social behavior. So I try to let them know, don’t be down on yourself because you have this problem. All of us have similar types of problems in one form or another.

I try to tell them that they are very special people. They have value. They have uniqueness. This is just one obstacle to overcome. I do the best I can to let people know they have value because very often, young people come out of family situations, you know, where the recurring message is, "You have no value. You’re not special. You have nothing to contribute." When you hear messages like this directly and indirectly for a long period of time, it can do damage. I learned a long time ago that I had an ability to let people know how special they are and let them know what they can accomplish.

I remember a number of years ago when I spoke at a small middle school. It was for very troubled youth in Los Angeles, and these were young people who had been kicked out of every school. There was no other school left for them to go to; this was the last school that would take them. It was in a low-income neighborhood, a lot of poverty, a lot of violence and gang activity, and I was telling these students they should consider being lawyers. They first looked at me like I was crazy; they couldn’t believe I was telling them this.

So at the end of this talk, a young African American girl came up to me who had had a terrible upbringing, and she had bullet scars on her forearm and shins where she had survived drive-by shootings on the street. She said to me, “I want to be a lawyer. I didn’t know I could be.”  So I told her, “Yes you can. I think you would be a very good lawyer.” I saw the look on her face, and I realized that no one had ever told her anything like this.

A lot of these young people in the inner city need to be told they’re special, need to be told they’re brilliant. They have to be told they have value and that they can accomplish things. Nobody has ever told them this. Every message they’ve ever gotten has been quite the opposite.

So this is something I strongly believe in, in the way I conduct my personal and professional life. I very much believe that you have to find a way to let people know they have value.

Valmai:  I guess if you’re told something often enough, if you’re told you’re stupid or ugly or worthless for example, you start to become the label you are given; you start to live it.

Tom:  Yes! And also remember, as I said before, that Los Angeles is the gang capital of America. This is where the Crips and the Bloods were founded and it’s now into its third generation. A lot of these young people don’t have families. They’ve been turned out on the street early. They’re being raised by one parent who may be a crack addict or have all sorts of other problems, and the gang becomes their family. People want to have a family and they do their best to find it somehow.

So the gang becomes their family; their identity for protection, their direction, their religion, and it’s not all their fault. Someone has to do what they can to break that cycle, to let them know that there is an alternative which values them as people because too many of societies messages are, "You don’t count."

Valmai:  Yes, it’s very sad. We actually have the Crips and the Bloods where I live. Tom, are you following the Murray trial in this lead-up phase?

Tom:  Well, I’ve been following it in the media, but I’m not involved.

Valmai:  Are you able to give a professional opinion at all on the defense tactics?

Tom:  I’m hoping he’s convicted; I admit I’m not objective. My opinion is that he acted very improperly; he should never have been administering propofol and certainly not allowing it to be in the home. That’s ridiculous! 

I didn’t know until the preliminary hearing that there was evidence that he had allegedly tried to clean up the crime scene. I didn’t know that there was evidence that he allegedly did not tell paramedics and police about the propofol, at least initially. I was very surprised to hear that.

But you know, I’ve followed too many celebrity cases... Elvis Presley, Anna Nicole Smith, and you find these physicians become enablers. They’re afraid to deny the celebrity what they want for fear that they’ll be out of the fold, and I think it’s something law enforcement has to take very seriously.

Valmai:  Well how do feel about the defense strategy in saying that Michael killed himself?

Tom:  I think it’s ridiculous! I’ve already been on television saying it’s absurd. The Michael Jackson I knew was not suicidal. The Michael Jackson I knew had problems; you know I met him during a very difficult period, his anxiety, his sleeplessness, his depression was very acute, you know, as he was on trial for his life for things he never did. Anyone in that position would probably have needed some sleep medication or some anti-depressants, and I don’t know what he was using because I never saw him use anything. Nevertheless, I met him during a very difficult period, a very stressful period, but the Michael Jackson I knew was not suicidal and would never have wanted to leave his children. So I think it’s absurd!

Valmai:  Yes, I think we all agree with that, but I think it’s safe to say that what we can expect from the defense is the portrayal of Michael as suicidal.

Tom:  Well yes, defense lawyers have an ethical and professional obligation to vigorously defend their client. From a strictly professional standpoint, the lawyers appear to be acting in a professional way consistent with their obligations. However, I disagree with what they’re doing and I think their client is guilty.

Valmai:  Another point we agree upon. Tom, have you had any experience with Judge Pastor? Do have an opinion on him?

