Today has been very distressing for all of us, and I'd like to thank you for your prayers at this horrible time. I would also like to remind some in the media that the voice recording of Michael does not show/prove he was "an addict" -- and this leap to agree with the defense is unfair and inaccurate. The prosecution said my brother "was under the influence of UNKNOWN agents" at the time of that recording by Murray. That some people, Jane Valez Mitchell HLN and Ted Rwlands CNN, make statements saying this shows my brother to be "a drug addict" is not what was said in court re that recording. Events are upsetting enough without correspondents adding their own interpretation (or back-dating events to 1993). No-one can rule out the prospect that Michael was groggy because of something administered to make him relax/sleep. That does noke him an addict. I would also add that Murray was by his side "observing" as well as recording so it can have nothing to do with drug depdency because Murras case is that he was unaware of any drug dependency. One more reason why "addict" is a leap to assumption in these circumstances. Some networks need to make this distinction clear and correct this imbalance. Bottom line: Michael did not kill Michael.