January 7th, 2011
(Discussions begin at the sidebar.)
Flanagan asks if they may approach the bench. Flanagan, Chernoff, Brazil and Walgren are present--Low is not. Flanagan states this witness has certain "delicate issues" like that of the previous witness (Bridgette Morgan). He states Alvarez is the mother of one of Murray's children. He states it is known Murray and Alvarez have a social relationship--apparent by them having a child together--but says he does not feel the origin of the relationship should be discussed. He states they had a social relationship in June 2009. He states regarding the 2 minute phone call placed in the ambulance to Alvarez, nothing further should be examined except they lived together, unless the prosecution is going to cover the evidence regarding packages received.
Walgren states issues of credibility are important. He states the fact they have a current social relationship and they have a child together is obviously relevant to her credibility, as well as where they met. He states this witness is entirely different than Morgan. He states Alvarez is the woman who was receiving propofol shipments to her house. He further states she is an uncooperative witness who has refused to cooperate with police, including refusing to open the door for police and she has reached out to Murray's attorneys. Walgren states he feels the phone call is the least of what Brazil wishes to get into--she wishes to examine the nature of the relationship which Walgren feels is much more important. He states when Murray comes to L.A.--he stays with Alvarez.
Chernoff states there is clearly more relevance to this witness . He says he agrees with Walgren. He feels Flanagan is referring to where and how they met as being irrelevant.
Brazil disagrees and says the inception of the relationship, how it progressed, is relevant.
The Court states this witness is dramatically different than Morgan because of the delivery of propofol to Alvarez. Brazil agrees. The Court states he will allow the parties to explore the relationship.
Flanagan interjects--the Court interrupts him. Flanagan states the prosecution can establish the nature of the relationship in June, that they lived together, that when he was not with the patient he was with her and she is the mother of his child. He asks what else has to go into the nature of their relationship.
The Court states that under the preliminary guidelines he is going to allow the nature of the relationship to be explored.
Proceedings begin in open court. Mr. Victor Guinne is serving as counsel for Nicole Alvarez.
DIRECT EXAMINATION: MS. BRAZIL
Alvarez states she is 29 years old. She states she recognizes Murray in the court room as other witnesses have done in the past.
Brazil asks when Alvarez first met Murray. She states she cannot recall, perhaps 2005. She states she met him at a gentleman's club in Las Vegas. Alvarez was employed by the club. She states Murray was a guest at the club. Brazil asks if Alvarez introduced herself to Murray or if there was some other way they were introduced. Alvarez says she cannot recall how they initially spoke. Throughout questioning the defense is objecting to the questions--some objections are sustained and some are overruled.
Alvarez states she maintained contact with Murray either on the telephone or in person. She states she cannot recall if she gave Murray her telephone number when they first met in 2005. She states that at the time they met, to her knowledge Murray was living in Las Vegas at the time. She states she was living in Los Angeles at the time. Brazil asks if Alvarez commuted from Los Angeles to Las Vegas for her job. She states she did commute.
Alvarez agrees that at some point after meeting Murray they developed a personal or intimate relationship. She states she cannot recall when that occurred. Brazil begins to delve further into when the relationship became personal or intimate--the defense objects. The Court sustains the objections. Alvarez states quite some time had passed--it was something that developed over time.
Alvares states that during the development of their relationship, she would see him at times in person but not at all times. She states she would see him in person in Las Vegas and at times in Los Angeles.
Alvarez states it is accurate that she was in a personal relationship with Murray in 2008 but she is not sure if it was personal in 2007. Brazil asks Alvarez if Murray informed her he was still married. She states she does not recall. Brazil's questions about Alvarez knowing about Murray being married are overruled.
Brazil: DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL, MAY, JUNE OF WAS DOCTOR MURRAY LIVING AT YOUR RESIDENCE?
Alvarez asks for a clarification.
Brazil: DURING THE MONTHS -- LET'S START WITH JUST THE MONTH OF APRIL 2009 WAS CONRAD MURRAY LIVING AT YOUR RESIDENCE?
Alvarez: I AM TRYING TO ANSWER ACCURATELY, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT HE WAS LIVING AT MY RESIDENCE PERMANENTLY OR WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT AS A TEMPORARY?
Brazil: HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT?
Alvarez: I WOULDN'T DESCRIBE IT AS A PERMANENT DWELLING FOR MR. MURRAY, NO.