Tom:  Yes I have. He’s a very, very smart judge, very experienced, very intelligent, very wise and I think he’s going to be a very good trial judge.

Valmai:  Well I’m a layman; I’m not that familiar with the judicial system or the law. Many of the fans aren’t. Can you tell me how much leeway does a judge actually have in his decisions regarding subpoenas, who testifies, and how expansive or restricting questioning can be?

Tom:  Well judges have considerable leeway to direct the course of the trial. They have tremendous power to do what they think is necessary to keep the trial orderly, to keep it dignified, and depending on who the trial judge is can have a tremendous effect on what happens.

Valmai:  The defense requested that Michael’s financial records be made available. Do you think they were aware the judge might deny this motion and this is why they have called Dr. Tohme as a witness?

Tom:  I don’t know if they were aware the judge might deny it. I think they are on a fishing expedition; I think they are desperate to try and find some kind of defense theory that might seem plausible. I’m very happy the judge denied the request to pursue a fishing expedition into Michael’s finances. I think Michael’s finances have absolutely nothing to do with what Conrad Murray allegedly did.

Valmai:  No they don’t. I agree with that, but I think what they are trying to prove is that Michael’s finances were in such disarray, that he was in so much debt and so stressed out, this is why he allegedly killed himself.

Tom:  That’s absurd! It just shows how desperate they are to come up some kind of defense.

Valmai:  Do you think Murray will be called to take the stand?

Tom:  I don’t know the answer to that. I think that’s just going to depend on how the trial progresses and how well the defense believes they are doing. Trials always have surprises. No matter how prepared you are, you always know that certain witnesses are going to come up with things that no one expected them to say or do. I don’t think they’ll make that decision until the end.

Valmai:  Tom, what are your feelings about the lawyer hired by the defense who was peripherally involved in Michael’s 2005 trial? Do you see this as a conflict of interest?

Tom:  Well, I don’t know what he had access to, I really don’t. The judge apparently did a thorough investigation into the issue, and concluded there was no actual or potential conflict interest. So I have to assume in his confidential discussions with the attorney, that he concluded the attorney had no information that would create a conflict. But I really don’t know what this lawyer had access to, I really don’t.

Valmai:  What do you think about the decision to televise the trial? Do you see it becoming the same media circus as it was in 2005?

Tom:  Well, they didn’t televise the 2005 trial. I think there will be tremendous media interest in the case, particularly because it’s televised. It will give the public the opportunity to really look at these witnesses and see how they behave, and to really look at the evidence that the prosecution thinks should result in a conviction. So I think there will be tremendous interest around the world. Michael was the best-known celebrity on the planet, and much loved all over the world, on every continent.

Valmai:  I think what a lot of people are concerned about is the way the media portrayed Michael, especially in 2005, and whether they are going to do the same this time round. I know in 2005 the trial wasn’t televised, but the media weren’t exactly impartial in the way they reported on it. If fact, some were quite cruel.

Tom:  Well the media are not interested in justice or fairness, they are interested in business, and business to them is revenue and ratings. They love shock value, they love controversy and you have to look at the media with that in mind. To them this is entertainment. It’s not a quest for justice; it’s not a quest for fairness. In their mind it’s strictly entertainment, so they will focus on whatever they think entertains, and that makes themselves profitable.

You have to be very wary of the reports you hear about trials when those reports come through the media. At least in this case people will be able to watch it, as opposed to listening at the end of the day to very shallow, short summaries from the media.

Much of the reporting in the Michael Jackson trial in 2005 was dreadful. They simply weren’t being accurate. They were just trying to report what was sensational and shocking. They would sometimes report what a witness said under direct examination, without even waiting to hear the cross-examination from the defense. So I think they presented a very illegitimate, a very awkward and poor portrayal of what was happening in the courtroom.

Valmai:  Will you be making yourself available to news outlets if they request your input on the proceedings? 

Tom:  It depends on who they are, who the outlet is and if I think it’s going to be a professional type of situation. I’m available for that.

Valmai:  Tom, how do you see this trial ending?

Tom:  Well, I have no way of knowing; I’m not involved in the case and I haven’t seen the evidence. I’m hoping that it ends with a conviction. I’m hoping that he is held accountable for what I think in my opinion, was a very unprofessional, very selfish and very foolish way in treating his patient.

Valmai:  You spent many, many hours with Michael during what was one of the most traumatic periods in his life. What do you remember about his personal strength and composure?

