These are NOT the official transcripts – it is a summary from them
NICOLE ALVAREZ IS CALLED
Mr Flanagan asks if they can approach the bench.
Mr. Flanagan, Mr Chernoff, Ms Brazil, and Mr. Walgren are present but not Mr. Low.
Mr. Flanagan states this witness has delicate issues and is the mother of one of his children. He states that their relationship is obvious and that it was social in nature. That this testimony concerns a two minute phone call that happened in the ambulance. He states that it isn’t relevant that they lived together unless the evidence of the packages is going to be relevant, or how they met etc.
Mr. Walgren states credibility is important. He is also having a social relationship with her, and is the mother of his child. And where they met is relevant as this is a different witness. This witness was receiving shipments of propofol at her home, and has been uncooperative. She refuses to speak to police as well.
Mr. Chernoff concurs that where they met is not relevant.
Ms. Brazil wants to show how the relationship progressed.
The Court states her testimony is very relevant abnd there are issues to be explored in light of the delivery of propofol to her home.
Mr. Flanagan states that they can share that they lived together in June when he wasn’t living with Michael Jackson, and that she is the mother of his child. Other than that what else is relevant and why.
The Court states it is relevant within the limits of 352 as to the nature of their relationship and how it evolved over the years.
Mr Guienne is present on behalf of Nicole Alverez (Attorney)
Nicole is sworn in
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. BRAZIL:
Ms. Alverez states she is 29 and identifies Conrad Murray by pointing him out.
She states she may have met Conrad Murray in 2005 in Las Vegas at a Gentlemen’s Club (the type of club is objected to and sustained), where she was employed.
She states he was a patron/guest of the club.
She does not recall if he was introduced to her or how they were introduced.
She did maintain contact with him on the phone but does not recall how the exchange of numbers took place.
She was living in Los Angeles at the time, and he was living in Las Vegas.
She commuted to Las Vegas for her job.
Her relationship with him was personal but she does not recall when it occurred exactly.
She states her relationship took some time to develop with Dr. Murray and during the development stage she would see him in Vegas and Los Angeles.
She has lived in LA since 2005, and was definitely in a relationship with Conrad Murray in 2008, but not sure about 2007.
She is asked if at some time she was told he was married and the question was objected to and sustained.
She is asked if during the months of Apr, May and June if Dr. Murray was living with her, she states she would not call it permanent. She states she assumes his permanent address would be in Las Vegas with his wife, but is not certain as she never asked him.
She states she does have a son with Conrad Murray, who was born in March of 2009.
He stayed with her quite frequently and as much as 2 maybe 3 weeks in April. It is not days in a row but appr. 2 weeks out of a month, so she did not see him every day in a row.
She states he would stay 3 or 4 days in a row with her and her son, and then leave again.
She does not know where he stayed the other nights.
She lived in an apartment.
She states she did not have any expectations of Conrad Murray, so she did not expect him to return home when he left.
During this line of questioning she asks Ms. Brazil to repeat questions numerous times.
She states that in May and June the living arrangements were similar, with no expectations and Conrad Murray not telling her when he would be coming and going.
She was in contact with him via the phone during April May and June outside of the residence.
She did not feel the need to ask him where he was â€“ she assumed Houston or Las Vegas if he was not with her.
She did not speak with him every day.
She did know that he would eventually return after being gone for several days.
He began spending more time with her in March of 2009 and helping with their son.
She states Dr. Murray is paying around 2,500 a month in rent for her apartment, but that the apartment was in her name and she did not expect him to pay. She worked through her entire pregnancy. She is an actress and was working more than ever.
She states she learned of Dr. Murray’s professional relationship with Michael prior to knowing she was pregnant. She learned she was pregnant approx. June of 2008.
There is much questioning, and re-questioning going on in this part of the testimony as the witness cannot answer or does not want to answer the questions.
She states Conrad Murray was staying with her on and off in June of 2008 in Los Angeles but does not know if she knew he was working for Michael. She states she was working in Los Angeles at the time she learned of him working for Michael.
She states she did learn that he was treating Michael in Los Angeles, but it was an assumption on her part.
She knew he was his Personal Physician
She states he would not tell her in what capacity he was treating him, but that she was interested, but did not ask him as he was a professional man and it was not her place to know his business. She states he did not discuss his patients.
She did not know if he was treating any other patients besides Michael in Los Angeles. She did not believe he had a medical office in LA.
She is asked to describe his work schedule in April 2009.
She states he primarily worked at night time and left after 9pm approximately, and he would return the next day in the morning, anywhere between 7am and 10. There was no regular pattern.
On a typical day after working he would relax or if it was early go to the gym, eat or sleep.
In most cases he would primarily sleep the day away.
They would have dinner together and he would depart again at 9pm or 10pm.
She was aware that he was preparing to go to London with Michael.
