anne bremner, former prosecutor. before we go forward, let's listen to the family's attorney laying out some medical issues that could be at the root cause of this. let's listen. >> a, she was diabetic, b, she had a bump on her leg which was traveling towards her brain that might or might not have been an embolism. she did not go to doctors. and she had an abscess which was more than seven weeks old. >> okay. i've got to go with steve. steve rogers. you're an investigator. we've got toxicology saying blood alcohol .19. how do those factors fit into this, steve? what are you seeing here? >> look, obviously there was alcohol in there. that proves, had she lived, she would have been prosecuted probably for vehicular homicide. >> so you're seeing -- those medical issues would not factor into the blood alcohol reading the toxicology came with, right? >> absolutely. >> anne, let's delve into the different details. investigators say nine people talked to diane schuler as she left the campground before the drive. no one smel

an bremner and martina correa, troy davis' sister. i want to start with reaction from officer macphail's family. let's listen to his son. >> it is very frustrating. to see that, people are not looking at what my father gave up. my father lost his life. >> they have a statement from officer macphail's mother. i i am shocked and upset. he has been to court so many times. he has had all the deals anyone could have asked for. martina, what is your reaction to what the supreme court did? >> well, i mean, i am very excited and elated about it. this is a long time coming. people have to realize this is something that is pivotal because in the united states they haven't determined if it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person. troy's case has so many things that was wrong with the death penalty. so we still have a fight to do but this sets a precedent. it is really saying the supreme court has some serious concerns about this case and we should be evaluating those concerns of strong possibilities of innocent. >> ann, 27 former judge

you listen to anne bremner, she's a defense attorney. listen to what she's saying, she's saying this guy has problems. i have worked with anne for a long time and she's out there saying well, wait a minute, you could use this defense and this defense, and unfortunately, in this case, he's backed himself into a corner. he's apparently told authorities that he did give michael jackson propofol. he could say, i suppose, anne, maybe back me up on this, that maybe he had so many other drugs in his system that he wasn't aware of, so the propofol wasn't the sole cause. that may be what's causing investigators some difficulty right now. >> that's his best defense, isn't it, anne? >> absolutely right. jim is fantastic and a fantastic lawyer. >> you guys like each other. >> we do, very much. we go way back. but the thing is that yeah, he's like jim said, they're going to say multi-drug abuser and i didn't know it. that's what he said publicly through his lawyer. therefore, there's no proximate cause. in other words, this is an addict, once an addi

anne bremner's with us, an attorney. as we look at that -- i'm looking at some kind of defense in there for dr. murray. i'm just not seeing it. are you? >> the only defense is not going to work, which is that he was an addict and somehow led to his own demise. but the fact of the matter is the key word, mike, is lethal. lethal dosage of propofol. and the fact is you can't administer it in the home like this. and by the way, you don't sleep on it. you're unconscious. jackson was killed thereby. so i don't know what kind of defense there will be but there's going to be one because remember, he was paid 150 grand a month to be jackson's doctor. he's defend himself on youtube and everywhere else. >> and let's talk about that. we just showed the clip of him saying he told the truth and the truth will prevail. >> right. >> if this is the truth -- >> well, exactly. i remember when i listened to it, mike, i kept thinking, youtube to be or not to be, youtube? but why did he say the truth will set me free when the truth is i gave

joining me to talk about this, kim sarafin and legal analyst from popsquire.com and anne bremner. we've got the term "addict" being used in these search warrants. isn't that more trouble for dr. murray? the inference here is you are enabling a drug addict. >> he's got trouble ahead and trouble behind. you are talking about overprescribing, prescribing to a drug addict and potentially manslaughter. this is not only potentially criminal, but implicates his license at a minimum. we knew back at the time i was at the jackson trial, which to a certain extent was on headline news and cnn. i as a lay person/slash lawyer could see it at the trial. his doctor certainly should have known and was part of that equation according to the feds and state authority. >> in your experience, could any doctor plead ignorance on michael jackson? >> you know what? ignorance is no defense when you are dealing with michael jackson and his addiction, given all the anecdotal information and all the medical information, 19 aliases. and what was uncovered in the 100 search warrants at the neverland ranch in '

and joining us from seattle, ann bremner. typically, they come back for the person that sent them though jail, not the person that keeps them out of jail. >> it's the person that makes the charges. >> especially not the probation officer, she wouldn't have anything with them going to jail. she would have to do with them stage out of jail. that theory doesn't make sense. how often have you, peter, seen anybody come back and get the probation officer? >> very rarely. retaliation on rare instances. let me take issue. probation officers get up close and personal with the people all the time. they have to search the premises. >> she has not been an officer since 2002. >> there's no evidence that there's a former probationer involved at all. >> you're the best thing on tv since perry mason. black and white tv, like your caller said. i think that's not a good theory. they go after the judge or their own lawyer. probation officer, almost never. >>> kristi cornwell, walking along a remote area tuesday, a walk slooes taken many times.

and joining us from seattle, ann bremner. eleanor, typically the criminal will come back and get the person that sent them to jail, not the probation officer? they kept them out of jail? that doesn't even make any sense. >> no. we don't even see cases like that. you're right, nancy. it's not usually the judge or the prosecutor tore defense attorney. it's the person who made the charges. >> especially the probation officer, for pete's sake. she wouldn't have anything with him going to jail. in factor she would have something to d women staying out of jail, so that theory doesn't make any sense. peter odom in your practice of law, how many times have you seen is somebody come back and get a probation officer? >> very rarely. let me just take issue with you and the other prosecutor, nancy. probation officers get up close and personal with the criminals all the time. they go to their houses, take urine samples from them. >> she has not been an officer since 2002. >> there's no evidence that there's a former probationer involved a