Tom:  Michael was one of the nicest, kindest people I’ve ever met, and my law firm partner Susan Yu, feels exactly as I do. He was nice. He was kind. He was well-meaning. He liked to see people do well, and he liked to use his reputation and resources to help disabled people, children from the inner city who grew up in poverty and violence. He liked to see people happy. He could have taken his wealth and prestige and just not dealt with children, not dealt with worthy causes. He could have been purely selfish if he wanted to, but that wasn’t what he chose to do. He truly wanted to make a difference. He wanted to bring people of all races, all religions and all nationalities together. You can see this in his music; you can see this in the way he lived. He had a great empathy for animals because he was such a kind person and he wanted to make a difference.

He was somewhat naive when it came to the forces of evil circling around him and trying to destroy him. He didn’t quite believe that was going to happen and unfortunately, they put him through a nightmare.

Valmai:  Did you stay in touch with Michael after the trial?

Tom:  Off and on for about 9 months after he moved to Bahrain. Susan Yu and I were helping him out, but he was talking to Susan much more than me. We did help out for about 9 months with the transition and then we moved on to other things.

Valmai:  How do you think your life has been affected by Michael? What do you remember most about him?

Tom:  Well as I said before, what I remember most is a very, very kind, decent, sensitive person. One of his great gifts was to make a positive difference in the world. He could have been more selfish. He could have simply rented a home on the Riviera and party if he’d wanted. He could have been purely self-centered, but that wasn’t the way he wanted to live. He felt that God had given him wonderful gifts and wonderful success, and hoped to change the world in a positive way. I believe he did.

Valmai:  Well, I agree most certainly with that. Tom, the MJTP and all the fans just want to thank you for believing in Michael, and for all the wonderful humanitarian work that you do. We love and respect you very much, and I thank you for taking the time to do this interview with me.

Tom:  Well thank you very much. I’m honored and privileged to speak to you about all this and I wish everyone the best. He was a very special person, and I’ve always said repeatedly that he was one of the nicest, kindest people I ever met. I will always say that because it’s true.

http://www.mesereauyu.com/thomas_bio.html

by Valmai Owens
© 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This interview appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive,

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/
and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.

Interview with Matt Semino: Attorney and Legal Analyst

We are very happy to present an interview with Matt Semino, a New York City attorney who has written extensively on various legal issues, including the upcoming Conrad Murray trial. Matt has kindly agreed to share his thoughts and opinions on a number of topics, many of which address our deep concerns about the court system and potential issues and strategies to be faced in the coming weeks. Matt shares with us his strong support for Michael and a legacy of enormous impact on world culture. Intelligent, educated and experienced insight is surely welcomed and necessary during this difficult time. Please welcome Matt, as he hopes his words and input are informative and helpful to all. 

Lauren:  Matt, thank you for agreeing to this interview. Would you give us an idea of your background, what area of law you practice and what your current interests are in legal matters, media or journalism in general?

Matt:  I am a private practice attorney in New York City, where I advise domestic and international clients from the entertainment, real estate and finance industries on a diverse range of legal matters, including strategic business transactions, compliance with government regulations, policies and investigations as well as complex litigation. As an attorney, I have also provided pro-bono legal defense and advocacy representation to U.S. political asylum seekers, and economically marginalized clients through New York based human and victim rights organizations. 

As a legal analyst, I write and provide commentary on high-profile cases, trials and legal topics in the national media. My analysis is informed by my experiences as an attorney, as well as my work in the fields of entertainment, finance and public policy. I am fascinated by the frequent intersection of law with celebrity culture, as well as the tremendous power of media to shape public discourse on social, economic and political issues through popular legal stories.

My interests in law, policy, entertainment and media were initially shaped through my earlier educational and work experiences both in the United States and abroad, and have developed further through my legal practice.

I graduated from Columbia Law School and Cornell University, and studied at the London School of Economics. Prior to attending law school, I was a Fulbright Scholar in Southeast Asia. I gained exposure to the political and legislative system by working in Washington DC in the United States Senate for the late Senator Edward Kennedy, in the Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno, and in London in the British Parliament for parliamentarian Quentin Davies. My experience in the entertainment industry includes hands-on work with several film and television productions in New York and Los Angeles.  

Lauren:  Besides The Huffington Post, what other outlets do you contribute to?

Matt:  In addition to my legal column on The Huffington Post, my commentary has been featured through such national media as FOX, CNBC, CBS, Forbes, Business Insider, Daily Candy and Bloomberg online, among other domestic and international media outlets. I also contribute stories to the national news site Examiner, which are focused on entertainment, celebrity and society topics.

