Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aquarius said:
Where can I watch it?
Click to expand...

I didn't check if this is all but by looking at how long those videos are, it seems that uploader has most of it.
Michael Jackson-Katherine Jackson AEG Trial. Sept 25. Part 1. 1:03:25 min

Michael Jackson-Katherine Jackson AEG Trial. Sept 25. Part 2. 27:50 min

and 3rd part Michael Jackson-Katherine Jackson AEG Trial. Sept 25. Part 3 2:28:24 min
dont worry about the beginning, there is osme other stuf at start but the real deal start very soon after
 
serendipity said:
I know I'm not Jamba, but Michael's parents saw him with their own eyes a few times in those last months, with Katheirne seeing him 11 days before he died. Katherine also spoke with Phillips about the tour schedule and her and Joe met with him on May 18 to discuss dollar/euro payment. Again no mention of MJ's health. They didn't need emails, they saw him with their own eyes and didn't think anything was wrong.
Click to expand...

We don't know very much about this meeting on May 15. (not 18., serendipity) in that bungalow from Beverly Hills Hotel. But I was always astonished about a fifty years old man, capable of acting, must taking mom and dad for his going to that meeting.
It must have been something more than tour schedule and payment in Dollars or Pound. We have heard always from many-many people Michael could articulate his wishes very clear and consistent. So, why he need mom and dad.

Presumably tour schedule and payment were only little marginals on this meeting and that first point of the agenda was the dilemma between Joe's machinations with AllGood and Michael's contract with AEG Live Entertainment.

Somewhere in a print press article I read in autumn 2009 on this meeting that also P. Allocco (CEO from AllGood) take part and this make sense because:
1 day before there was the 60-years-marriage-family-meeting (May 14.) and
at the same day as the meeting (May 15.) Michael's brothers released a press statement in which they "denied they were in any way involved with a proposed Jackson 5 reunion concert in Texas on July 3rd claimed this week by New Jersey concert promoters AllGood Entertainment".(look my post # 8359 in this thread)
Michael too wasn't involved in Joe's + Katherine's AllGood wheelings what we have learned 2010 because Branca has won the AllGood claim.
But on this May 15., 2009 the situation must been very confuse not only because this two agreements who Frank Dileo had signed; on May 11., 2009 Allocca had fired off a cease and desist letter to AEG.

On this meeting there was not much time for looking at Michael and his weight.
Joe and Katherine had rided Michael in a sump again (the same as with the moonies 1999) and
either they were on the end with their latin (for what this 4-brother press release is an indiz) and searched help fom AEG
or they and Allocco together were trying AEG to keep on for a cooperation. What means: Michael should do both.
 
Last edited:
Putnam's closing nailed it. I felt Panish's closing was a real joke, reminded me of Murray's defense: no real arguments, mainly mind games.
 
^ yeah, showing those was one of Panish's mind games from his closing I was referring to

Panish is certainly a good lawyer but with such a case he's shortened to cheap tricks. I was waiting all the time for a rabbit popping up under his suit jacket with a "smoking gun". :D
 
ivy said:
it is silent today on this thread
Click to expand...

Putnam made too much of sense yesterday, so we don't have much to say about it:)
Panish really have to pull rabbit out of his hat in order to to get in the same level as Putnam.
 
I didn't get the chance to see or listen Panish first closing speech, but by the posts here it doesn't sound like he tied everything together what they presented during the trial? I thought Putnam's closing argument was exellent as he went step by step, told who testified for it, and then told exhibit number for jurors. That way he showed that he ain't talking nonsense and everything is backed up with real evidense.
 
: Bugeyed..............: : Ohno:.............you made me fear !!!!

You all here You really want that aeg gains?!!!!!!! : Bugeyed
 
Mneme said:
We don't know very much about this meeting on May 15. (not 18., serendipity) in that bungalow from Beverly Hills Hotel. But I was always astonished about a fifty years old man, capable of acting, must taking mom and dad for his going to that meeting.
It must have been something more than tour schedule and payment in Dollars or Pound. We have heard always from many-many people Michael could articulate his wishes very clear and consistent. So, why he need mom and dad.

Presumably tour schedule and payment were only little marginals on this meeting and that first point of the agenda was the dilemma between Joe's machinations with AllGood and Michael's contract with AEG Live Entertainment.

Somewhere in a print press article I read in autumn 2009 on this meeting that also P. Allocco (CEO from AllGood) take part and this make sense because:
1 day before there was the 60-years-marriage-family-meeting (May 14.) and
at the same day as the meeting (May 15.) Michael's brothers released a press statement in which they "denied they were in any way involved with a proposed Jackson 5 reunion concert in Texas on July 3rd claimed this week by New Jersey concert promoters AllGood Entertainment".(look my post # 8359 in this thread)
Michael too wasn't involved in Joe's + Katherine's AllGood wheelings what we have learned 2010 because Branca has won the AllGood claim.
But on this May 15., 2009 the situation must been very confuse not only because this two agreements who Frank Dileo had signed; on May 11., 2009 Allocca had fired off a cease and desist letter to AEG.

