People vs Conrad Murray - Week 1

Tuesday 27th September was the first day of the People vs. Conrad Murray trial over the death of Michael Jackson. As I have mentioned in my previous post I thought I would only have a passing interest in trial and read updates on news websites.  But I have found myself unable to stop watching and have viewed the trial daily. Here is my summery of the events so far.


Day One

On day one of the trial the prosecutor and defence read their opening statements. This is the guide to what they will be presenting and trying to prove throughout the trial. I really wasn't prepared for the shocking opening statement that the persecution had.

First of all I understand the prosecution wanted to make a strong first impression but I do think it was in poor taste and very shocking to have the slideshow background be an image of Michael Jackson's dead body. This certainly got the trial off to an explosive start but it did seem an exploitative attempt to jump start proceedings and it certainly started a media circus.

The prosecution's statement laid out the fact that Conrad Murray was negligent and abandoned Michael Jackson which led to his death.

The part of the prosecution's opening statement that had the biggest public reaction was the audio recording from May 2009 of Jackson barely coherent and slurring his words. This did send a strong message that MJ's drug use was a lot worse than had ever previously been stated. The prosecution then proceeded to note that the day afterwards Murray purchased 4000 litres of Propofol. Someone slurring in that state clearly does not need 4000 litres of Propofol.

It was always going to be interesting to see what the defence’s statement would be. It had been speculated that they would try and prove that Michael Jackson killed himself by drinking Propofol and the opening statement confirmed that this would be the case. I personally have always felt this was a very weak argument, especially in the method they stated. To my understanding drinking Propofol would not kill you instantly (as the defence have said is what happened to Jackson). If taken orally you would expel the drug as your body would reject it as poison. No evidence of vomiting or such like was present. Also there is a reason drugs are administered intravenously, to start working immediately as they enter directly into the bloodstream. Orally administered treatments take longer to start working therefore instantaneous death seems unlikely.

What quickly became apparent also was that Ed Chernoff was a very poor choice of defence lawyer. Chernoff is often muddled, questions around in circles and is having to be asked by the judge what he is actually trying to say. In fact during the opening statements Chernoff used a board with questions on which spelt Michael Jackson's name wrong! On more than one occasion this week the judge has even reprimanded Chernoff. It was clear from the off that Murray was going to have an uphill struggle as there seemed to be more evidence against him than for him. Combine that with a very weak defence team and it seems that unless the defence have something significant that they are yet to reveal it is very unlikely Murray will be found not guilty.

Day one also started the prosecution witness testimonies. I did not view the testimonies in full so I will not be discussing the AEG representatives. The second person to testify was Kenny Ortega. I didn't view the whole of Kenny Ortega's testimony so I cannot have a clear stand point on what he has said. From what I have seen it is clear that people working on the 'This Is It' production knew something was wrong with Michael, whether they thought it physical or mental. Ortega did state he was concerned with Michael and in fact sent him home from one rehearsal as Michael seemed to be unwell. Ortega also stated he had a heated discussion with Conrad Murray where he expressed to Murray he was concerned for MJ's health. Ortega testifies that Murray then told him that he was the doctor so Ortega should keep out of his business and that Jackson was in good health. Ortega then wrote an email to AEG voicing his concern and expressed that he would not continue to work on the production unless Michael's mental state was assessed to see if he was fit enough to undertake the 'This Is It' tour. This email was ignored.

Personally from hearing the audio recording of Michael's slurred speech and Ortega's acknowledgement of days when MJ seemed out of it or unable to perform it seems evident to me that 'This Is It' should never have been happening at all. Ever since watching the film in the cinema I thought it was obvious that in parts of the film MJ seemed high or not quite himself. He also looked extremely thin. The problem arises when you watch footage from 'This Is It' (as the jury did - the last performance Michael Jackson ever did of Earth Song on 24th June 2009), and Jackson performs well, in fact really well. To be singing and dancing to that level in a rehearsal is amazing. And it seems at odds with the audio recording from a little over a month earlier. There is no doubt Michael's performance was something very special and a glimpse that the Michael Jackson of old was set to make a return. What would have been interesting is the fact that Ortega does state there were days MJ couldn't perform and the fact that Sony refused unseen footage of 'This Is It' to be shown in court does seem to ask what are Sony trying to hide? As I stated before it is obvious people involved in the production knew something was not right with Michael. It seems to me that people were more concerned with getting their part of the production done than ensuring the health and wellbeing of Michael Jackson. As I mentioned in my previous post although Murray is on trial I feel a lot more people are culpable in this case but Murray is the fall guy. It would be interesting to see why Sony explicitly did not want footage of 'This Is It' to be viewed.