As a New Yorker, I support and serve on the committees of a variety of philanthropic and arts organizations, and have appeared in Town & Country, Gotham, Hamptons, Avenue and Quest magazines as well as New York Social Diary, in connection with my involvement through these cultural endeavors. 
I am excited about future opportunities to share my legal analysis and commentary, particularly on the Dr. Conrad Murray trial, through The Huffington Post as well as other print media, radio and television sources.   

Lauren:  What was your experience like as a Fullbright scholar?

Matt:  My time as a Fulbright Scholar was one of the most personally and intellectually enriching experiences of my life. From 1998-1999, I had the opportunity to attend the National University of Singapore as a research fellow through the generosity of the Fulbright Program. The Fulbright Program is sponsored by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, and is the U.S. government’s flagship educational exchange program.

As a Fulbright Scholar, I conducted research on the currency crisis that was occurring during that period of time in Southeast Asia. I examined the impact of that financial crisis on human rights, democracy and monetary policy throughout the region. Through my academic and field research in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, I concluded that although the economic and social upheaval in the region had caused tremendous economic suffering and led to increased violations of human rights, it also generated powerful calls from citizens in these countries for greater governmental transparency, democracy and institutional reform. These citizen led movements created positive and lasting policy changes. In addition to my research in Southeast Asia, I had the opportunity to travel and gain exposure to the cultures, religions and societies in such countries as Tibet, China, India, Russia, South Africa and Bolivia, among others.

Lauren:  What musical interests do you have?  

Matt:  As a child of the MTV generation, I have always been drawn to pop music and videos. However, if a song or an artist moves me, I will listen and explore no matter what genre. I am addicted to iTunes which makes discovering new music very easy! New York City is also home to some of the best musical performance venues in the world. Living in Manhattan, I have heard live performances of and developed an appreciation for classical, Broadway, opera, Latin, world, rock, alternative and jazz music as well. 

Lauren:  When was your first experience or knowledge of Michael Jackson?

Matt:  I was hooked when I first heard “Thriller” on the radio and saw the epic video for that song on MTV. The rest is history!

Lauren:  Do you have specific favorite songs, films, albums or other artistic work?

Matt:  In terms of sheer pop classics, dancing and Michael Jackson iconography, the music and videos from the albums Thriller and Bad stand in the forefront of my mind as favorites. To me, they truly represent Michael Jackson as the ultimate showman talent. However, the somewhat darker, more emotional and political albums Dangerous and History, offer an authentic glimpse at what I believe was a deeply thoughtful, caring man and humanitarian. The music and videos from these albums are interesting to me because of their nuanced artistic and psychological layers, as well as their socially conscious messages. Specifically, “Man in the Mirror,” “Heal the World,” “Black or White,” “Scream”, “They Don’t Care About Us” and “Earth Song” best capture for me Michael Jackson’s human complexity, his compassion for the world and his personal struggles. These works make you feel and think all at once which, in my opinion, is the beauty of true art.

Lauren:  How have you personally been affected by his artistry and body of work and the kind of person he was?

Matt:  Michael Jackson’s artistry as well as his humanitarian efforts, unwavering commitment to social justice and generous contributions to charitable organizations throughout the world, have served as an inspiration to me to follow my dreams with the goal of having a positive impact on society. His example of always looking to assist those less fortunate and of using one’s given talents to improve the state of the world in any way, large or small, are examples that I strive to follow in my everyday life.

When I was a child and young adult, Michael Jackson’s creative body of work and public service actions shined an even greater light for me on such difficult but timely issues as homelessness, environmental degradation, AIDS, famine and racism, among other salient topics. Jackson demonstrated that if you want to create positive social change, it is entirely possible. Motivated in part by the philosophical underpinnings of his messages, I was drawn to the law because I know it is a powerful tool that can be used for helping others and working toward solving some of the world’s most complex problems.

Lauren:  As an attorney, what was your general impression of the prosecution and trial in 2005?

Matt:  I believe the case People vs. Jackson and the 2005 trial involving Michael, represented the culmination of anti-Michael Jackson sentiment that had been building for years within certain segments of American society. Michael Jackson was tainted by the Chandler family’s accusations against him from the early 1990s, and as his music and persona evolved over the decade, the once adoring public and media generally began to turn their back on him. Sorely misunderstood, a variety of actors in law enforcement, the legal system and the media seemed convinced that Michael Jackson’s actions, lifestyle and public image painted the picture of a guilty man. They wanted him to be put away for good and would not stop until that happened. The 2005 trial was a modern day witch hunt. 

