Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Bubs]

My biggest problem is that Taj took a box from the house and kept it. What is wrong with these people? don't they know Michael has an estate. Then he mentions Jefferys giving him drives and no one asks what is this guy doing with Michael's property. I wonder how many items from those 2 storages have been sold so far?

I was wondering the same thing. He said he put it in to his closet and only gave to his lawyer (Ribeira) early this year!
Reminds me of Rany taking suitcase from the house too.
They know MJ had executors and everything they found from house should have gone to the estate. Why didn't he give to box to the executors as he said it contains papers? I wonder if those papers could have been helpful for executors for lawsuits against the estate?

Also this got me thinking:
Cahan asked how Taj knew MJ was recording new music. He said he thought he heard about it on the news or from relatives.

TJ and Taj both testified how close they were but he found out about MJ recording music from relative or from the news? That doesn't sound like they are close at all.

 

[LastTear]

I personally believe that people who take advantage of others do not choose one victim; they actively seek out many. This man was able to take advantage of Michael. It stands to reason he would also actively seek to take advantage of Michael’s mother when she is in a weakened, grievous state.

Vaccarro? He would probably maintain he was the victim, Mother didn't pay the bills - he brought the property at auction. Katherine knew the past but chose to enter into business with Mann, her choice, imo she should have left Michael's children out of it.

Last Tear, when you have a moment, please see if you can find a list of convicts who went on to the financial success this doctor is expected to achieve. Convicts become pariahs and it would be seen as unethical for any major, respectable outlet to assist them financially. That is the simple reason the doctor was not directly paid for his documentary; the documentary producers were clever enough (or unethical enough, depending on how you prefer to view it) to not risk paying the doctor directly despite not being convicted at the time of filming.

Extremely quick search

Mary Bell, killed 2 children, Book
Tony Martin - shot and killed a burglar - sold story to newspapers £125,000
Frank Abignale
Stephen Reid
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Jeffrey Archer

I'm not spending much time on your request because I dont feel it is important. Even $1 made directly or indirectly is too much, it's just the fact he can cash in if he chooses to. You also have to remember that this he is not a convicted murderer and many of the general public believe that Michael was just as responsible. Also, this trial is shifting some blame from murray onto AEG (and Michael), AEG is causing all this stress and putting pressure on poor conrad murray to get Michael on stage whatever it takes.

There are convicts and there are convicts and Murray's crimes are being dampened down.

Will you please answer my question. Why do you think Katherine has only gone after AEG rather than AEG and Murray?

There is no getting away from the fact that she could have gone after both, it didn't have to be one or the other.

Walgren did not push for restitution in so much as he was doing what his job entails. Walgren would have supported any family in that position to receive restitution as he should. It was not done as a special favor for the Jackson family.

Yes he did his job wonderfully. I don't think anybody believes he was just doing the Jackson family a favour.

 

[Member Service]

This thread is Temp closed for cleaning of personal insults and or argumenst which are now derailing the thread off topic:

Please Note: We want everyone posting to enjoy their experience on MJJC so please help ensure that with how you post and interact with each other on the board. Respects and treat others as you wish to be treated. If you feel a post is insulting toward you or a personal attack please report it rather than derail the thread with personal arguments and admonishments. We will edit the post accordingly to keep the thread on topic. You Certainly are free to state you disagree and still be respectful in your tone to the members you are addressing. Many times it is not what you say, but how you say it. Lets get this thread back on topic by discussing the topic and Not each other. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation


This thread is now re-opened for discussion. Please stay on topic by discussing the topic not each other. No need for personal insults, harsh tones in your replies or personal arguments. Any further posts of this nature can and will be deleted without notice to keep this thread on track and on topic. If your post was a reply to a deleted comment or post it will also fall. Its like dominos. Also please note Moderators debating in this thread do not moderate this thread. They debate as members and are also bound by the same rules. So please don't insinuate our staff as having an advantage in this debate because of their position. Everyone is Certainly free to state you disagree and still be respectful in your tone. Many times it is not what you say, but how you say it.

Please carry on with that in mind. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[Vici]

May I ask why mentioning Debbie is a violation?

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 21h
After court, AEG Live defense attorney Marvin Putnam said it was paternity that was subject to the order.

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 21h
The plaintiff’s side had said before going into chambers that the mention of Rowe’s status was a violation of a pretrial order.