Day 2

On day two of the trial no new details emerged. All of the testimonies spoke of details that have been publicly spoken about over the past two years. Michael Amir testified about the panicked phone call he received from Murray, but Amir was only told MJ had a bad reaction and to send someone up to the bedroom. It is worth noting that Michael Amir received this phone call around 15 minutes after Michael apparently stopped breathing (by account from the time of the phone call to Murray's girlfriend where she heard a commotion and from paramedic evaluations of the condition Jackson was in by the time they arrived). Faheem Mohammad, one of Jackson's personal security team, also spoke on what he saw.

This was the first time in court that it was mentioned that Michael's children saw the resuscitation attempt on their father. This was a very poignant point.


Day 3

Day three was always going to be an interesting day as a key witness, Alberto Alverez, (another of MJ's personal security team), was due to testify. Alverez's account has been known publicly for some time but it is still shocking to hear his version of events.

Alverez states he received a call from Michael Amir telling him to go to the bedroom as he had received a phone call from Conrad Murray. When Alverez arrived he saw Michael on the bed and claims Michael looked dead to him. When he arrived Murray was giving one handed chest compression to Michael. Murray then started handing Alverez vials of Propofol and told Alverez to put them in a bag. Murray also requested that an IV bag also be put into the bag. In court they showed the IV bag which Alverez stated contained an empty vial of Propofol. It was actually quite shocking to see this evidence.

When asked why he would hide the vials Alverez stated that as Murray was a doctor he took everything at face value and assumed Murray had everything under control. At the time there was no reason to assume anything other than a bad reaction had occurred.

Alverez said after packing the bags he then called 911 and at the request of the emergency services Murray and himself moved MJ to the floor where Alverez started chest compression and Murray performed mouth to mouth. Alverez stated that Murray said he had never performed CPS before (as a cardiologist, or even a medical practitioner, this is quite extraordinary) and that he wouldn't usually give mouth to mouth but as MJ was a friend he had to do it. I thought it was usually known as the Hippocratic Oath and as a doctor he had to react to the situation, especially a life threatening one, regardless.

Alverez also spoke about trying to usher the children away as they were watching the resuscitation attempt. Alverez got emotional when speaking about Paris' reaction and listening to 911 call.

The defence were grilling as if Alverez was on trial. I was impressed at howAlverez kept cool. Chernoff repeatedly asked if Alverez was sure his memory was correct and he hadn't misremembered that he called 911 after Murray asked him to hid vials and the IV bag. Alverez repeatedly stated that Murray asked him to hide the vials of Propofol before he was asked to call 911.

The second testimony of the day was Kai Chase, MJ's personal chef. Chase stated on the 25th she performed her duties as usual. Between 12.05PM and 12.10PM Murray ran down the stairs in a frantic and panicked manner. She said by his manner she thought something was wrong with Michael. Murray asked her to 'get help, get security, get Prince'. Chase told how she went and got Prince and then returned to her duties. The defence argued that if Murray was in a panic and asked for help, security and Prince did Chase only get Prince? I do think this is a valid point. Chase answered that she was just doing what she was told.

A point I thought the defence would pick out was the fact that Chase stated that she had earned money off of interviews conducted after MJ's death. I believe they didn't grill her as much as I expected over this.

The defence were really tough on Chase but she didn't stand for it and stood her ground and gave answers back. I am baffled as to why Murray would ask for Prince as he knew MJ was not breathing so why make his child witness that? (I assume so that he could state that someone in the Jackson family saw him try to revive MJ). I am also confused as to why if Chase though MJ might be in danger that she would send Prince off with Murray. But I do appreciate that in an unexpected situation you act differently to what is obvious in hindsight.

In my opinion it doesn't matter what anyone’s actions were at this stage because Michael Jackson was already dead. And possibly for up to 15 minutes before anyone apart from Murray was notified. The trial is about what caused that death. The testimonies from the people who were present are just to discover if Murray incriminated himself in any way after the death.