Brazil asks where Alvarez considered Murray's permanent dwelling to be as of April 2009. She states she assumed it to be in Las Vegas with his wife.
Brazil: BUT YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN WHERE IT WAS THAT HE WAS HAVING HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN APRIL OF 2009?
Alvarez: HOW CAN I BE CERTAIN OF THAT? NO, MA'AM.
Brazil asks if she ever asked him about his permanent residence. Alvarez states no.
Alvarez states she has a son with Murray. Her son was born in March of 2009.
Brazil: IN APRIL OF 2009, HOW MUCH TIME WAS CONRAD MURRAY SPENDING AT YOUR RESIDENCE IN LOS ANGELES?
Alvarez: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY HOW MUCH TIME HE WAS SPENDING THERE. BUT I WOULD -- I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY HOW MUCH TIME.
Brazil asks if he would spend the night there one night during the month? Alvarez states no, that it was quite frequent. Brazil asks if he stayed a week, 2 weeks at a time. Alvarez states "perhaps". Brazil asks if he stayed 3 weeks. Alvarez states she is not going to commit to 3 weeks because "she cannot do that". Brazil asks if she is comfortable with 2 weeks for certain. Alvarez states "at times".
Brazil: SO GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HIS TYPICAL SCHEDULE WOULD BE WHEN HE WOULD STAY AT YOUR RESIDENCE IN LOS ANGELES?
Alvarez wants to know what times Brazil is referring to in her questioning.
Brazil states they are still focusing on April 2009, after Alvarez had given birth to her son.
Alvarez asks if Brazil is wanting her to give her an example of his schedule. Brazil states she is wanting an example of how frequently Murray was staying overnight at her residence. Alvarez states she thinks it is fair to say 2 weeks out of the month. Alvarez states she does not know where he was the other 2 weeks out of the month.
Brazil: HE WOULD LEAVE YOUR RESIDENCE, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE HE WOULD GO?
Alvarez: I WOULDN'T LEAVE WITH HIM.
Brazil: WOULD HE LEAVE YOUR RESIDENCE, AND YOU WOULD HAVE NO IDEA WHERE HE WAS GOING?
Alvarez: AN IDEA IS DIFFERENT THAN KNOWING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM ANSWERING ACCURATELY BECAUSE I CAN'T CLAIM TO KNOW SOMETHING THAT -- MY ASSUMPTION OR MY BELIEF WOULD BE THAT HE WOULD RETURN.
Alvarez states she her residence is an apartment. Brazil asks again that Murray stayed 2 weeks at a time in April 2009. Alvarez states "at times".
Brazil: WE ARE FOCUSING JUST ON APRIL AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT IT WAS TWO WEEKS IN APRIL THAT YOU FELT COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT HE STAYED. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT?
Alvarez: I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY, BUT, IF YOU KNOW -- THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT, YES.
Brazil: OKAY. SO YOU WOULD SEE HIM, DOCTOR MURRAY, EVERYDAY IN APRIL OF 2009 DURING THE TIME PERIOD THAT HE WAS STAYING WITH YOU, CORRECT?
Alvarez asks if she means every day in April or during the 2 weeks. Brazil states during the 2 weeks.
Alvarez: WELL, WHEN I, WHEN I MENTIONED TWO WEEKS, I DON'T MEAN TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. PERHAPS IT WAS 3 OR 4 DAYS IN BETWEEN. SO IT'S NOT 2 CONSECUTIVE WEEKS. SO I CANNOT SAY THAT I SAW HIM EVERYDAY 2 WEEKS CONSECUTIVELY IN APRIL OF 2009.
Brazil asks if Murray's pattern was to spend a few days with Alvarez, then leave, then return, then leave, etc. Alvarez asks for the question to be repeated.
Brazil: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL 2009 DOCTOR MURRAY WOULD STAY OVERNIGHT AND BE WITH YOU AND YOUR SON FOR 2, 3, 4 DAYS AT A TIME? THEN HE WOULD LEAVE YOUR RESIDENCE, GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. YOU ARE NOT SURE WHERE, AND THEN HE WOULD RETURN TO YOU RESIDENCE AND STAY FOR A FEW DAYS AND THEN LEAVE AGAIN?
Alvarez states that sounds correct. She states maybe "the 2 or 3 days" and Brazil may want to make it "3 or 4 days", but that correct.