On this meeting there was not much time for looking at Michael and his weight.
Joe and Katherine had rided Michael in a sump again (the same as with the moonies 1999) and
either they were on the end with their latin (for what this 4-brother press release is an indiz) and searched help fom AEG
or they and Allocco together were trying AEG to keep on for a cooperation. What means: Michael should do both.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction, I knew it was sometime in mid May lol. Yep, I'm pretty sure this meeting was mainly to do with the AllGood thing. In short - it had to do with money and not with MJ's health.
 
respect77 said:
You are exaggerating. Even if the general public believes he was an addict that does not make him unsuited for "general public consumtion". If that would be the case people should throw out 90% of their CDs and DVDs because many pop/rock stars and actors had/have issues with drugs. It's something that belongs to showbusiness in the public's mind. And Michael's drug use was not using recreational drugs anyway. Actually it was pretty well established during this trial that he did have underlying medical issues and did not use drugs just to get high. The most damaging thing to Michael's image is not anything anyone can say about his drug use but the false child abuse allegations. Most of the general public could not care less about the AEG trial.
Click to expand...

I think you are very mistaken. After Murray's trial general public had to acknowledge the verdict which said Michael Jackson was a victim of neglected doctor. IMO the perception of MJ in the eyes of general public started to change in the right direction mostly because the media did not have many opportunities to remain the world about his weakness.

After awhile business corporations would start to use his music for advertisements again and the White House would appreciated him more as an influential person in an American culture. Like it was before sexual allegations.
I never doubted that Michael was able to reinvent his image for general public before his death and I still had hopes after his passing. The perception of general public is important for me as pop culture researcher. Unfortunately the latest trial almost stopped the reinvention process. I was happy that the media had other, more important events to cover during the last several months. But letting
cameras in the court room for closing arguments made the media enjoying their drug addiction stories again. During HLN coverage of closing arguments 60-70% of headlines were "Michael Jackson died of drug overdose". This is what general public got from this trial so far and I know very well it was avoidable.
 
Yup!
Panish: Every time Michael take propofol and he passes not. Only with Murray he passed.....


I don't know Michael take Propofol e v e r y t i m e. omg!
 
Panish can wittier on as long as he likes about how horrible the nasty emails were, and I would agree with him, but it doesn't take away the fact in my mind that in order to have negligently hired Murray they would have done no medical background checks and Murray would have had to have had some prior issue. Or, that AEG knew The treatment Murray was providing and they knew he wasn't qualified. For me its that simple.
 
I like what Panish is saying about the 35 & 50 million.

It seems Muarry thought because they were working on the contract and he was already working with Michael he was hired, because why would he ask them for his money.

Panish saying Muarry was there 24/7 which is not true.

I don't believe he showed that same video of the ceo saying they hired muarry again. Again he is saying Michael did not ask them for a contract for Muarry, but how does he know that. How does he know they wanted to control Muarry?

Maybe it is the heat, but Panish is not doing well here. This is his rebuttal where he comes in and nails AEG with some facts that pertains to the issues. He was better on Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
I have only one comment: your arguments lack of substance... I can only wish that one day you will find yourself being accused of something you had nothing to do with. Then maybe, just maybe you will start to understand.
Click to expand...

Elapentela, I have no issue with you disliking the Jackson family for whatever your reasons. It would be more productive to discussion if you would use evidence to support AEG not being liable in this civil trial as opposed to your persistent wish that I encounter harm. I am however, enjoying your continued perception of the general public going unchallenged.

'It was implied' - 'Statements made by attorneys are not evidence or testimony.
Click to expand...

Last Tear, the actions of AEG and the doctor expressed in testimonies point to the contract being implied. We must wait to see if the jurors agree that the contract was implied. Again, the phrase “general care” is from the written contract that is not valid as it lacked two signatures. However, AEG would hope the jurors ponder that phrase if it will benefit them.

I know I'm not Jamba, but Michael's parents saw him with their own eyes a few times in those last months, with Katheirne seeing him 11 days before he died. Katherine also spoke with Phillips about the tour schedule and her and Joe met with him on May 18 to discuss dollar/euro payment. Again no mention of MJ's health. They didn't need emails, they saw him with their own eyes and didn't think anything was wrong.
Click to expand...

Serendipity, Michael’s parents were not given any alarms about Michael’s steady decline as AEG executives were. If Katherine saw him 11 days before he passed, how was he dressed? Would she visibly see weight lost? Did he exhibit any symptoms like chills, etc. in her presence? We should find the answer to these questions in AEG’s cross examination of Katherine, correct?
 
@Tygger
Last Tear, the actions of AEG and the doctor expressed in testimonies point to the contract being implied. We must wait to see if the jurors agree that the contract was implied. Again, the phrase “general care” is from the written contract that is not valid as it lacked two signatures. However, AEG would hope the jurors ponder that phrase if it will benefit them
Click to expand...

They are being asked in question 2 if Murray was unfit for the job he was hired for, I would hope they would want to establish his job description in order to be able to answer the question.
 
Gosh it's a pity but I can't listen to Panish anymore. I just can't stand chaos and this disorganized rambling is getting on my nerves. I am sure he has some good points but this lack of structure is is too much, so I will return after an hour when hopefully he will be done.
 
LastTear said:
@Tygger

They are being asked in question 2 if Murray was unfit for the job he was hired for, I would hope they would want to establish his job description in order to be able to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Indeed. How will the jurors establish what the doctor was there for without a valid written contract? Actions, verbal clues, and relationships establish implied contracts. Was the doctor taking care of Michael's "general care" by administering propofol negligently?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top