 

[Soundmind]

When the Jacksons asked not to discuss the paternity issue was their real intention to exclude any reference to Debbie being the mother ? :doh:

As Ivy said if they have a living parent the amount awarded if any would be less.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ I guess that must be the reason they didn't want Debbie mentioned, I can't think of another.

I was interested in the computer issue, why wouldn't someone want to get into Michael computer used by Michael Amirs (sp) There may be emails to AEG execs on there.

 

[Tygger]

okay if it exists, I have a really simple request then. post me the relevant CA law and /or an example case. just like how I posted wrongful death definition, negligent hiring jury instructions and example cases. If a such wrongful death lawsuit like you claim exists, I'll accept that I failed to find that rare scenario and I was wrong in my assessment .

damages are the second part of it. in your example a part of the hotel is destroyed so there's damages and repair costs. Now cancellation of TII could mean loss of income and damages in a trial. However from Lloyds lawsuit we know that AEG said they have no loss and therefore no claim for insurance as Estate already paid them the production costs. tygger assumes they actually profited.

and that's the second factor in making such lawsuit impossible. If you have loss of income / damages sure you can ask for that, however if you have no damages and even made a profit then what are you going to ask for?

and if they have damages that they can seek.

If you agree with Tygger that they profited from Michael's death or at least they recovered their losses, you will see that they won't have a valid claim to make to start with and this becomes a moot discussion. "AEG could have sued" becomes "no they could not as they had no damages". or "why didn't AEG sue?" becomes " because they had no damages". Therefore any expectation for AEG to sue Murray becomes unrealistic.

and yeah a person who simultaneously say "AEG could have sued" and "AEG made profit from Michael's death" doesn't make sense to me.

It's draining but more than that I post who can file a wrongful death lawsuit citing CA law and I get a response totally ignoring or worse denying that. Am I wrong? Did I miss something? Sure it could happen I'm far from perfect or claim to know everything but then please kindly cite me the relevant law and /or case examples so that I can see & learn & correct my misinformation. For example how many times I posted the CA jury instructions for negligent hiring that clearly stated "known or should have known" part just to get replies which says "I don't agree they need to know". Sure that in such instances my frustration shows and I'm left with no other than "whatever" response.

Frustration goes both ways. I will not assist with the request and I will not respond to your private message.

As for the rest, there is one moment of clarity in the bolded statement. AEG DID profit from TII. I think it is odd and perplexing to say I assumed AEG profited. If they did not profit, they would have not shared those profits with the estate.

Was or wasn't Gonga asked whether he knew CM was there to treat Michael's sleep issues, and I replied there was no such a thing asked in trial. I went through their testimonies and I didn't see it. Where ever Tygger might have gotten it, I don't know, but it didn't come from AP or ABC tweets, nor any articles from newspapers.

It seems at least one poster in this thread has found it and has discussed it at length.

 

[jamba]

You are making some valid point especially with regards to AllGood involvement with Joe and Leonard Rowe. It is definitely a factor not to overlook. I'm actually surprised by AEG not raising this point also. Maybe they will if/when they call KJ to the stand. let's hold our breath.

Maybe it will come up with the Dileo stuff, the laptop and cell phone which they now have possession of (KJ's lawyers) b/c DiLeo was involved with Allgood and then with AEG, and he was at the June 20th meeting and responded to Randy P's emails. I agree it would be good if they ask KJ about all this but it is tricky as she could get emotional and elicit sympathy from the jury.

On the other hand, why not put Joe on the stand??

I just wonder how Allgood could sue the estate for $300M. Supposedly they were doing one show in Texas, and were offering MJ $20M for that one night, but then the lawsuit said they were going to do a few more shows in Indiana (??). Their suit got rejected by the judge anyway--nice try to get $330M! It seems whenever people sue MJ they really go for the big bucks!!

One interesting point--of the people at the June 20th meeting, KJ did not litigate against DiLeo. Wonder why? Who was paying his salary?

 

[ivy]

I will not assist with the request

don't worry, It's the response I expected.

and thank you for that "AEG DID profit from TII." comment. So suing for damages when you have none.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I expected yours as well. As I said, the frustration goes both ways and the scenario given, no matter how many times it was repeated, has continued to be misunderstood.

Passy001, Many have profited from Michael directly and indirectly when he was living and it continues now after his passing. Restitution would not help the Jacksons protect Michael or themselves from the doctor's indirect profit; only from direct profit. I have stated many times why the doctor would not profit directly as he is a convict. I continue to maintain that.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, I expected yours as well. As I said, the frustration goes both ways and the scenario given, no matter how many times it was repeated, has continued to be misunderstood.

