Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[serendipity]

When did AEG reject restitution? I don't remember the judge or Walgren offering them restitution or did i miss something?

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 3h
Boyle: You testified about 2 ampules – what were you talking about, the ampules of Demerol?

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 3h
Dr. Finkelstein: Yes, the patch, 2 ampules of Demerol from Karen Faye, observation that MJ had a high tolerance and scarring on his buttocks

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 3h
Dr. Finkelstein: We are talking about natural opiates and synthetic opiates. The patch, the medication is absorbed through the skin.

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 3h
The doctor said the ampules were given to him by the make artist, Karen Faye. They were for MJ.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...sion)/page35?p=3864125&viewfull=1#post3864125

Thanks. Does anyone remember if Karen mentioned this in her testimony? Cause from what I remember she never did, I remember her saying she refused to give or carry any drugs for MJ.

 

[ivy]

AEG did not reject restitution , they could not even ask for it because they aren't beneficiary or next of kin for Michael.

I guess what Tygger was trying to say was "why did not AEG sue Murray for wrongful death?" which if successful would have allowed AEG to collect money from Murray and therefore make up for any money they might be liable to Jacksons.

(Note: the lawsuits were mentioned during motion to limine. AEG was talking about Jacksons not suing Murray but suing AEG, Estate not being a party and so on. It was at that time Judge commented about AEG not suing Murray. So it was a possible civil lawsuit, not restitution).

Why they did not do it is self explanatory. Well first of all such lawsuit would require them to claim some sort of employment relationship - which AEG have been refusing by saying "not signed not hired". Finally everyone knows their chances to collect something Murray was and is slim. So they have almost no motive to go through with such lawsuit - & now the statue of limitations has passed.


Everybody knows Murray's chance of paying any restitution or money judgment is slim but a judgment against him by Jacksons could have been used as a tool to unmotivate Murray to try to profit from Michael's death.

 

[PrɛttyღBµʈʈɇrƒℓу]

Only his video deposition was played. But I think AEG's lawyer said they plan on calling him to testify when they present their side.

I have a question - Finkelstein says Karen gave him some Demerol for MJ which Alan Metzger prescribed in her name. Did Karen mention this in her testimony, cause I only remember her saying she totally refused to carry any drugs for Michael.

I think she did not deny that some medication was ordered in your name, just refused to administer any substance to Michael despite Debbie Rowe have offered to teach. She was also advised not to carry medical supplies.

Regarding the testimony of Ortega, I read all the tweets from abc7 things that made ??me think it was happening some hostility between him and Panish...

I don't know, i think he was more collaborative in the criminal process. Perhaps he is not approving the case against AEG.

 

[8701girl]

How about the promoters that Katherine and Joe brought in the picture? Allgood sued MJ for $40 million and then his Estate for $300 million without any shows happening or even without him signing any contract with them. How are the promoters the Jacksons brought any different than AEG? They are all the same with the same goal - to make money.

But that doesnt make sense why in the world would they sue mj/ the jacksons without any contract being made thats not right imo

 

[8701girl]

He was, He played Paul Cicero's brother. He's seen all throughout the movie, he owned the cab stand, he's the one who shoved the Mail mans head in the stove after he sent absent letters to the young Henry's home, and he's seen later in the movie as one of the trigger men for the Tommy DeSimone hit.

I didn't know it either until it was pointed out on this site and I re-watched the movie.

Sorry, this is completely off-topic.

I gotta watch that movie again lol

 

[ivy]

But that doesnt make sense why in the world would they sue mj/ the jacksons without any contract being made thats not right imo

Allgood lawsuit is interesting.

Allgood approaches to Joe and Leonard Rowe for one night family concert with Michael being the main performer. Joe says Dileo is Michael's manager. Allgood goes to Dileo. Dileo says fine I'll talk to Michael but you cover my expenses and asks for $200,000. They sign an agreement. Allgood was also supposed to give Katherine $1 Million.

Anyway Michael never signs, TII concerts gets announced, Allgood sends a cease and desist to AEG to stop the TII shows. and then lawsuits follow. Allgood acted like the agreement between them and Dileo was binding on Michael.

But it wasn't. There was no signed concert deal, no signature from Michael and so on. They actually did not have a lawsuit against Dileo too. The agreement between them said Allgood would pay Dileo $200,000 so that Dileo would pursue Michael. But Allgood had never paid Dileo and hence they had breached the agreement and Dileo was under no obligation.

In short, one thing was true, Allgood were highly litigious people as Phillips wrote in an email.

 

[8701girl]

Allgood lawsuit is interesting.