She was to accompany him. She does not recall when he asked her to go, but she was definitely excited about it. She knew they would be gone for a few months but not sure how long, maybe 2 or 3 months. She did plan to come home for the Holidays as there was a break.
She did not know what she was going to do with the apartment as she was still sorting that out in her mind. She wanted to go to London but had the baby and was concerned with traveling with a small child. But that Dr. Murray did want her to go regardless.
She was informed in the months of April, May and June 2009 that Dr. Murray was going to have packages delivered to their apartment.
She was not asked to do anything with the packages other than to bring them in, as they cannot just get into her unit.
They left them outside of her door or sometimes in the lobby.
He did not inform her of what was in the packages.
She was not told she had to sign for them.
It was not on a regular basis â€“ just a few times.
She did receive packages for Dr. Murray prior to her sons birth, but she does not know what types of things they were.
She never opened any of the packages.
When asked about packages being left in the lobby, they were just left by the mail area, and she would bring them up.
Conrad Murray also received mail in her locked mailbox, but the boxes were left in a common area several times, not in a locked mailbox or area.
Some of the packages were left on her stairs.
Some of them she had to sign for.
She was always informed by him prior to a package arriving that it would be coming, and to look for it.
She never asked him what they were.
Ms. Brazil has 7 documents marked Peoples 22-28 that she will show to Mr. Flanagan as part of Discovery. Mr. Flanagan does not object.
The documents are shown to her, and she concedes they look like her signature, sent to her address in care of her for Dr. Murray. She concedes her address was the same in April May and June of 2009.
She is shown the shipper label of Exhibit 22, APPLIED PHARMACY SERVICES with a Las Vegas address and asked if she remembers seeing that.
She states she does not look at it thoroughly, but may have glanced at it. She was just signing for it, baby on hip, expecting package, no reason to read it thoroughly. She knew the package was for her or that it belonged to Conrad Murray.
Mr. Chernoff states he would like to shorten looking at all the documents and states the testimony can be the same for each of them.
Ms Brazil does not agree.
Court states, no meeting of minds, and she can continue questioning.
Exhibit 23 â€“ April 29, 2009, also to her apartment, signed for by A.P. Maria. She does not know who would have signed for that package and does not know an A. P Maria. The package again is from APPLIED PHARMACY
Exhibit 24 â€“ May 1, 2009, again recipient Nicole for Conrad Murray, the package again is APPLIED PHARMACY
Exhibit 25 â€“ May 13, 2009, to her apartment, signed by someone she does not recognize. She is again the recipient for Conrad Murray from APPLIED PHARMACY.
There is no doorman or specific person to sign for packages.
There was no one else living with her during those months, but did have help from her mom and visitors with the baby.
She states there may have been other people answering her door. She does not recall anyone telling her they signed for a package.
People’s 26 â€“ another package dated May 15, 2009 from APPLIED PHARMACY with no signature this time.
Exhibit 27 dated June 11, 2009 another Fedex in care of Nicole for Conrad to her address, again from APPLIED PHARMACY, with what looks to be her signature.
Exhibit 28 is dated June 16, 2009 same as above.
Ms. Brazil points out Mr. Chernoff in the courtroom and asks is she contacted him after Michael died. She states there would be no reason to contact him.
Ms Brazil asks if she contacted him in September of 2009?
She states she did after she was subpoenaed, and that it was the reasonable thing to do. That Conrad set up the contact. She asked that she have an attorney for the subpoena. She states that Mr. Chernoff set her up with Mr. Low (referred).
She states she did come to court in Sept of 2009 with Mr. Low by her side.
She also reached out to another attorney in December when she was served with a subpoena by the name of Mr. Charlie Windon.
She also states she spoke to Mr. Pena also seated in the courtroom when the detectives were trying to serve a subpoena to her to come to court. She spoke to him via the phone.
Ms Brazil asks if Miss Alverez knew when she became intimate with Conrad that he had six other children.
Mr. Chernoff objects
The Court Sustains
Mr. Walgren asks to approach
Mr. Chernoff, Mr. Flanagan, Miss Brazil, and Mr. Walgren are present, Mr. Low is not.
Mr. Walgren wants the evidence offered as it relates to financial obligations and his failure to pay child support, a pending lawsuit in June, mortgage default and that it is part of his motive for likely cutting corners during this time. That she knew he had these financial obligations.
The Court does not agree.
Mr. Walgren just wants to know if she knew the number of his children and it was the only question.
Mr. Flanagan states his financial obligations have no relevance to the case. His kids have no relationship to his finances. He would like to offer proof as to why financial obligations or number of children is relevant.
The Court does not want to deal with this right now and sustains the objection.
The question of if she knew how many children he had is sustained.
Ms. Brazil continues and asks if Conrad Murray seated in the courtroom is the father of her child. She states absolutely, and agree’s he is the person she had a relationship with since meeting him in 2007. Chernoff objects as this has been answered, and it is sustained.
CROSS EXAMINATION â€“ MR FLANAGAN
Has no questions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.