There's a very simple solution to that misunderstanding- posting the relevant law and/or example cases. Remember how I spent the time to post law, jury instructions and tens of cases to make my point? It shows not only respect to the other party but the importance I give to this discussion. I promise you I'll read all the details of whatever cases and/or law you provide. And make corrections if I had any misinformation. So why not do it? if it is a rare situation , it should be expected that not many will know or be able to find it. so why not educate us all?

 

[passy001]

Passy001, Many have profited from Michael directly and indirectly when he was living and it continues now after his passing. Restitution would not help the Jacksons protect Michael or themselves from the doctor's indirect profit; only from direct profit.I have stated many times why the doctor would not profit directly as he is a convict. I continue to maintain that.

I completely disagree with your view. and let's leave it at that. otherwise we're just spamming the thread which is to no benefit to anyone.

 

[ivy]

I'm in the process of updating the daily summary thread. Shortly it should be caught up to the weekly testimony.

I'm going to post deposition transcripts below. Those are filed with the court. Note : this is not the full depositions, they are only the portions played in the court.

Dr. Stuart Finkelstein Deposition video transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153614036/Dr-Finkelstein

Dr. Earley Deposition video transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153614499/Dr-Earley

Tim Leiweke Deposition video transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153614756/Leiweke

Randy Phillips Deposition video transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153614877/Phillips

 

[Petrarose]

Is it expected that the plaintiffs will wrap up this coming week? They seemed to have exhausted all their points: drugs, emotional loss of children, financial loss to Taj and TJ, nasty e-mails. Next is how much money Michael would have made & then the manager's e-mails.

Oh Oh something I have not noticed yet--the financial loss to Katherine. Did I miss that part? Shouldn't they have put Katherine on the stand to show the great emotional and financial loss that was caused by Michael's death? Does the jury know yet how much money Michael gave Katherine each month and how she used him to help his brothers. I know she was deposed and also most of the siblings.

 

[Mneme]

Re the dates, according to Randall Sullivan (sorry), CM started spending the night at Carolwood May 8th, so that's even a bit later than I estimated (I said April 23rd). So I am not sure where the 60 days comes in--looks more like 45 days, or less if he was not there Sundays.

Sullivan also says that on March 25th, Joe and Leonard Rowe 'gained entry' to Carolwood.

Now this whole thing with Joe, Leonard, Allgood, and DiLeo is very important and will I hope be examined in the trial when they get to the Dileo emails (?).

According to Sullivan, in October of 2008, Patrick Allocco flies to Vegas to meet with Joe, who send him to meet with DiLeo in Nashville--all this is concerning the Family Reunion Concert (a kind of parallel universe to AEG).

Nov. 20-21 Allocco meets with DiLeo in Nashville and he signs a 'binder agreement" for the Jackson Reunion Concert. In January of 2009, Allocco hires Leonard Rowe as a "consultant." February 3rd, KJ, LR, and Allocco talk about the Reunion Concert over lunch. Feb. 12th LR and Allocco meet with Dennis Hawk. After the March 25th "gaining entry" at Carolwood of Joe and Leonard, Leonard meets DiLeo for the 1st time. March 27th Leonard send out the press release stating he is MJ's manager, and then MJ stops taking his calls. Allgood sends 'cease and desist" letter to AEG saying that DiLeo is MJ's manager and has signed an agreement with them.

Ok, I'll stop here but you can see that DiLeo is deep in this when it comes to the Allgood situation, which Joe started in motion back in October of 08.

Hi, Jamba!
in parts are the dates in your posting identically with the Estate-Claim against AllGood/Allocco.

Is this
"Feb. 12th LR and Allocco meet with Dennis Hawk"
from Sullivan??????
(I am a little bit surprised about this.)

 

[Aquarius]

Are the storage Taj is talking about the same as the estate's?

 

[Bubs]

Is it expected that the plaintiffs will wrap up this coming week? They seemed to have exhausted all their points: drugs, emotional loss of children, financial loss to Taj and TJ, nasty e-mails. Next is how much money Michael would have made & then the manager's e-mails.

Oh Oh something I have not noticed yet--the financial loss to Katherine. Did I miss that part? Shouldn't they have put Katherine on the stand to show the great emotional and financial loss that was caused by Michael's death? Does the jury know yet how much money Michael gave Katherine each month and how she used him to help his brothers. I know she was deposed and also most of the siblings.