Allgood approaches to Joe and Leonard Rowe for one night family concert with Michael being the main performer. Joe says Dileo is Michael's manager. Allgood goes to Dileo. Dileo says fine I'll talk to Michael but you cover my expenses and asks for $200,000. They sign an agreement. Allgood was also supposed to give Katherine $1 Million.

Anyway Michael never signs, TII concerts gets announced, Allgood sends a cease and desist to AEG to stop the TII shows. and then lawsuits follow. Allgood acted like the agreement between them and Dileo was binding on Michael.

But it wasn't. There was no signed concert deal, no signature from Michael and so on. They actually did not have a lawsuit against Dileo too. The agreement between them said Allgood would pay Dileo $200,000 so that Dileo would pursue Michael. But Allgood had never paid Dileo and hence they had breached the agreement and Dileo was under no obligation.

In short, one thing was true, Allgood were highly litigious people as Phillips wrote in an email.

Gosh all this money talk is making my head spin

I dont know which was bad : AEG people or ALLGOOD people ........i guess both a scumbags

 

[Petrarose]

It seems we did not get any tweets today? I thought Ortega was back on the stand today.

 

[Tygger]

Thanks for the correction Ivy. Sometimes, the words damages and restitution are used interchangeably like addiction and dependency but, yes, it should be damages.

Yes, AEG could file a wrongful death suit. That lawsuit would not demand a claim of employment between AEG and the doctor because that would mean they could not file until this case was resolved. They only had to claim the doctor was responsible for the death of their star that they had a contract with and the criminal trial had already proven the doctor was responsible.

They would be in the exact SAME position as the Jacksons (Michael’s parents and children only) if the Jacksons sought restitution. AEG would NOT receive the full sum of the damage/restitution amount and they would NOT be able to legally stop the doctor from doing interviews and the like.

Damages/restitution would NOT stop the doctor from getting his message out through an unethical outlet (who will float the monies to others in the convicted doctor’s circle instead of the convict himself) if he chooses.

I believe Ortega is trying to testify as Payne did. Payne tried his best not to benefit either side but, it is close impossible to do. I understand that many of these witnesses would like to continue working in their industry and that may play a part.

Ortega denied he told Hougdahl to write an email to Phillips. Another site said Ortega testified he saw Michael do multiple 360 degree spins in the TII movie but, could not remember where. I do not remember seeing multiple 360 degree spins anywhere in the TII movie; single 360’s only.

 

[Bubs]

This all got me thinking about the Jacksons (disappointing) impact statement read out in the Murray trial, if AEG are found guilty/responsible will the Jacksons give another impact statement for the purposes of awarding damages, or does that not apply here?

It was well and truly disappointing victim impact statement, but then again, lawsuit against AEG was already on the works and it was Panish (his company is the lead in KJ vs AEG case) who read the statement in behalf of family. Because of lawsuit against AEG was coming up, Panish couldn't say much in order it to be used against Jacksons in this trial.

None of the Jackson's wanted to read or speak victim impact statement in CM trial, but all of them have no problems to go on tabloids and other medias and say how much they miss MJ, and this includes mother who went to Oprah and others telling millions of viewers how much she misses her son, and not a day goes by that she doesn't think of him. Why couldn't she say those things when it mattered the most?

 

[Bubs]

I think Kenny Ortega did a interview during This Is It movie promo, he said Michael complained about his sleep problem and told him his mind was restless. I am curious to see what Kenny will say now. Personally I don't believe randy Philips and Paul Gongaware are not aware of Michael's sleep problem.

To put what KO said into perspective
At age 50 Jackson hadn’t toured in more than a decade, but while his team worried at times about his health, his imagination was as active as ever.
In fact, as the production got under way, it quickly became clear that Jackson’s creative ambitions for the concerts were beyond anything he’d ever attempted. With the budget already past $24 million, Jackson told his team he wanted to recreate one of the world’s largest waterfalls — Victoria Falls in southern Africa — on the stage. “I was ready to jump off the balcony of my office,” says Randy Phillips, president of the concert promotion firm AEG Live. “We went and met with Michael, and [director] Kenny [Ortega] said, ‘Michael, you’ve got to stop. We’ve got an incredible show, we don’t need any more vignettes.’ Michael said, ‘But Kenny, God channels this through me at night. I can’t sleep because I’m so supercharged.’ Kenny said, ‘But Michael, we have to finish. Can’t God take a vacation?’ Without missing a beat, Michael said, ‘You don’t understand — if I’m not there to receive these ideas, God might give them to Prince.’ ”

To be honest, if MJ had said the same thing to you pre 06/25/2009, would you have thought that MJ has serious sleep problem, or thought he cannot sleep at all?