Fortunately, the prosecution’s case against Jackson revealed that the accusations lacked any substance or element of truth. Sloppy investigative work, extremely weak and conflicting evidence, disastrous witness testimony as well the accusing family’s history of attempting to extort celebrities, were all factors that contributed to the prosecution’s inability to convince a jury of Michael’s guilt. Yet, despite being found not guilty on all charges, Michael Jackson was still unfairly vilified by segments of the media in their hungry quest for ratings. This type of abysmal treatment by elements of the public and media, in my opinion, only led to further destruction of his image, career and soul.      

Lauren:  Have you studied or researched or simply had an interest in Michael as a person and artist and his difficulties in life?

Matt:  As a Michael Jackson supporter, I followed his artistic career, humanitarian endeavors and the various stages of his life since childhood. As an attorney, I have always been intrigued by Michael Jackson’s complicated legal and financial history, as well as his business dealings during the course of his adult life. Since his untimely death, I have studied and conducted extensive research on the events and circumstances leading up to that tragic moment, as well as the complex cultural legacy and impact Michael Jackson has had and will continue to have in modern society. 

More specifically, I have recently been focusing my attention on the criminal charges against Michael Jackson’s personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, in connection with his death. Through each stage of the Dr. Murray case, I have been following and evaluating the hearings, evidence, witness and media accounts, the jury selection process and anticipated legal strategies of the prosecution and defense as it proceeds to trial. I have also been providing legal analysis and commentary on the case through a variety of media outlets, particularly on The Huffington Post. 

Lauren:  What are your thoughts or impressions of Michael?

Matt:  Michael Jackson was larger than life. He is arguably among one of the most famous individuals in modern popular culture. The intensity and magnitude of his celebrity, talent, wealth and notoriety, allowed him to touch and connect people across the world through a common creative language. Yet at the same time, the amalgamation of these characteristics built a complex man who, although loved and adored by millions, was an enigma to many. Sadly, the combination of his extreme power with his extreme vulnerability made Michael Jackson an easy target for the unscrupulous. While Michael Jackson’s enormous and positive impact on culture and humanity will be felt by future generations, his life story is ultimately a modern-day Greek tragedy. It was a tragedy though that did not have to happen.   

Lauren:  Can you speak to the issues in the upcoming Murray trial, physician responsibility, financial gain, power, celebrity?

Matt:  The Dr. Conrad Murray case represents the potentially lethal power that celebrity, power and greed can have on the patient/physician relationship in Hollywood, and in communities beyond the exclusive enclaves of the stars. When accepted standards of professional practice and ethics are abandoned in the pursuit of fame and financial gain, the human toll is disastrous.    

In my piece Dr. Conrad Murray Trial, a Bitter Pill to Swallow that was recently published on The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-semino/dr-conrad-murray-trial-a-_b_814401.html, I examined what I believe are some of the most salient issues that this high-profile legal story touches upon. 

As this is a case about the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death of Michael Jackson, one of the most famous figures in the world, it will no doubt set precedent. The outcome of the case will be particularly influential in connection with the medical establishment's future oversight of the private patient/physician relationship, and in the regulation of routine sales of potential addictive and lethal drugs to medical practitioners.

Hopefully, some of the important legal and social questions that this trial will address include; (1) What are the permissible professional and ethical boundaries of the physician/patient relationship, particularly those of a private nature? (2) What are the expected standards of care that a physician owes to his patient, and how can these standards be better enforced by the medical establishment and legal system? (3) How can the sale of excessive amounts of harmful medications and drugs to physicians, be better regulated to prevent systemic abuse and ultimately harm to patients? (5) Does the power and allure of celebrity and the prospect of financial gain contribute to unethical professional practices in Hollywood and beyond? If so, what policy steps can be taken to prevent future tragedies?

Lauren:  Many fans, friends and advocates for Michael are angry, and feel powerless to stop the anticipated smear campaign by the defense. What are your thoughts on that issue? Is there any concrete action that can be taken to avoid or lessen this trauma?

Matt:  In order to convict Dr. Conrad Murray on the charges of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution through the presentation of its case, must convince a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. In a criminal case such as that of Dr. Conrad Murray, if the jury has any reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecution has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The sole object of Dr. Murray’s defense team will be to present its case in any manner that it believes within permissible ethical and legal boundaries, will place reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors to ensure that their client is found not guilty.