On day three it also became highlighted just how bad a lawyer Ed Chernoff seems to be. It is interesting to view how many times Judge Pastor has scolded Chernoff for his questioning and aggressive tone. Also the number of objections by the prosecution that have been sustained is extraordinary.

Although he is not involved in this case Michael Jackson's lawyer from the second allegations made against him, Tom Mesereau, gave a statement saying [Conrad Murray] "violated every ethical obligation he had as a doctor". Mesereau continued by saying Murray should be found guilty and go to prison. I do have to say that at this juncture I tend to agree with this.


Day 4

On day four of the trial they started rattling through testimonies.

First up was Bob Johnson from a pulse oximeter company. His testimony only took 30 minutes. Johnson plainly stated that the pulse oximeter Murray was using was for spot checks only. When questioned by the defence he admitted that the pulse oximeter does give continuous readings but you must constantly monitor it as there is no alarm. This played into the prosecutor’s hands as the monitor was not constantly monitored as Murray left the room to conduct phone calls and there was no alarm. The defence tried to argue that although they recommend the device is only for spot checks it can be used constantly. Johnson then explicitly, and strongly, denied that this was an appropriate way to use the device. I felt this was a key moment.

The second testimony came from a patient of Conrad Murray's who stated Murray revealed he would be treating Michael Jackson so would cease his duties at his medical practices. First of all I believe this breaks patient confidentiality (although this was not mentioned). The patient did say that until Murray took the contract with Jackson, Murray had gone well above and beyond his duties as a doctor and Murray's care had been first class. Once Murray took the Jackson offer the patient felt abandoned as Murray took little to no interest for the patients care. It is worth noting the patient stated he felt abandoned. This is a word the prosecutors have used repeatedly in their argument.

The testimonies then moved to the medical personnel that attended to Michel Jackson on 25th June. These testimonies are key to the trial. First up was firefighter and paramedic Richard Senneff. His testimony was shocking and very damning for Murray.

Senneff states that when he arrived Murray was in the bedroom with Michael on his own. Michael was still lying on the bed and Murray was not administering CPR. In fact Murray was walking around the room with a plastic bag. Senneff states when he walked into the room Murray looked like a 'deer in headlights'. This is very damaging to Murray (and sound very suspicious). It also calls into question the validity of Alberto Alverez's testimony as he clearly stated Murray and himself moved Jackson to the floor when Alverez was on the phone to 911 before the paramedics arrived to continue CPR. According to the paramedics this was not the case.

Senneff states that Murray didn't really answer any of his medical questions when Senneff arrived.  Murray said there were no medical problems but Senneff thought this did not add up as he could see an IV hooked up to Michael Jackson's leg.  Senneff also stated that Jackson was underweight and looked like he had a chronic illness. When asked when Jackson stopped breathing Murray replied 'it happened right when I called you'. Senneff then said the paramedics thought they could save Michael because if it happened only a few minutes before there was a good chance of restarting the heart. This is such a key and vital testimony as it states if Murray has reacted accordingly to the situation Michael Jackson may well have been alive today. This is shocking and big news. And very condemning evidence against Murray.

In actual fact between Murray noticing Michael wasn't breathing to the paramedics being called and arriving was a 20 minute delay. Murray had also lied to paramedics by not telling them he had administer Propofol. Eventually Murray admitted he had given MJ Lorazepam and a saline drip from the IV bag for dehydration.

Another shocking statement that Senneff claimed was that during paramedic resuscitation efforts Murray knocked out the IV which was administering heart starting drugs to Michael. Listening to this testimony was just unbelievable. The amount of errors and information that Murray hid is extraordinary and does prove his guilt for this charge.

The 4th testimony came from Martin Blount, another paramedic. Blount stated that Murray said MJ was healthy and didn't state he had given Propofol. Murray only stated the IV bag that was attached to MJ contained saline as MJ was dehydrated after rehearsal. This then lead the paramedics to use the same IV bag to administer heart starting drugs (although this was soon knocked out by Murray.)

A key point was when Blount said Lidocaine vials were on the floor yet paramedics do not carry this. Murray never admitted he gave Jackson Lidocaine. Blount continued by saying Murray proceeded to collect the vials of Lidocaine and put them into bags whilst the paramedics were in the room. This is incredible.

The 5th testimony came from Dr Richelle Cooper, the doctor who worked on Jackson at the hospital. Cooper stated Murray only said Jackson was dehydrated. He gave no further details. This was obviously very misleading and could have hindered any attempts to save Michael's life.