Brazil: DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO COME HOME THAT NEXT DAY, OR DID HE TELL YOU "I WON'T BE BACK FOR A FEW DAYS?"
Alvarez: WELL, TO BEGIN WITH, I DON'T HAVE EXPECTATIONS ON DOCTOR MURRAY. SO I WOULDN'T EXPECT ANYTHING. THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. THAT'S JUST A RULE THAT I LIVE BY.
Brazil asks Alvarez if she would like to re-ask the question--Alvarez states she may do so.
Brazil: WHEN DOCTOR MURRAY WOULD SPEND 2 OR 3 NIGHTS WITH YOU AND THEN HE WOULD LEAVE AND HE WAS NOT RETURNING THAT SAME DAY, WOULD HE LET YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE AWAY FROM YOU AND YOUR SON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME?
Chernoff objects and the court sustains the objection. Brazil asks if she may be heard. The Court says no, to move onto another subject.
Brazil asks Alvarez if she did not know when Murray was going to be at her residence or some other place. Alvarez asks her to repeat her question twice. The Court remarks that "we've got to pay attention". Brazil asks Alvarez if during April 2009, when Murray would come and go, if she had any idea during the month when he was to be at her residence or when he was going to be away and not returning for several days. Alvarez states no. Brazil asks if such a statement would be inaccurate or accurate and Alvarez states she would "not have an idea".
Alvarez states it is fair to say Murray had the same type of schedule in May 2009 which including him being at the residence for periods of time then leaving. Alvarez agrees Murray likely spent about the same amount of time with her--2 weeks--in May 2009. Brazil asks about June 2009--if Murray maintained the same type of schedule where he would arrive and depart, arrive then depart. Alvarez states "he would always--that's fair to say, yes".
Alvarez confirms that Murray would not tell her when he would be returning when he left in both May and June 2009. Alvarez states when Murray would leave she would be in telephone contact with him. Brazil asks if he would let her know where he was--Alvarez states "at times, I mean, yes, at times".
Brazil: AT TIMES, WOULD HE FAIL TO LET YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS?
Alvarez: IT JUST WASN'T AN ISSUE. IT WOULD NEVER COME UP. EITHER I HAD AN ASSUMPTION THAT HE WAS IN VEGAS OR HOUSTON. THERE WAS NO NEED TO DISCUSS HIS WHEREABOUTS.
Brazil ask if she spoke with her every day. Alvarez states she would not say everyday and never made such a claim. Alvarez agrees that she was not worried about where Murray was because she was still in touch with him.
Alvarez agrees she always knew that Murray would be returning to her residence at some point even though he was away for a few days at a time.
Brazil asks what month in 2009 Murray began spending the most amount of time with her in Los Angeles. Alvarez says perhaps June. Brazil asks if he spent consistently more time with her in June than in May. Alvarez states with the birth of their child "it was frequent, becoming more frequent anyway". She states he was helping with the baby.
Brazil: I UNDERSTAND. SO NOT JUNE RATHER. IT WAS MARCH OF 2009 THAT HE WAS SPENDING MORE TIME WITH MORE REGULARITY AT YOUR RESIDENCE IN LOS ANGELES; IS THAT ACCURATE?
Alvarez is asked if Murray was paying her rent. She states yes he was paying her rent. Brazil asks how much the rent was but she cannot recall the exact figure. Brazil asks if it was more or less than $2000 a month. She states it was about but more than $2000 a month. She says perhaps it was around $2500.
Brazil: HOW LONG HAD HE BEEN PAYING YOUR RENT BEFORE YOUR SON WAS BORN?
Alvarez: HE WASN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR MY RENT. EVERYTHING IS IN MY NAME. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY RENT. IF HE CHOSE TO HELP ME AT TIMES, THAT WAS UP TO HIM. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WASN'T EXPECTED, OR THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WAS DEPENDENT UPON HIM TO DO.
Brazil asks if he was paying her rent or helping her during her pregnancy. Alvarez states at times but she also continued to work during her pregnancy. Alvarez states she is an actress. She states she was shooting various projects while pregnant. Alvarez states while she was pregnant she was actually working "more than ever".
Alvarez states she cannot recall if Murray was Michael's personal physician in March 2009 nor can she recall when she became aware of it, either. She claims she was not pregnant when she learned about Murray working as Michael's personal physician.