To be honest, I think Katherine has got more money since MJ passed, than she got money from MJ when he was alive.
Yes, I wonder how she is going to testify about how Michael looked after her?
She might says MJ used to leave millions and millions for her, but then again, she might get caught by lie as she didn't use those millions to pay Havenhurst mortgage or bills, and was heading to foreclosure.

At least AEG is permitted to question Katherine Jackson as to her motive (financial) for filing the lawsuit.
(from motions before trial)

You know what I found very interesting: All the Jacksons so far talked about "material" wealth that Michael gave them, that he was supposed to give them, or what they took from his place. However, his own children have not talked about "material" wealth that they got or was supposed to get from their dad.

It's just show where the "family" priorities are.

Are the storage Taj is talking about the same as the estate's?

Do you mean the one they showed on telly, with Karen L on it?
I was wondering as Taj didn't tell to executors about box of papers that he kept, what else he mightn't have told them, and possible kept himself.

 

[Aquarius]

@ Bouee, yes the one shown on tv. was Taj talking about that one or are there others?

Taj seems to be like his fam. He loved Michael & Michael loved him. Michael wanted to work with him. Michael wanted him to take care of his storages. Michael didn't trust anyone. He's just repeating the same stories the brothers said, Michael didn't trust anyone, Michael would want them to take care of his estate, Michael loved them (and I don't doubt that) but they translate love into money. Is the same story.

And so far, I haven't seen the negligent hiring, the only see I've seen is care, misguided, but care from AEG towards Michael. RP big mouth, and the 2 Js telling how much Michael trusted them, the money they received from Michael, at his insistence. And also how close they were and that they saw each other on two occasions from 2008-2009, but when Michael died, he went to Carolwood and took things from Michael's home into his own home. He returned a pc with music in it but kept a box with docs, maybe the estate didn't want it? I was forgetting, he also said he spent time with Michael's kids. Hope that's true and that it was out of love.

 

[Petrarose]

^^Aquarius that is simply the Jackson MO in relation to Michael.

 

[Tygger]

Katherine knew the past but chose to enter into business with Mann

Are you sure? Do we know for fact Katherine knew Mann the way fans did?

Extremely quick search

Mary Bell, killed 2 children, Book
Tony Martin - shot and killed a burglar - sold story to newspapers £125,000
Frank Abignale
Stephen Reid
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Jeffrey Archer

I'm not spending much time on your request because I dont feel it is important.

Why bother then? Regardless, I’ll go quickly through your listing:

Bell – two books were penned about her, the authors profited.
Martin – this trial had a self defense/vigilante aspect and public support that allowed the Press Complaints Commission to justify the payment.
Abignale – an American con-artist that has an amusing pop culture appeal to some and did not take a human life.
Reid – a Canadian convicted of bank robberies and did not take a human life. An award winning documentary was made about his time in prison but, he did not profit directly from the film or his book.
Abu-Jamal – an American who murdered a police officer and is serving a life sentence. He is not directly profiting from his writings.
Archer – a member of Parliament who was convicted of perjury in a libel trial, and ended up paying penalties, court fees, and interest and did not take a human life.

Even $1 made directly or indirectly is too much, it's just the fact he can cash in if he chooses to. You also have to remember that this he is not a convicted murderer and many of the general public believe that Michael was just as responsible. Also, this trial is shifting some blame from murray onto AEG (and Michael), AEG is causing all this stress and putting pressure on poor conrad murray to get Michael on stage whatever it takes.

There are convicts and there are convicts and Murray's crimes are being dampened down.

The doctor is a convicted felon and that title will remain with him unless his appeal is successful. The defendants are shifting the blame for Michael’s passing from the doctor and onto Michael; the plaintiffs are not doing that.

Will you please answer my question. Why do you think Katherine has only gone after AEG rather than AEG and Murray?

There is no getting away from the fact that she could have gone after both, it didn't have to be one or the other.

Your question is interesting because it only covers financial penalties through the criminal and civil trials. Just a reminder, the criminal penalty has already occurred and the Jacksons had no control over the lesser charge levied by the State. If you were in Katherine’s unenviable position, would you have been satisfied with that charge?