The evidence in this section is more condemning as it is from medical professionals.

Day 5's testimonies are highly damaging to Murray's case. Unless the defence bring something unexpected a guilty verdict is almost guaranteed.

It is also worth noting is a gag order has been placed on lawyers after a defence lawyer gave a TV interview.


Summery

So far the testimonies seem to point towards a guilty verdict at this juncture. We must remember that currently it is the prosecution witness testimonies so the witnesses would have been selected to give most sway to the prosecution's argument. But there is no doubt that it is very hard to explain away a lot of the statements that have been made.

All the witnesses at the moment are only being questioned to see how Murray, if at all, incriminated himself afterwards. From their testimonies it seems Murray repeatedly incriminated himself by not responding appropriately, withholding information and hiding evidence.

It should be interesting to see how the trial develops once medical professionals such as the coroner testify and also the see what witnesses the defence call forward.

As I have mentioned unless the defence are withholding a substantial piece of evidence that proves Murray's innocence's it seems unlikely that it would be reasonable to give a non guilty verdict.

The trial continues today.

Sophie Dewing (@sophiedewing)

http://exploredreamdiscoverblog.blogspot.com/

People vs. Conrad Murray - Opening Statements

The big story at the moment is the People vs. Conrad Murray case in regard to the death of Michael Jackson. I thought I would take a passing interest in the case and read updates on the news. Instead I have found myself watching the trial live each night.

Although I am a big MJ fan I have always tried to approach the case objectively. I think Michael Jackson was the greatest perform to ever have lived, his music and dance inspiring and uplifting, his humanitarian work admirable and a genuinely nice, caring, gentle person. But I can still accept that Michael Jackson had a lot of problems and was a drug addict for many years. Although many MJ fan view him as some sort of saintly figure I very much can see that MJ was a human like all of us and indeed had flaws.

I have found it interesting to hear people’s opinions on the case. A lot of MJ fans are diehard in their approach and believe murder should be the charge. On the other hand a lot of people support Murray as they believe he is being gunned after only because the victim is Michael Jackson.

I believe there is a middle ground and it is important for everyone to cast aside any of their personal beliefs and just look at the evidence. To believe Michael Jackson was living a normal, healthy lifestyle until that one night is absurd. But to believe Murray is innocent is even more nonsensical because of the evidence that has proved contrary.

To look at the case objectively it is not about whether Conrad Murray killed Michael Jackson or not. It is whether a doctor acted appropriately to a situation.

From the opening statements it is clear he did not. Anaesthetics should never be administered outside a clinical environment and even if you are getting paid large sums of money you know by undertaking this, even at the request of the patient, that it is compromising your ethics and making you accountable. So therefore you should be extra careful and vigilant (although personally I would say you shouldn't be doing it at all).

Anaesthetics need to be constantly monitored and the fact Murray left the room for an extended period of time does show negligence.

It is advisable to establish that Michael Jackson was a drug addict and had asked for these treatments. It is also important to remember that Michael specifically asked for Murray to be his doctor although his team wanted to hire someone else. 

I also think it is important to remember that Murray was not an anaesthesiologist. He had no training in this field, he was not performing the procedure in a clinical environment and he had no monitoring or lifesaving equipment. Also as Murray was a cardiologist it seems he may have been incompetent in that capacity as he did not know how to administer CPR.

In the opening statements there was a lot of damning evidence shown by the prosecution but Murray defence was very weak. The only string they are holding onto is that Jackson killed himself when Murray left the room. This is highly unlikely as it is virtually impossible to do in the method they stated.

Michael Jackson was deeply troubled and it is plain to see the extent is worse than anyone imagined. I just think it is very sad that there were a lot of people around him and no one took a stand to do anything. It does seem that the greed of people overlooked the health and wellbeing of a man who then paid the ultimate price. Of course Michael Jackson was a drug addict and it is risky behaviour to live on a cocktail of drugs. But when people overlook this, add pressure and then ignore warning signs for their own benefit it is a sad state of affairs. A lot more people are culpable in this death but Murray will be the fall guy as he was the person directly responsible for Michael's health, of which he did not try to treat, instead he fuelled it. Combine with his incompetence as a doctor (for this type of treatment) it lead to Michael Jackson dying.