 

[Bubs]

When did AEG reject restitution? I don't remember the judge or Walgren offering them restitution or did i miss something?

Thanks. Does anyone remember if Karen mentioned this in her testimony? Cause from what I remember she never did, I remember her saying she refused to give or carry any drugs for MJ.

No Karen didn't mention this during her testimony, but I wonder if she is subject to recall?

She is, checked:
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 28 Jun
Attorneys and judge went into sidebar. Then Faye was excused, subject to recall.

 

[jamba]

Allgood lawsuit is interesting.

Allgood approaches to Joe and Leonard Rowe for one night family concert with Michael being the main performer. Joe says Dileo is Michael's manager. Allgood goes to Dileo. Dileo says fine I'll talk to Michael but you cover my expenses and asks for $200,000. They sign an agreement. Allgood was also supposed to give Katherine $1 Million.

Anyway Michael never signs, TII concerts gets announced, Allgood sends a cease and desist to AEG to stop the TII shows. and then lawsuits follow. Allgood acted like the agreement between them and Dileo was binding on Michael.

But it wasn't. There was no signed concert deal, no signature from Michael and so on. They actually did not have a lawsuit against Dileo too. The agreement between them said Allgood would pay Dileo $200,000 so that Dileo would pursue Michael. But Allgood had never paid Dileo and hence they had breached the agreement and Dileo was under no obligation.

In short, one thing was true, Allgood were highly litigious people as Phillips wrote in an email.

Why would KJ get one million? For what? She is not a performer, needless to say. Just wondering the justification for that large payment. Was she supposed to give it to Joe? (Margaret Maldonado's book says that b/c Joe had various creditors after him, they started putting the $ in KJ's name.)

 

[Bubs]

Why would KJ get one million? For what? She is not a performer, needless to say. Just wondering the justification for that large payment. Was she supposed to give it to Joe? (Margaret Maldonado's book says that b/c Joe had various creditors after him, they started putting the $ in KJ's name.)

It was down payment for Katherine to talk Michael to appear on this family concert, you know the usual. Everybody in the business knew that if MJ didn't want to do show with them, they would go to Katherine and pay her to talk MJ over.
Reminder, as recently as when her deposition was taking place, Katherine said that she knew MJ didn't want to tour, but that didn't stop her. Is she any better than people she is suing?
It sound like Segye Times all over again. Didn't they pay everyone in the family, including Katherine to try to get Michael on board?

 

[LastTear]

Last Tear, I agree that fans have “an awful lot on our plate.” This means the focus can be scattered. Unfocused means distracted. I agree fans’ distraction hold no weight on the outcome of this trial or the Robson extortion trial. However, I think it is healthy for fans to have outlets like this thread to express their thoughts and exchange ideas. I cannot truly speak for other artists’ fans but, the negative backlash directed to Michael’s family particularly after his passing is interesting to me and it does factor into some views on this trial.

A least with Robson fans can actively do something, of course it won't change the outcome of any possible trial but they are actively, publically defending Michaels character and pointing out the wrongs with Robsons claims, same with the Mirror article, and tbh those claims are far more damaging to Michaels legacy than this trial.

If I am to speak honestly I have not held The family in very high esteem for probably 20 + years, since Michaels death it has just been one further disappointment after another. So actually I could join you in the fact you find fans views of the family interesting, the only difference being that i would be doing so from the other side of the fence.

My views on this trial haven't changed, I don't particularly care who wins I just don't want the extended Jackson clan to benefit from not doing the right thing imo and going after restitution from Murray.

*********
The Allgood situation reminds me of the moonies concerts, people, including his own Mother, being given lots of money to convince Michael to perform with the family.

 

[ivy]

Just a comment: the Zimmerman criminal trial is funded by the State (read taxpayers) so there is an interest in concluding that and other criminal trials swiftly although more complicated criminal trials run much longer. The Zimmerman trial does not compare truly to this civil trial.

you are correct that criminal trials are a lot more narrow focused while civil trials are more relaxed and therefore take longer. but honestly don't you think there are a lot of side topics that doesn't necessarily address the main issue but mentioned just to create an emotional reaction from the jury?

However, I think it is healthy for fans to have outlets like this thread to express their thoughts and exchange ideas.

I agree

I cannot truly speak for other artists’ fans but, the negative backlash directed to Michael’s family particularly after his passing is interesting to me and it does factor into some views on this trial.

I think that backlash happened based on actions of Jacksons. For example Vaccaro who Michael sued twice, who helped Sneddon and who tried to sell MJ's underwear in 2008 for $1 Million gets Mann as his advisor / front and they sign a deal with Katherine where Michael's kids are signed for life to them and in which she only gets 33% of the profit where Mann / Vaccaro gets 66%. So for example do you see a reaction to this example as a valid one or is it backlash that you find interesting?