Alvarez states she knew of Murray's employment before she became pregnant. Brazil asks when she became pregnant. She states she actually learned this information well before she was pregnant. Brazil asks for an earlier date but Alvarez cannot give her a date. Brazil asks for a year she knew the information. Alvarez states "perhaps it was in 2000--well, let's see". The Court asks her what she said and Alvarez states she thinking and cannot give a year.
Brazil asks again when Alvarez became pregnant after Alvarez states to Brazil to go "nine months back". Alvarez now states she was pregnant June of 2008. Brazil asks as of June 2008, when did Alvarez learn that Murray was working for Michael. Alvarez states she cannot recall. Brazil asks if Murray was spending time with her in Los Angeles in June 2008, including time at her apartment. She states yes. However, at that time she still cannot recall if Murray was working for Michael. Alvarez agrees that at some point Murray did tell her he was working for Michael, that she was "made aware of that through Doctor Murray, yes". She believes she was at Los Angeles when he told her he was working for Michael.
Brazil: WHEN YOU WERE IN LOS ANGELES AND DOCTOR MURRAY WOULD STAY WITH YOU, WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE WAS PROVIDING CARE FOR MICHAEL JACKSON AT MICHAEL JACKSON'S RESIDENCE ON CAROLWOOD DRIVE?
Alvarez states no.
Brazil: DID CONRAD MURRAY EVER TELL YOU THAT HE IS PROVIDING CARE TO MICHAEL JACKSON HERE IN LOS ANGELES?
Alvarez states yes. Brazil leads her on with an "and...".
Alvarez: WELL, THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION.
Alvarez states that was her assumption because she knew Murray was working with Michael but not in what capacity. She further states that her assumption would be if he was here in Los Angeles then he was working with Michael.
Brazil: DID CONRAD MURRAY EVER TELL YOU "I'M MICHAEL JACKSON'S PHYSICIAN," OR DID YOU JUST NOT HAVE ANY IDEA IN WHAT CAPACITY HE WAS WORKING WITH MR. JACKSON?
Alvarez: NO. I KNEW THAT HE WAS HIS PERSONAL PHYSICIAN.
Brazil: AND WHAT DID DOCTOR MURRAY TELL YOU, IF ANYTHING, ABOUT HIS DUTIES RELATED TO MICHAEL JACKSON?
Alvarez: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Alvarez states she was interested but she absolutely did not ask him what he was doing for Michael.
Alvarez: DOCTOR MURRAY AND I WERE ON A NEED-TO-KNOW BASIS. HE'S A PROFESSIONAL MAN. AND I JUST KNOW MY PLACE AND MY POSITION IN HIS LIFE, AND THAT IS NOT MY DUTY TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF HIS BUSINESS. THAT WASN'T A COMMON PRACTICE THAT HE DID, DISCUSS HIS PATIENTS, HIS WHEREABOUTS, OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT.
Brazil: WHEN DOCTOR MURRAY WAS LIVING WITH YOU IN LOS ANGELES, YOU WERE AWARE THAT HE WAS TREATING MICHAEL JACKSON, CORRECT?
Alvarez: I WAS AWARE THAT WHEN DOCTOR MURRAY WAS IN LOS ANGELES, HE WAS AT TIMES, TO MY BELIEF, WITH MICHAEL. AS TO WHAT CAPACITY, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WAS PRIVY TO. SO.
Alvarez states again she was aware that Murray was Michael's personal physician. She states she does not know if he was treating any other individuals in Los Angeles other than Michael.
Alvarez states to her knowledge Murray did not have a medical office in Los Angeles.
Brazil: DESCRIBE FOR ME DOCTOR MURRAY'S SCHEDULE DURING THE TIME THAT HE WAS LIVING WITH YOU IN APRIL? DURING THE TIME THAT HE WAS STAYING WITH YOU, WOULD HE GO TO WORK DURING THE DAY TO PROVIDE CARE FOR MICHAEL JACKSON? WOULD IT BE DURING THE NIGHTTIME? DESCRIBE FOR ME HIS ACTIVITIES, PLEASE.
Alvarez: FROM THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE PRIMARILY IN THE NIGHTTIME. THAT'S FAIR TO SAY.