I have repeatedly explained that the financial penalty tied to the criminal trial, restitution, does NOT cover indirect profit. This has been the method used with the doctor’s documentary and his (tabloid) interviews which happened before the criminal trial even ended. I agree that indirect profit is not acceptable. However, restitution does NOT protect against indirect profit. The law allows for the beneficiaries to pursue this civil trial. I cannot speak for Katherine and I am not going to assume her grievous thoughts and decisions because it is not a position I ever want to find myself in. I simply support Katherine in pursuing justice for her son as she sees fit.

There's a very simple solution to that misunderstanding- posting the relevant law and/or example cases. Remember how I spent the time to post law, jury instructions and tens of cases to make my point? It shows not only respect to the other party but the importance I give to this discussion. I promise you I'll read all the details of whatever cases and/or law you provide. And make corrections if I had any misinformation. So why not do it? if it is a rare situation , it should be expected that not many will know or be able to find it. so why not educate us all?

Again, no.

 

[Rhilo]

I don't post in this thread often, but do scan through daily. Some things are getting very tiring. Is there a member ignore option?

 

[Soundmind]

Is it expected that the plaintiffs will wrap up this coming week? They seemed to have exhausted all their points: drugs, emotional loss of children, financial loss to Taj and TJ, nasty e-mails. Next is how much money Michael would have made & then the manager's e-mails.

Oh Oh something I have not noticed yet--the financial loss to Katherine. Did I miss that part? Shouldn't they have put Katherine on the stand to show the great emotional and financial loss that was caused by Michael's death? Does the jury know yet how much money Michael gave Katherine each month and how she used him to help his brothers. I know she was deposed and also most of the siblings.

what about Grace ?

 

[passy001]

The defendants are shifting the blame for Michael’s passing from the doctor and onto Michael; the plaintiffs are not doing that.

The bold part is absolutely false. The defendants are saying that they have no responsibility in the hiring of the doctor who killed MJ. Please pay attention to these bold parts. They are not disputing the fact that CM killed MJ. That has already been established beyond reasonable doubt in the court of law.

Defendants are also saying that because MJ was such a private and secretive person, they had no way of knowing his insomnia problems and accordingly assist. In no way do they shift the blame to MJ. rather they are saying the reason they could not possibly have known what was going on was because MJ was concealing his problems from the outside world, including AEG.

I don't see how this amounts to "shifting the blame for Michael’s passing from the doctor and onto Michael" as you put it.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

Are you sure? Do we know for fact Katherine knew Mann the way fans did?

And are you sure she didn't?

Why bother then? Regardless, I’ll go quickly through your listing:

Because you asked, and you said please.

Mary Bell was paid handsomely for her input.

Martin, Abingale Spin it as much as you like, he was a convict who profited from his crime

Stephen Reid has profited - you don't write manuscripts and give them away.

Abu-Jamal - I can't say whether he profited directly or indirectly from his numerous projects. Point is, he profited.

Archer - Still a convict.

The doctor is a convicted felon and that title will remain with him unless his appeal is successful. The defendants are shifting the blame for Michael’s passing from the doctor and onto Michael; the plaintiffs are not doing that.

You are right, the plantiffs are not doing that, instead they are shifting the blame from Murray onto AEG.

Your question is interesting because it only covers financial penalties through the criminal and civil trials. Just a reminder, the criminal penalty has already occurred and the Jacksons had no control over the lesser charge levied by the State. If you were in Katherine’s unenviable position, would you have been satisfied with that charge?

I have repeatedly explained that the financial penalty tied to the criminal trial, restitution, does NOT cover indirect profit. This has been the method used with the doctor’s documentary and his (tabloid) interviews which happened before the criminal trial even ended. I agree that indirect profit is not acceptable. However, restitution does NOT protect against indirect profit. The law allows for the beneficiaries to pursue this civil trial. I cannot speak for Katherine and I am not going to assume her grievous thoughts and decisions because it is not a position I ever want to find myself in. I simply support Katherine in pursuing justice for her son as she sees fit.

What's covered? Practically just about anything a criminal defendant might gain or profit from his crime. Some state laws generally define "profit from crime." For example, a law may state it's "any property obtained through or income generated from the commission of a crime." Other states are very specific and may, for example, state "profit of crime" is money or other property with value a defendant may receive for a book, movie, television show, play or newspaper article about the defendant and his crimes.
Who's covered? In some states, only the criminal defendant is covered. In other states, members of his family are covered, too. They may be related by blood or by "affinity" or kinship, such as a spouse or father-in-law. The idea is to make sure a family member doesn't get the money and hold it for the defendant.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Crime-Doesnt-Pay-Taking-the-Profits-of-Crime.html
________
I think top and bottom line is that we have entirely different views when it comes to justice.