Bubs, many of Bouee’s posts discussed Phillips/Gongaware not remembering if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues at length. Would you suggest that not only I fabricated this testimony but, Bouee as well?

I felt it was Bouee's assumption that they knew or should have known sleep issues. I certainly don't remember any testimony that said "treat MJ's sleep issues".

The issue here is not the money; the issue is who the money may go to.

Issue might be money too. As I said some people don't see money judgments as justice. and this is not related to us or MJ fans. Check back the jury questionnaire and you would see it's a question there.

The Lloyd’s trial is not a wrongful death trial; it is a dry contract trial limited to premiums paid. It does not surprise me that fans are not as interested in a contract trial and are more focused on the wrongful death trial.

Lloyds lawsuit still cover the same events surrounding Michael's death - hence the 6 day depositions of Karen Faye and such. If the goal was seeking the "truth" about what happened then I don't see why that would not be of interest to fans.

Thanks for the correction Ivy. Sometimes, the words damages and restitution are used interchangeably like addiction and dependency but, yes, it should be damages.

Yes, AEG could file a wrongful death suit. That lawsuit would not demand a claim of employment between AEG and the doctor because that would mean they could not file until this case was resolved. They only had to claim the doctor was responsible for the death of their star that they had a contract with and the criminal trial had already proven the doctor was responsible.

actually no. AEG could not file a wrongful death lawsuit either.

California law states : The victim’s surviving spouse, children, issue of deceased children, registered domestic partner, dependent putative spouse, dependent stepchildren, dependent minors living in the victim’s household for at least six months, and dependent parents. If there are no heirs as described above, then claimants include those who would be entitled to inherit the victim’s estate under the law of intestate succession: Parents, whether or not they were dependent; if there are none, then siblings or children of deceased siblings; if there are none, then grandparents; if there are none, then children of a deceased spouse. If none of these relatives exist, the next of kin may file a wrongful death suit.

So as I said the possibility is an employer suing employee for negligence (an employer can sue an employee for gross misconduct and not for simple negligence) or sue for breach of contract or a lawsuit that is referred as "A Suit to Recover Damages Payable to a Third Party".

The first 2 requires an employer - employee relationship which as I pointed out AEG denies. Plus it also requires actual money damages - sure they can ask for lost TII income but if they recovered it and if they profited from it as you claim then there would be no actual financial damages to seek. so it's unrealistic to expect such lawsuit from AEG against Murray. That leaves the third option.

The idea of such lawsuit is that the party that is harmed / death sues the employer, employer is found vicariously liable for the actions of the employee and then sues the employee to recover the money they paid to the harmed party.

Such as : Worker John (who has a history of violence) beats customer David. David sues Company ABC for his medical bills + emotional damage. Company ABC is found liable because they did not do a proper background check and ordered to pay $200,000. Company ABC then sues Worker John to recover the $200,000 they had to pay to customer David.

They would be in the exact SAME position as the Jacksons (Michael’s parents and children only) if the Jacksons sought restitution. AEG would NOT receive the full sum of the damage/restitution amount and they would NOT be able to legally stop the doctor from doing interviews and the like.

sorry but I don't get comparing AEG to Jacksons. First of all why would AEG - a corporation that started a business deal with Michael that did not happen - care about positive or negative stories about Michael? And restitution is never about being able to collect.

I'll give the example of Goldmans. They got awarded $30 Million in damages which they weren't able to collect. OJ Simpson wrote & released a book named "If I did it" about the murders. Goldmans using the monetary judgment got the rights to the book (including movie rights) and the interview money that was paid to OJ. They renamed the book to "I did it" and added their comments about how OJ murdered their kids.

So as you can see seeking restitution is not about collecting the full money or stop books etc before it happens. But it gives the families a whole a lot of control over what the guilty party might do. Goldmans were able to take control of OJ's version. Not only OJ could not make a dime from his book and/or any possible movie deals and such, Goldmans were able to control his BS and add their version.

so I don't get this "Jacksons would not be able to recover the full amount" or "it wouldn't stop it from happening" arguments. It's not an issue of collecting money but an issue of control?

For example what are you going to do if Murray releases a book that trashed not only Michael but Jacksons too? Don't you realize a restitution would give the power to Jacksons that would allow them to say "uh no" and get the control of the book and pull it from the shelves? That they could get any money - even if it's minimal- and send the message that "no murray you won't even make a cent over Michael". It doesn't need to be perfect. It was still something. Now what do we have to stop Murray from profiting Michael? Nothing.