Brazil: SO DOCTOR MURRAY WOULD BE AT YOUR RESIDENCE DURING THE DAY AND YOU, OF COURSE, WERE HOME WITH A NEWBORN BABY AT THAT POINT, RIGHT?
Alvarez agrees he was with her during the day and then sometimes in the evenings he would leave. She states he left at approximately 9:00 p.m. given that was the time she put her newborn infant son to bed. She states further that he would leave around 9:00 p.m., sometimes 10:00 p.m. She states it was never at the same time. She states he would return the next day at different times, it was never the same. She states he would return in the morning, "anytime between 7:00 and 7:00 a.m., 8:00, 9:00, 10:00".
Brazil asks what he typically did once he returned in the morning.
Alvarez: TYPICALLY, I WOULD SAY THAT HE WOULD JUST RELAX NORMALLY, SOMETIMES MAYBE GO TO THE GYM, DEPENDING ON THE TIME THAT HE WOULD RETURN. IF IT WAS EARLY, THEN HE WOULD GO TO THE GYM, MAYBE HAVE SOMETHING TO EAT AND SLEEP.
She states in most cases he would sleep a large majority of the day. At times they had dinner and then he would depart again.
Brazil asks if Alvarez was aware that Murray was to accompany Michael to London. She states "absolutely". She states she planned on accompanying him on that trip. She states she cannot recall when he told her she would be accompanying him and that he did not thoroughly discuss the trip with her. She states she was "definitely, definitely" excited about going to London.
Alvarez states she did not know how long she would be gone. She recalled she would be gone maybe 2-3 months then there was to be a Christmas break. She remembered plans to be home for the holidays. Brazil asks if she planned on keeping her apartment or not. Alvarez states she had made no plans since no plans were concrete and she was unsure if she was actually going since she had a baby. She states she was still working things out and there was not a clear decision made on what she was going to do with her apartment. Alvarez again states she was not sure she was going to London with Murray. She was invited to go and hoped to go but she was unsure if she would go because of the baby. She said the baby would have prevented her from going because of exposure to germs, childcare, etc. Again Alvarez confirms that Murray wanted her to go but she did not know if it was in the best interest of her child.
Alvarez confirms that Murray instructed her that he was having packages delivered to her apartment in April, May and June 2009. She states that he did not really say anything other than he had something coming to the apartment. She states that he did not really ask her to do anything with the packages other than to make sure if she got the package before him that she make sure she bring it inside for him rather than it be left outside the door or downstairs in the lobby.
Alvarez states she was given no details as to what the packages were. He did not tell her they were important packages. He did not tell her she had to sign for them.
Alvarez: HE JUST WOULD LET ME KNOW, I THINK, OUT OF RESPECT FOR ME AND MY HOME THAT THERE WAS A DELIVERY COMING. AND I SAID, "OKAY. ALL RIGHT."
Brazil asks for Alvarez to describe her apartment complex based on her statement above that seemed to indicate her apartment may have difficulty receiving packages.
Alvarez: I DIDN'T SAY IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO GET IN. I SAID SOMETIMES THEY WOULD LEAVE THEM DOWNSTAIRS IN THE LOBBY, OR THEY WOULD LEAVE THEM OUTSIDE OF MY UNIT DOOR.
Alvarez confirms "they" are shippers like FedEx and UPS. She confirms she received packages in Murray's name. She states she does not recall packages being delivered on a regular basis. From her recollection she believes it was only a few times. She states she believes items were shipped to her apartment for Murray before her son was born but she does not know what those items were. She emphatically denies she ever opened the packages.
Alvarez states she recalled once or twice when packages were left in the lobby. She recalls picking them up and taking them upstairs to her apartment. She recalls the items being boxes. She agrees that Murray received mail inside her mailbox at her residence. She states she has a locked mailbox but that packages are left out in an open area that is not locked. She recalls only a few times that the shipments were left in the common area of the lobby. She recalls some packages were left on her doorstep. Alvarez also recalls signing for some of the packages. Alvarez states he always informed her if there was something coming, from her recollection. She states he did not tell her what the packages were or what they contained and she says she never asked him what they were for or what they contained.
Brazil begins to show Alvarez some documents including receipts from the packages delivered.
Alvarez is asked to confirm her address as the address listed on the first receipt. She does confirm it as her address during April, May and June 2009. Alvarez is asked if she recognizes the signature. She does. She is asked if that is her signature. She states the signature could be hers as it looks like her signature.