To the distress of many of Michael’s fans, accomplishing this will likely mean that the defense will dig up and play to past negative stereotypes and public perceptions of Jackson. The defense will also likely paint a picture of Michael Jackson as a demanding, drug dependent pop star who used the power of his celebrity to force Dr. Murray to obtain, and give him excessive amounts of propofol and other prescription drugs. It is also anticipated that the defense is planning to go as far to claim that Jackson injected himself with the lethal dose of propofol while Dr. Murray stepped out of his bedroom. While Dr. Murray’s legal team has every procedural right to present the strongest case possible, their arguments will no doubt be grounded in a classic ‘blame the victim’ defense.       

It is inevitable that some segments of the media will cling to the defense’s less than favorable depiction of Michael Jackson. However, Jackson fans can take concrete actions in response. As the trial proceeds, fans can continue to petition and peacefully campaign against and/or boycott news programming and reporting that is perceived to support the distortion of facts, and that blurs the boundaries of ethical journalistic practice. The Michael Jackson fan base was highly successful in preventing the airing of a Discovery Channel show depicting a simulated autopsy on the star through these powerful means of collective action. Fans should continue to employ such tactics wherever they see factually false stories or inaccurate depictions of Jackson being presented to the public.

The Michael Jackson fan base can also engage in its own form of citizen journalism and attempt to shape the news through their personal interpretations of events. With the explosion of online media and blogs, there are many new opportunities and outlets for individuals with a viewpoint to share their perspective with a global audience. Such venues can provide vocal and informed Michael Jackson fans with a platform to counter what they believe is tabloid journalism by some mainstream media outlets. Finally, the Michael Jackson fan base can seek to promote and place into the mainstream media those journalists, commentators and media personalities that they believe best exemplify integrity and ethical practice in their reporting, and who will provide balanced analysis of the issues at hand.        

Lauren:  Given what is known about this case, what are your thoughts on the charge of involuntary manslaughter vs. murder II or a higher charge?  

Matt:  Many Michael Jackson supporters have expressed to me their anguish and disbelief that Dr. Conrad Murray was only charged with involuntary manslaughter, and not a higher charge such as second or even first-degree murder. They also believe that it is a slap in the face to Jackson, his family and his fans that he would only face a maximum of four years in prison if found guilty on the charges, particularly for a physician who acted so negligently in the care of his patient. 

I do understand and empathize with the thoughts of many of the fans on these issues. It all looks to be quite unjust on its face. However, when looking at these charges it is necessary to understand the legal distinctions between various degrees of criminality in the law of homicide.

The reason Dr. Murray was only charged with involuntary manslaughter and not a higher charge boils down to what his likely state of mind was in the commission of the alleged crime, and what level of charge the existing evidence in the case will best support for the prosecution to ensure a conviction. 

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea or the state of mind of the accused. Within the law of homicide murder requires (i) either the intent to kill (with a state of mind called malice) or (ii) knowledge that one’s actions are likely to result in death (with a state of mind called malice aforethought). On the other hand, manslaughter requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or to create a deadly situation that may lead to death. Manslaughter is usually broken down into voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Dr. Murray’s charge of involuntary manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention.

In my interpretation, the evidence that has been collected and presented so far in the Murray case indicates that Dr. Murray violated his Hippocratic Oath, deviated greatly from proper standards of medical practice and professional ethics, and acted in a manner that was so negligent that Michael Jackson died under his watch. 

However grossly negligent Dr. Murray was in his care of Jackson, that same body of evidence though does not seem to indicate that he actually had the intent to kill or the intent to cause serious harm to Michael Jackson, the necessary state of mind under the law to warrant a higher charge in this case. In order to increase their odds at a conviction it is likely for this reason, the lack of demonstrated intent, that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office did not seek a higher charge against Dr. Murray.

Lauren:  Patrick Treacy, Michael's physician when he was in Ireland, is quite definite about the inevitable shredding of Michael's reputation once again. Do you have any suggestions from a legal standpoint on how Michael's fan base can brace or respond to this onslaught by the media?

