Re: Wrongful death lawsuits - Katherine and MJ's kids sue AEG / Murray responds to Joe's lawsuit
Great post! Thanks.
I agree that when that machine name was mentioned someone should have asked "why do you need that for"? that's for sure. However that doesn't equal to knowing that propofol being administrated.
Right. It doesn't necessarily equal knowing about the propofol. It DOES indicate that something very extreme was going on, either with Michael's health, or "treatment." There should have been a strong reaction to that email, and as far as we know, there wasn't.
What really bugs me is that this is a resuscitation equipment which means that it's used after something goes wrong. But where's the request for the machines needed to proper administration or monitoring? Isn't the right step is to prevent something from happening, rather than trying to fix it when it goes wrong?
Of course, the right step is to prevent something from happening! It might be remotely possible that other entertainers have a defribrillator on-hand for tours, but that seems ultra-cautious. That is NOT what was asked for here.
In the end all comes to what AEG knew.
Yes, it does. That also comes down to what sort of paper-trail there might be, and who is willing to put career on the line and say what they really know? Rumors in the press are one thing, and testimony under oath is quite another.
Did they knew what was going on in regards to drugs given to Michael and the significance of this machine or did they think that it was just a ridiculous request from some doctor?
I'd say this request indicates that there was something DANGEROUS going on! Not "ridiculous" at all, but dangerous!
If you find her credible - Cherilyn Lee said that after Michael asked him for propofol, she told him the dangers and said it was not safe to use.
I've never known quite what to think of her? She popped up, and then submerged again. That Michael would ask her about propofol seems not to be credible. He had a lot of medical knowledge, and there are at least some reports/rumors that he'd used it before. He was an avid reader,
including medical books, and among his collection of books surely there was a PDR? If only to research any medications that might be prescribed for his children? I have no idea what Lee's role is, in all of this.
In order for a plea bargain you need to have the DA to offer a deal and I don't think that they'll do such a thing in such a high profile high public interest case.
I think the charges are
absurdly low, and I have no faith that the DA is, in any sense, seeking justice. There was no public outcry about the low charges, and I still think a plea-bargain is very likely.
Plus in any civil trial there's the option of settlement (and also pleading the 5th) so do not assume that a civil trial equals to a definitive trial / testimony.
These attorneys have already said they do NOT "settle," but take cases to trial. I expect that's exactly what they will do. . . .fight it out in court. "Definitive?" Probably not. I think the best we can hope for is for SOME of the truth to come out. That would be better than what we have now, in terms of facts, which is virtually NOTHING. There is very little in life that is "certain," and I expect this will be the same. SOME information, only, that may give us a clearer picture?
According to the lawsuit if they wanted to get the catalogue , they could simply pull the plug and sue Michael - they were already complaining about him missing rehearsals and Michael was vocal about the number of the shows. They could just let Michael to go to Klein and continue to miss rehearsals and even concerts and not give the high quality performance the contract states and then sue him and get whatever assets of him that they can.
But now, they have the MOVIE. Remains to be seen what will happen with the catalog. Time will tell. . .
The 18th June riot act, ordering not to see Klein as the medications he gave prevented Michael from rehearsing and making sure that he comes to rehearsals seems like that they were pushing the TII concerts to happen - not the other way around.If you actually read the lawsuit claims in more detail you see that the actual claim is that AEG was forcing / exposing to Michael to grueling rehearsal schedule without regard to his health/ well being to make the concerts happen. so the argument in the lawsuit complaint is not they were "trying to disable him to perform to get his catalogue", on the contrary the argument is "forcing him to perform no matter what the consequences might be".
We don't really know WHAT happened during that "riot act," or what was said, by whom. I don't think this had very much to do with the catalog, actually -- or if it did, that was much farther down the road. We'll just see how it shakes out in court, and
if the initial complaint is modified in any way (it
can be)? It's possible that those rehearsals were NECESSARY to get the footage for the movie, as incomplete as any song might be -- edited heavily so there is not ONE continuous performance for
any song. This was the first time, to my knowledge, that Michael didn't have his own videography crew, and didn't
own the behind-the-scenes footage. If there was any question that he couldn't do the concerts, then the film was potentially much more lucrative than the concert series, and without the risks of illness/injury/cancellation.
I think this civil suit will
happen. Not sure what we'll learn, but it's gotta be more than we know,
now!