Everyone is going to have an opinion based on whether they support Michael Jackson or Conrad Murray but to look objectively there is still more evidence against Murray than for him.

I personally don't see how Murray will get away with this because he was negligent, he was unqualified and then acted completely inappropriately (and guiltily) but not telling all the information to paramedics, hiding evidence and not calling medics straight away.

The way I see it Murray was given an opportunity of a lifetime. He knew he was in no way qualified to undertake what was being asked of him but he decided he would try to blag. With this situation, where it is life threatening treatments if not done properly, blagging was never an option and he killed MJ through incompetence and negligence.

By agreeing to be Michael's doctor Murray was acknowledging he knew what would be expected of him and that he could undertake the treatment and procedures. Murray was someone Jackson trusted. And as the prosecution stated "that misplaced trust, in the hands of Conrad Murray, cost Michael Jackson his life"

I personally would say at this time a guilty verdict for involuntary manslaughter would be appropriate. Manslaughter is defined as a death caused by actions that were not planned or premeditated. I believe looking at the evidence thus far manslaughter defines this case.

To perform such a dangerous clinical procedure outside of a medical setting in a specialism that you are not qualified in it is very serious and reckless. As previously mentioned a person will know whether they are capable or comfortable or qualified to do certain undertakings and if they aren't but go ahead (presumably because of  the large pay sum) they have to be held accountable for their actions. I think what also condemns Murray is his inability to inform medical professionals of the drugs he had given Michael Jackson and the fact he removed and hid evidence.

I do find it interesting how at no point the ethics or morality of a doctor administering and prescribing drugs to a patient who does not need them is being discussed. In the US the medical care system is so closely tied to profit and money making that if you have enough money your doctor will become your legal drug dealer. The practice of medicine is to heal the sick so the very thought of doctors partaking in this appals me.

I feel there may be a hung jury as it is subjective as to whether you believe Murray is accountable because he was performing something he had been asked to do by Michael. In the US the medical care system is very much profit over people. Whether the jurors believe in this system will play a part in how they reach their verdict. I have heard the argument that if a patient pays for a treatment they don't need then they should be held accountable if something were to go wrong as they knew what they were asking for. The opposing argument (and the theory I support) is that doctors and medical professionals should not be compromising medical ethics by giving people unnecessary treatments or prescriptions no matter how much money is involved. I think which side the majority of the juror falls on will ultimately decide which way the verdict will go.

The fact that in this case Murray was performing a life threatening procedure that needed training, a clinical setting and lifesaving equipment that he did not have does prove to me he is guilty of manslaughter.

What I take away most from the trial so far is just how sad and isolated Michael was in his final months. It truly breaks my heart that a person can be suffering so much and yet everybody around them ignores it for their own gain. Especially someone who I see as a sensitive, loving and a kind soul. His aim was to make people happy and spread the message of love. It feels exploitative and violating just how misused and abused MJ had been by people that were meant to look out for him. MJ had a lot of people in the world that loved him and yet the people who are meant to be closest to him had such disregard for Michael wellbeing. It is truly tragic.

I have always felt that Michael Jackson sacrificed himself for his art. It was always visible in pictures, even from a young age, that Michael carried much sadness and weight upon his shoulders. As he got older and became the biggest star that ever existed it was apparent people could not look past Michael Jackson the persona. Michael Jackson the person was wholly overshadowed. I can only imagine that the more famous his got the greater sense of isolation he felt.

It was also apparent that people always wanted a part of MJ, whether it was to be close to him, garner fame off him, wanting any snippets of information that could create more gossip and rumours surrounding the enigma that evolved or the greed of wanting to make money off of his back. This vulture like obsession with Michael Jackson, from the public, the press and his associates, has always been something that makes me uncomfortable. And it hasn't been until this trial that the extent of the damage it did to Michael Jackson's mental and subsequent physical health has been revealed. And it is truly shocking and wholly upsetting. The fact that Michael Jackson the persona was loved by millions around the world yet Michael Jackson the man was emotionally neglected by the people around him truly hurts my heart. 

I strongly believe 'This Is It' should never have even been happening. Michael was in a lot worse state than anyone could imagine. We all knew he was a drug addict but not to this degree. I think it would have been very hard for him to complete the tour and that what has come to light so far shows that no one was looking out for his best interests. 

It is such a sad state of affairs. My heart really breaks for him. He was a good guy and did not deserve to have his problems ignored and fuelled so other people could make money.

I just feel really sad that Michael Jackson left this life in that sort of state.

The only thing we can hope is that Michael is now at peace. And I hope once a verdict is reached then the press and public can remember MJ for the inspiration he is and will forever continue to be. Maybe he will finally be able to rest and the soul of Michael Jackson the person will finally be released. 

Sophie Dewing (@sophiedewing)http://exploredreamdiscoverblog.blogspot.com/

Girl. 24. Missing. Can you help?

At the end of 2010 a tragic story was to become the top of the news headlines. Joanna Yeates, a young, pretty, successful young woman from Bristol, was murdered and her body not found until over a week later. What really struck me about this story was the fact that the last time she was seen was on Friday night and no one noticed she was missing until Sunday evening. It really got me thinking about how isolated people's existences are in the modern age and also of my own situation.

Joanna's story got me thinking. If something were to happen to me I think it would be about a week before anyone would notice anything was strange and to take action. I do not include my family in this. My mum would have started worrying after not hearing from me in a few days. But I now realise that my mum does not have any contact numbers for anyone I know in London. As I am a freelance worker and always changing workplaces she doesn't have my work number either. Hell even I don't know my work number! If she were worried who could she contact?

The first people to notice anything would be my employers. I think at first they would be annoyed at me missing work but probably after a day or two would worry if I hadn't got in contact. It is quite sad to think the first people to notice things are wrong would be my employer, the people that you have the least connection to.

I think my friends would take a week before they thought something was wrong. If something were to happen to me on a Friday night my flatmate would probably assume that I had gone away for the weekend so wouldn't worry. And sometimes in the week we don't see each other, as it can be like ships passing in the night, so probably still wouldn't think anything was too unusual.

I undertake dance classes three times a week. I think if I missed one lesson people wouldn't think too much of it. If I missed two they might post a message on my Facebook wall to see why I missed class. I don't think until they hadn't heard or seen from me in maybe a week or so that they would actually start to think something was amiss.

My other friends mostly contract me via Facebook. I think if they had noticed I hadn't have any activity on Facebook in a few days they would text to see if I was OK. If they didn't hear back they would probably think I was busy and then not think about it for a few days. I think only after those days would they then start to worry.

Of course we can not forget that people have their own lives. I hold friendship in high esteem and it was interesting discussing this topic with friends as they made it clear that their priorities lie else where. It got me thinking that back in the day you went from your family home to your marital home so you always had someone looking out for you. Now we have so many opportunities and a lot of independence. For people who choose to take advantage of this, who often then have a time in their life where they will live on their own or flatshare and quite possibly in a city away from their families, who is looking out for these people? They say your friends are the family you choose. Yet most of my friends have said that this is not the case for them. They love spending time with their friends but their family is their partner or they are married to their work. Friends come second.

But when did we stop caring about friends so much? I have always looked out for my friends and if I did not hear from them in a day or two I would contact they just to check everything was OK. It really got me thinking that if something were to happen to me who would notice?

I think overall this shows the time we live in. Social networking and the Internet have made us all the masters of our own universes. We control what people see and know and can create any image of ourselves. We then control who can access this information and how much they can know. And we are all so busy maintaining this universe that we forget to live in the real world.

I think it is ironic that it is called social networking because in fact it is quite the opposite. People are less social. How often do you communicate to friends not via the Internet?

When I discussed with with a few friends they said that they would notice if I hadn't been on Facebook for a few days. Gone are the days when people text each other, or heaven forbid even spoke on the phone. I remember when society was complaining about the lack of face-to-face time people now have due to texting. Now texting would be seen as a blessing!

We are all becoming islands and instead of new technology bringing people together it is making us all more isolated than ever. It should never be the case that it takes days for people to realise a friend is missing or in trouble. How sad it is that we live in a society where someone can have been murdered and be lying in a ditch in the snow for 2 days before someone even realises she is missing?

I hope that if only one positive thing can come out of the sad case of Joanna Yeates is that we realise as people we need to start looking out for those we hold dear more closely. How would you feel if something happened to one of your friends and you had not noticed she was in trouble? Would this play on your conscience? Could you live with yourself?

And maybe it will stir further discussion into what friendship means in society today. What type of friend are you? Would you want to be friends with you regarding the way you currently look out for your friends?

As Jerry Springer would say 'take care of yourself and each other'.