(Below is Treacy's interview with Aphrodite Jones)
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/michael-jacksons-death-the-conrad-murray-defense.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAAr0NKkVSI

Matt:  From a legal standpoint, one of the most effective means for Michael Jackson fans to address any social, political or economic issues that are of importance to them or that effect them as a group now and into the future, is to directly address those issues through the legislative process. If the fan base perceives that greater media regulation and reform is needed in the United States, then they should continue to build advocacy organizations and lobbying groups that will vocalize the importance of these issues to their elected representatives in local, state and federal government. With effective leadership and strategic action by the Michael Jackson community, such organizations and groups may ultimately be able to influence the legislative process and have laws and policies enacted that can achieve the desired reforms.

Lauren:  Michael's fans are repeatedly marginalized in the media as 'crazy'. What has been your experience with those you have had contact with?

Matt:  Michael Jackson fans across the world are passionate people. Rightly so, millions of them are emotionally connected to what he symbolized as an artist, a humanitarian and a man who faced his own personal struggles throughout life. People from all races, religions and nationalities feel that they can relate to Jackson on many different levels and for a diverse range of reasons. Ultimately, he connected humanity. 

Because Michael Jackson truly inspired and gave tremendous hope to so many people around the world, fans are angry that he was taken so soon by circumstances that could have easily been prevented. They are justified in their emotions. Michael’s fans have felt distressed for a number of years that a human being who they viewed was so talented, compassionate, kind and generous could be bullied in such a highly destructive manner by certain elements of society. Michael’s fans see injustice, and because they are highly vocal and visible they have been incorrectly labeled as ‘crazy.’ 

Since I began to write about Michael Jackson following his death, I have been contacted directly by legions of his fans from every corner of the earth. From Russia to Egypt, India to England and everywhere in between, the Michael Jackson fans that I have communicated with are some of the most sensitive, caring, thoughtful and eloquent people I have ever spoken with. Each has shared personal stories with me about how Michael Jackson touched their lives and how he gave them hope amidst their own personal challenges. They have also expressed to me highly intelligent thoughts and analysis on why they believe Michael’s rich life was cut short, and have offered their interpretations of the facts in the Dr. Conrad Murray case helping to shape my analysis along the way. 

One of the most impressive aspects of the Michael Jackson fan base has been their ability to peacefully organize through the establishment of a powerful online community and tangible advocacy groups, to further Michael Jackson’s cultural legacy and humanitarian efforts. They should continue these activities also through the establishment of nonprofit entities that will advance the causes Michael Jackson supported. 

Ultimately, Michael’s fans have the collective power to right what they view as wrongs in society whether it concerns Michael Jackson or other issues, by employing their strong voice and unified vision. Michael Jackson fans should never be discouraged by disparaging labels!              

Lauren:  What are your thoughts about old, familiar media faces that maligned Michael repeatedly in the past and now re-appear to do it again?  

Matt:  This does not surprise me at all. Ironically, many of the media figures who maligned Michael Jackson in the past have achieved even greater financial success and professional notoriety through their biased and sensational reporting. If these media personalities continue to garner ratings and are rewarded by networks for doing so, there is no incentive for them to change their approach to "The Michael Jackson Story" no matter what the set of facts they have before them. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the viewing public to demand truthful reporting, ethical professional practices and accountability from journalists, media personalities and news organizations. As the media is primarily a profit making business, there will be no commercial advantage to story manipulation and the distortion of facts if the public refuses to buy it.      

Lauren:  What are your opinions about 'blame the victim' defenses; not just in Murray's case, but overall? How is that in any sense justice, when the victim has no voice?

Matt:  The relationship between a victim and a victimizer is typically characterized by an imbalance of power. It is usually the victimizer that holds, manipulates and then exerts their power over the victim, exploiting the victim’s weaknesses with dangerous effect. Although a victim may engage in behavior or place themselves into circumstances that contribute to them being exploited and ultimately victimized, it is the victimizer who should ultimately be held responsible for abusing their power in the relationship. 

As Michael Jackson’s physician, Dr. Murray possessed a great deal of power over his patient even though he claims the opposite. He had the professional responsibility not to abuse that power for personal gain no matter what Michael Jackson, the victim, had done to find himself in a position of weakness. Yet, the ‘blame the victim’ defense that Dr. Murray’s legal team is expected to present at trial, serves as a very easy and convenient litigation strategy. Michael Jackson will be unable to refute any negative characterizations whether true or false that are made about him and the circumstances that caused his death, while Dr. Murray, on the other hand, will have the power to testify and state his interpretation of events.That seems quite unbalanced to me. 