Brazil: DO YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "RECIPIENT, CARE OF NICOLE ALVAREY AND CONRAD MURRAY, M.D," AND THEN IT HAS YOUR ADDRESS, CORRECT?
Brazil: DO YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE WHERE IT SAYS "SHIPPER, MELISSA ELIAS, APPLIED PHARMACY SERVICES," AND AN ADDRESS IN LAS VEGAS?
Alvarez is asked if she recalled looking at the shipper listed on the receipt
Alvarez: NO. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THE BIG PICTURE HERE. I HAVE BABY ON MY HIP, SOMETHING'S COMING. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. I'M NOT -- I AM SIGNING FOR IT. I AM PUTTING IT DOWN TO THE DETAILS OF WHAT I SIGNED FOR AND WHO IT WAS, I MAY HAVE GLANCED AT IT, YES. THAT'S FAIR TO SAY BUT TO READ A PAPER IN DETAIL, I WAS, UNDERSTOODTHAT THIS PACKAGE WAS NOT FOR ME. SO THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR ME TO REALLY THOROUGHLY READ IT IN DETAIL.
Alvarez states she would just confirm whether it belonged to her or Murray
Brazil: MISS ALVAREZ, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 23, ALSO, A FEDEX RECEIPT DATED APRIL 29, 2009, DELIVERY LOCATION, IS THAT ALSO YOUR APARTMENT?
Brazil: THIS WAS A PACKAGE DELIVERED AND SIGNED FOR BY A P. MARIA. DO YOU SEE THAT?
Brazil: DO YOU KNOW A P. MARIA RESIDING AT YOUR RESIDENCE WHO WOULD HAVE SIGNED FOR THIS PACKAGE?
Alvarez: I AM -- NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT RESIDES AT MY RESIDENCE.
Alvarez states she does not know anyone named P. Maria who would have signed for this package. Alvarez again confirms her address at the time of the package's arrival.
Alvarez confirms her name was misspelled correctly as "Alvarey".
Exhibit 24 is another FedEx receipt dated May 1st, 2009 with delivery again to Alvarez's apartment in care of Alvarez, to Murray from Applied Pharmacy Services.
Exhibit 25 is another FedEx receipt dated May 13th, 2009 with delivery again to Alvarez's apartment.
Brazil: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE IN THE GRA BOX AREA IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DOCUMENT, MISS ALVAREZ?
Alvarez states she does not.
Brazil asks again if the signature looks familiar at all to her and she says it does not even though the recipient is listed as Nicole Alvarez and Conrad Murray, with the same apartment address, with the shipping address again from Applied Pharmacy Services.
Alvarez states there is no doorman at the residence to sign for packages nor a doorman.
Brazil: IN MAY OF 2009, WHO BESIDES YOURSELF AND YOUR SON AND CONRAD MURRAY WAS LIVING OR STAYING AT YOUR APARTMENT?
Alvarez: NO ONE WAS LIVING OR STAYING WITH ME WITHIN THOSE MONTHS, NO.
Brazil asks if Alvarez's mother or anyone else came to help with the infant.
Alvarez: ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S PLENTY OF VISITORS WITH THE NEW BABY, PLENTY OF PEOPLE IN AND OUT. BUT STAYING AND LIVING, JUST MYSELF AND MY SON.
Alvarez states it is possible people at her residence helping with the infant could have answered the door but states she was not informed that any of those individuals received a package for her that was shipped to Murray.
Brazil shows another exhibit that includes a receipt from FedEx dated May 15th, 2009. Again, the recipient is Alvarez/Murray from Applied Pharmacy Services. Alvarez confirms she does not see a signature on the receipt. Brazil asks if she recalls having boxes left at her doorstep at times other than the times they were picked up at the mailbox area. Alvarez says it is possible.
Brazil shows another exhibit, a receipt dated June 11th,.2009. The details are the same as previously stated. Alvarez states she recognizes the signature as perhaps her own.
Another exhibit is shown from June 16th, 2009. It is a receipt with the same details as previously stated. Alvarez confirms the address as her apartment address.
Alvarez confirms Murray is currently staying at her apartment (January 2011). She is asked if she recognizes Chernoff seated in court and she states yes.
Brazil: DID YOU CONTACT ED CHERNOFF FOR LEGAL ADVICE AFTER MICHAEL JACKSON DIED?
