The first thing to say here is that I am in no way making light of the central issues surrounding the trial of Dr Conrad Murray, they are being judged as they should be, in a court of law. But, as an aside, I can't help wondering if I'm the only one who's spotting the interesting differences between the way the various witnesses approach their day in court?
Some of them seem thrilled to be getting their fifteen minutes of fame, all smiles and benevolence, almost nodding at the jury in some sort of conspiratorial 'vote for me' way; others are nervous, agitated and clearly want it all to be over as soon as possible. The expert witnesses are often on the stand for hours at a time and some come across as rather more entertaining than others and I'm not at all sure they should! While watching the live coverage the other day, one particularly serious and rather long-winded witness, had me wondering when the strap line was going to appear on the screen giving me a phone number to call to vote him off!
In the UK, we're very reticent about the idea of allowing cameras in the courtroom. I must say that I've always rather agreed with that point of view. Trials are not 'entertainment' and really shouldn't be viewed in that way but it's hard to avoid it with some of the higher profile cases. It has recently been agreed in the UK that cameras will be allowed into some courts, in a very limited way, for some criminal cases (Court of Appeal only), but only for the Judge's sentencing remarks, not for evidential testimony or ongoing court proceedings and it will be very interesting to see whether this makes any tangible difference to our understanding of how it all works. I think the soundbytes we often rely on on the television can occasionally give rather limited accounts of the events, sometimes downright skewed.
I just can't help wondering whether we've all been subjected to reality TV for too many years now to truly be able to appreciate the seriousness of the nature of trials and prosecutions. In the US, where cameras have been allowed at some trials for many years, even the lawyers themselves seem to have to somehow be 'camera and media-friendly' in order to get the job in the first place and I have to admit that the witnesses in the Murray trial, who are more accessible and who relate to the jury in a friendly and chatty tone, do really seem to make more impact on me even as a mere spectator, than the ones who speak in a monotone, almost whispering their evidence into the microphone.
It was interesting to see this dichotomy played out yesterday when Dr Alon Steinberg and Dr Nader Kamanger, gave their evidence. Dr Steinberg was clearly far more comfortable in that sort of surrounding than was his colleague. He used himself by way of example when explaining certain terms to the jury, in a way that was really very appealing and rather convincing. Dr Kamanger, also used himself to give example when discussing the aetiology of sleep disorders and insomnia, and his particular example really did exemplify his entire testimony. He explained that he had been anxious prior to giving evidence and had therefore not slept well the night before. Compare that to Dr Steinberg's examples of how his own heart might react to various things which left me feeling a bit star struck by him and wondering if his practice had an easily accessible telephone number!
During Dr Steinberg's most engaging testimony, I also couldn't help feeling we'd slipped suddenly into some kind of twilight zone, when Defense Attorney, J Michael Flannagan (who, it may be interesting to note, won a previous case involving Propofol some years ago), began clutching at straws and suggesting that Dr Steinberg, a Prosecution witness, should consider the possibility that Conrad Murray (Mr Flannagan's client) may have been lying in his testimony! At this point Dr Steinberg (along with most of the watching public I would assume) looked puzzled and asked "do you want me to pretend he did something else?"
It's a fascinating insight into the way different personalities deal with pressure as it's undoubtedly a hugely pressured experience, and yet I just wonder how easy it is for the jury, or us, the watching masses, to really distinguish between what is hard fact, and what is just very well presented opinion. I'm afraid I still very much err on the side of not allowing cameras into courtrooms and, if we must do so, then certainly in a more limited way than happens in the US.
I do not envy the task of the jurors on this occasion. I'm not sure if trials are allowed to 'jump the shark', but this one certainly seems to be heading in that direction at times.