The defense will likely play to the jury's emotions by perpetuating the popular, but not wholly accurate perception that Michael Jackson was an emotionally and physically weak pop star who was addicted to propofol, forced Dr. Murray to administer it to him regularly and ultimately caused his own death. It is difficult to image that justice can be fully served when the same imbalance of power that characterized the Dr. Conrad Murray/Michael Jackson relationship in Jackson’s home, will now rear its ugly head in the courtroom.     

Lauren:  Do you expect to participate in the discussion/discourse about this trial?  

Matt:  Absolutely! I will be covering and providing legal commentary on significant aspects of the Dr. Conrad Murray trial and its verdict for The Huffington Post, as well as on national radio and television news shows as requested. I am looking forward to contributing my legal analysis of the evidence presented at trial, witness testimony, the strategies of the prosecution and defense, as well as the social and policy implications of the verdict. My overall objective is to provide a truthful and balanced perspective on the facts and issues presented by this monumental case through a diverse range of media outlets.    

Lauren:  Are you aware of the importance of people like yourself and also Tom Mesereau, Patrick Treacy, those who knew or worked with Michael, cultural  historians and researchers like Joe Vogel, friends and others who have a platform to speak about Michael and the truth as we know it?  

Matt:  That is very kind of you to say and to include me in this distinguished group. I believe it is essential for those fortunate enough to have a platform to address issues of injustice, inequity and abuses of power to do so whether it is concerning Michael Jackson or others. Though, with the power of such a platform comes the responsibility to speak with honesty, and to avoid the manipulation of news subjects and facts solely to serve ulterior commercial and/or personal interests. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the past with reporting on Michael Jackson, not all who possess such a platform act with ethics and professional responsibility.       

Lauren:  Why do you think the media focuses so fiercely on negative aspects in regard to Michael, and virtually ignore his humanitarian and artistic legacy?

Matt:  Ratings. Easy sound bites. Profit. As long as media can continue to draw viewers and advertisers through a certain type of reporting style or story angle, whether it is about Michael Jackson or any other public figure, it will continue to do so. Many people could not understand Michael Jackson’s appearance, lifestyle, interpersonal relationships, child-rearing choices and other aspects of his personal actions. It became popular to ridicule Jackson, viewing him as an eccentric who stood outside of society’s norms and was to be feared. Whether or not these perceptions were justified, the media found it easier and more profitable to play to and reinforce sensationalized accounts of Jackson, as opposed to digging deeper into his humanitarian or artistic contributions to society.

After years of this fiercely derogatory reporting, and as Michael Jackson’s legal and financial problems continued to mount, it became ingrained in the public consciousness that any news about Michael Jackson was going to be negative news. In my opinion, no matter what Michael Jackson did, this tidal wave of destructive media attention became too overwhelming and it ultimately broke his spirit.

Lauren:  Do you have an opinion about racism playing a part in negativism toward Michael?

Matt:  Yes, racial stereotypes played a significant role in the public and the media’s growing negativity toward Michael Jackson. As Jackson’s skin color and facial appearance changed over the years, many people became confused about why these changes were occurring. There was constant speculation about his race, and Jackson was consistently interrogated about whether he still identified himself as African American or was trying to be Caucasian or another race. 

In my opinion, this type of questioning and negative examination of Jackson’s surface appearance and racial identity were borne out of pre-conceived, and narrow societal constructs of what are the expected physical characteristics of different races. As Michael Jackson’s appearance changed, many people became uncomfortable with the fact that they could not place him squarely into a defined racial box. Very few sought to understand the physiological and psychological reasons that were driving the changes in his physical appearance. Instead, his skin color and facial characteristics became just another easy sound bite and eccentricity to point the finger at. I always thought there was an underlying element of racism that perpetuated this highly debated topic.     

Lauren:  Is there anything you would like to add?

Matt:  I want to thank the Michael Jackson community for providing me with the opportunity to share my thoughts and perspective on an individual who I believe was not only a tremendous artist, but a humanitarian of the highest order. Michael Jackson is responsible for improving the lives of so many people around the world, and has left an indelible mark on this earth. I commend the millions of passionate and compassionate Michael Jackson fans who continue to work so tirelessly to preserve his legacy in our culture and on humanity. Thank you!    

by Lauren
© 2011. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction without permission from author.

This interview appears in the publication Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael’s Legacy Alive,

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/
and its content is the property of the authors and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait. Articles and exclusive interviews are copyrighted; therefore there should be no republication without permission. You may email edito@michaeljacksontributeportrait.com with any requests for republication. If permission is given, credit must be given to the author, Dot to Dot: Keeping Michael's Legacy Alive and the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait.