Below is the email response I received from Channel 5 regarding a letter I wrote them about their “Autopsy” Series which I spoke about on this post. I am not surprised at this “cookie cutter” response, they hide behind the UK’s OfCom Broadcasting Code, which allows them to determine just about anything without breaking this code. It is always done and this is nothing new. They unjustly determined Michael’s “drug problem” by the pills that were in his room and by the testimony of a known liar, Jason Pfieffer. Michael was murdered by Conrad Murray and his misuse of Propofol. Nothing else!
Channel 5 will continue the next program of this series with Anna-Nicole Smith on January 21. This is not only about Michael , but about other wonderful human beings who have families and friends and fans that love them. I hope we all let our voices be heard and let Channel 5 know that this is a degradation to Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Anna-Nicole Smith. May they Rest in Peace. You can contact Channel 5 and directors, producers, etc here and at the bottom of this letter.
Date: 17th January 2014
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding Autopsy: Michael Jackson’s Last Hours.
Channel 5 is sorry that you did not think that it was appropriate for this programme to be broadcast but hopes that now it has been transmitted you can agree that it was a factual documentary which dealt with the subject appropriately and fairly.
Michael Jackson, perhaps undeniably, is one of the great figures of popular culture in the western world. His death was tragic and unexpected. Given these incontrovertible facts, it was clearly in the public interest to explore the medical facts and to throw light on what might have caused his tragic early demise.
You will have seen that the basis of the programme was two-fold: the facts which arose from the autopsy were revealed and examined and, secondly, Dr Shepherd provided his expert opinion about what those facts may have meant, given other facts from Mr Jackson’s life.
So, as the autopsy stated, Mr Jackson suffered from osteoarthritis and had significant damage to his lungs including multifocal fibrocollagenous scars, marked diffuse congesting and patchy haemorrhaging and marked respiratory bronchiolitis, histiocytic desquamation and multifocal chronic intersticial pneumenitis, plus three other lung conditions. On any view of it, this represented poor health in relation to Mr Jackson’s lungs. However, the programme made it clear that, apart from issues with his lungs, in general terms Mr Jackson’s health was quite good for his age.
In the programme, Dr Shepherd theorised about whether or not the cause of Michael Jackson’s lung damage was lupus. This was something he was entitled to do and his theory was backed up by medical and anecdotal evidence, all of which was clearly explained in the programme.
The question of Mr Jackson’s relationship with opiates or opioids is more difficult, but the programme was clear and scrupulously fair in dealing with this issue. It informed viewers about various testimonies on this point: Jason Pfeiffer, the office manager of Albert Klein described regularly admitting Michael Jackson to a Dermatologist for injections of Demerol; during his trial, Conrad Murray explained that he had been giving Mr Jackson propofol for sixty straight days; Mr Jackson’s body was found to contain three different types of benzodiazepans; and the criminal investigation found large quantities of these in his bedroom. The programme made no claim that opiates or opiods were found in Mr Jackson’s body.
However, it was not unfair for the programme to argue that the discovery of multiple benzodiazepans in his body, in conjunction with the many pill bottles also containing benzodizaepans in his bedroom (for intravenous and oral use) and his witnessed long term use of demerol and propofol suggested that Mr Jackson did, indeed, have a drug problem. This was extensively documented in the trial of Dr Conrad Murray.
Channel 5 believes that the broadcast of the programme was entirely in accordance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Nevertheless, we are grateful to you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns and your comments have been noted for the attention of all relevant personnel.