Alvarez: NO. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR ME TO CONTACT ED CHERNOFF FOR PERSONAL LEGAL ADVICE.
Brazil: WELL, YOU DID CONTACT ED CHERNOFF BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2009, DIDN'T YOU?
Alvarez states she contacted him after a subpoena was issued. She is asked why she contacted him after she received a subpoena.
Alvarez: I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE THING TO DO TO INQUIRE.
Brazil asks why she believes such to be a reasonable thing to do.
Alvarez: IF YOU ARE SUBPOENAED TO GO TO COURT, I BELIEVE IT'S A REASONABLE THING THAT ANY THINKING HUMAN BEING WOULD DO.
Alvarez confirms she had questions about her subpoena and thus contacted Chernoff.
Brazil asks who put Alvarez in contact with Chernoff.
Alvarez: OF COURSE, I WOULD ASK CONRAD CAN I SPEAK TO ED (Chernoff).
Brazil: SO CONRAD MURRAY GAVE YOU THE INFORMATION TO CONTACT ED CHERNOFF AFTER YOU WERE SERVED A SUBPOENA; IS THAT CORRECT?
Alvarez: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY HOW THAT EXCHANGED. PERHAPS I SAID, "YOU KNOW, I WANT AN ATTORNEY. COULD YOU HAVE ED CALL ME," OR PERHAPS I CALLED ED. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY HOW THAT EXCHANGE WAS MADE BUT THE MUTUAL PERSON THAT INTER -- OF COURSE, I MET ED THROUGH DOCTOR MURRAY.
Alvarez agrees it was a natural act to reach out to Murray's attorney when she received the subpoena.
Alvarez states she "believes" she spoke with Chernoff. She agrees it would be important that she speak to him.
Brazil: AND YOU WANTED SOME LEGAL ADVICE. SO YOU REACHED OUT TO MR. CHERNOFF, CORRECT?
Alvarez: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IT.
Alvarez states she believes Chernoff explained the subpoena to her but does not think he said too much to her referred her to Joseph Low. Alvarez confirms Low is seated in court. Alvarez agrees that Chernoff gave her Low's phone number. Alvarez states she called Low.
Brazil asks if Alvarez came to court as requested per the subpoena which took place in September 2009. Alvarez confirms Low accompanied her.
Brazil asks if Alvarez reached out to an attorney in December 2010 when she was served with a subpoena. Alvarez remarks yes, the event just occurred last month. She states she believes that attorney was Charlie Windon. A gentleman by the name of Pena is seated in court. Brazil asks Alvarez if she spoke to him as well. She states perhaps she did but she does not recall exactly but does not think she did then recalls she did in fact speak to him via telephone.
Brazil asks Alvarez if she was aware Murray had 6 other children when she began an intimate and personal relationship with him. Chernoff objects and Walgren asks to approach.
Present at the sidebar are Chernoff, Flanagan, Brazil and Walgren. Low is not present. Walgren states the prosecution offers the evidence because it relates to financial obligation and makes note the prosecution intends through other witnesses to elicit some financial evidence as it " relates to, for example, his mortgage default at the time between 2009 pending a lawsuit judgment in June of 2009, child support obligations pending against him in June 2009 and this relates to our case in regard to his financial state of affairs at the time and part of his motive for very likely cutting corner in his care of Michael Jackson during the same time period". Walgren further states the prosecution wishes to offer her knowledge of the other 6 children, as she testified knowing about at the grand jury, as it relates to his financial obligations. The Court asks what she knows about his financial obligations. Walgren states she knows the number of his children. Flanagan states his financial obligations have no relevance in this case and that his children have no relationship to his financial obligations. Flanagan asks to have an offer of proof as to why his financial obligations or number of children is relevant in this case. The Court states that the issue will not have to be dealt with currently as he is sustaining the objection.
Proceedings begin again in open court.
Brazil states she has one more question. She asks Alvarez if Murray is the father of her son. Alvarez states "absolutely". Brazil attempts to ask if Murray is the individual she had a relationship with since meeting him prior to 2007 but Chernoff objects and the objection is sustained. Brazil then concludes her direct examination.
Flanagan does not cross-examine the witness.
The witness is excused.
The transcripts used to create these summaries were lawfully obtained from www.teammichaeljackson.com.