 

[Bubs]

@ Bouee, yes the one shown on tv. was Taj talking about that one or are there others?

Taj seems to be like his fam. He loved Michael & Michael loved him. Michael wanted to work with him. Michael wanted him to take care of his storages. Michael didn't trust anyone. He's just repeating the same stories the brothers said, Michael didn't trust anyone, Michael would want them to take care of his estate, Michael loved them (and I don't doubt that) but they translate love into money. Is the same story.

And so far, I haven't seen the negligent hiring, the only see I've seen is care, misguided, but care from AEG towards Michael. RP big mouth, and the 2 Js telling how much Michael trusted them, the money they received from Michael, at his insistence. And also how close they were and that they saw each other on two occasions from 2008-2009, but when Michael died, he went to Carolwood and took things from Michael's home into his own home. He returned a pc with music in it but kept a box with docs, maybe the estate didn't want it? I was forgetting, he also said he spent time with Michael's kids. Hope that's true and that it was out of love.

I quess you meant Bubs, not bouee, but I reply anyway
I don't know if it is the same storage than shown on telly, but if the estate didn't know about it, they know now.
I wonder if Taj is still going to be working for the estate after they found out during this trial that he was holding on box of papers (I take it that they were important as he testified that those were from master bedroom) and didn't give them to the executors but totally outsider. If anything, they cannot trust on Taj anylonger.

Yes, he seems to be repeating the very same mantra with other family members. MJ loved them very much, MJ was going to do films, records, tour with them, and wanted to take care of all 100's of Jackson's:smilerolleyes:
I still say, MJ actions speak louder than any words from family.

Taj testified that he saw MJ in LV regularly, but few questions later he testified that he didn't even know MJ moved to Carolwood? You would think if they were so close that MJ would have mentioned that he is moving?

I don't post in this thread often, but do scan through daily. Some things are getting very tiring. Is there a member ignore option?

Go to setting on top of the page - on the left hand side, under My Settings click Edit Ignore list - just add username in the box and ok it

 

[passy001]

You are right, the plantiffs are not doing that, instead they are shifting the blame from Murray onto AEG.

That also is false. Plaintiffs are saying that AEG shares some responsibility because they negligently hired the doctor who killed MJ. Plaintiffs are not disputing the fact that Murray killed MJ.

 

[LastTear]

That also is false. Plaintiffs are saying that AEG shares some responsibility because they negligently hired the doctor who killed MJ. Plaintiffs are not disputing the fact that Murray killed MJ.

Yes, I wasn't clear, I should have said shifting some of the blame/responsibility.

 

[Soundmind]

I believe their argument , Phillips pressured Murray to do what he did and took advantage of the fact he was in so much debt to force him to get MJ to rehearsals using any measures possible. In their opening statement they made it look like Murray was also victim of AEG tactics . Prince testimony served that purpose , the doctor was forced by AEG to do what he did .

 

[passy001]

I believe their argument , Phillips pressured Murray to do what he did and took advantage of the fact he was in so much debt to force him to get MJ to rehearsals using any measures possible. In their opening statement they made it look like Murray was also victim of AEG tactics . Prince testimony served that purpose , the doctor was forced by AEG to do what he did .

The jacksons are merely spinning things. Even if AEG was pressurizing Murray, AEG did not tell Murray to treat MJ with propofol or to overdose MJ with the drug or to talk to his girlfriends on the phone while treating MJ without the proper equipment. AEG had no control over that.

I can understand AEG exerting some kind of pressure to get MJ well, given that MJ conditions were deteriorating each day under the medical care of Murray and as a result was putting the entire project at serious risk. After all Murray was MJ's physician and so it's not unreasonable for AEG to seek some answers from the doctor himself. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If I had the chance to interact with Murray at that time even as a fan, I would have confronted him. and trust me it would not have been pretty. I would have asked him "what the F*** are you doing to MJ?". call it aggressive, rude or whatever you like. but the bottom line is Murray had a lot of explaining to do.

 

[Soundmind]

Exactly .However, the Jacksons are claiming Murray would not have done what he did if it was not for the pressure Phillips put on him , which is ridiculous to say the least. As you said Phillips had no idea Murray was fueling MJ with propofol and leaving him to speak to his whores . That's why MJ died ,AEG has no hand in that whatsoever.