 

[LastTear]

I'll give the example of Goldmans. They got awarded $30 Million in damages which they weren't able to collect. OJ Simpson wrote & released a book named "If I did it" about the murders. Goldmans using the monetary judgment got the rights to the book (including movie rights) and the interview money that was paid to OJ. They renamed the book to "I did it" and added their comments about how OJ murdered their kids.

And how much has OJ profited? Zero. However, Murray will be free to make as much money as someone who is willing to pay him.

 

[ivy]

Mod note: Links or summaries from/ to other Michael Jackson websites about testimony / transcripts aren't allowed on MJJC.

 

[Bubs]

I'll give the example of Goldmans. They got awarded $30 Million in damages which they weren't able to collect. OJ Simpson wrote & released a book named "If I did it" about the murders. Goldmans using the monetary judgment got the rights to the book (including movie rights) and the interview money that was paid to OJ. They renamed the book to "I did it" and added their comments about how OJ murdered their kids.

So as you can see seeking restitution is not about collecting the full money or stop books etc before it happens. But it gives the families a whole a lot of control over what the guilty party might do. Goldmans were able to take control of OJ's version. Not only OJ could not make a dime from his book and/or any possible movie deals and such, Goldmans were able to control his BS and add their version.

so I don't get this "Jacksons would not be able to recover the full amount" or "it wouldn't stop it from happening" arguments. Doesn't people get it's not an issue of collecting money but an issue of control?

For example what are you going to do if Murray releases a book that trashed not only Michael but Jacksons too? Don't you realize a restitution would give the power to Jacksons that would allow them to say "uh no" and get the control of the book and pull it from the shelves? That they could get any money - even if it's minimal- and send the message that "no murray you won't even make a cent over Michael". It doesn't need to be perfect. It was still something. Now what do we have to stop Murray from profiting Michael? Nothing.

Thanks Ivy, an execellent post.
I couln't find such a testimony from AP, ABC (or your summary combined with articles) that Gonga couldn't remember if CM was treating MJ's sleep problem, and it wasn't even asked from Gonga, so I don't know where such a statement came from but I'll leave it.

You mentioned that after Goldman's got restitution from OJ, they could change the content (title and insert some info) of his book?

Oh boy, I so wish Katherine had accepted restitution:no:
They could have change the stories of whatever CM tries to put out there.
It certainly makes a difference if CM wanted to write down something like "MJ forced me to give him propofol", and Jackson's could have change it something like "I gave up my hippocratic oath for money".

 

[Bubs]

I hope you all saw this

ABC7 Court News @ABC7Courts
Panish told the judge he's now estimating to finish his case in chief another week or so after the July 8th week, his last estimate.

so at least 2 more weeks of Jacksons case

So until this week and next week they should be finished? Is there many witnesses left other than Jackson's themselves?
Panish left family's testimonies untill last, and his has worn out jurors with not so smoking gun stuff that jurors don't pay any attenttion to their testimonies

I was wondering that DiLeo laptop being found from someone and it will be presented in trial (if they find smoking gun). How come judge allows plaintiffs to add late witnesses and now late evidence? I thought there were supposed to be certain time limit for those things?

 

[serendipity]

I think she did not deny that some medication was ordered in your name, just refused to administer any substance to Michael despite Debbie Rowe have offered to teach. She was also advised not to carry medical supplies.

As far as I remember she said the only medication that was ordered in her name was something cosmetic for his hair growth or something like that. She didn't mention the demerol thing.

They would be in the exact SAME position as the Jacksons (Michael’s parents and children only) if the Jacksons sought restitution. AEG would NOT receive the full sum of the damage/restitution amount and they would NOT be able to legally stop the doctor from doing interviews and the like.

Damages/restitution would NOT stop the doctor from getting his message out through an unethical outlet (who will float the monies to others in the convicted doctor’s circle instead of the convict himself) if he chooses.

Why would anyone expect AEG to act as if they are MJ's family? I don't expect AEG to care if Murray smears MJ, but I sure expect his family to care and at least try to do something about it. Instead they have shown clearly what it is they really care about by giving Murray a green light to go out there and freely say and do whatever without a concern the family will try to stop him or take his profit (or a part of it).

 

[AliCat]

To put what KO said into perspective
At age 50 Jackson hadn’t toured in more than a decade, but while his team worried at times about his health, his imagination was as active as ever.
In fact, as the production got under way, it quickly became clear that Jackson’s creative ambitions for the concerts were beyond anything he’d ever attempted. With the budget already past $24 million, Jackson told his team he wanted to recreate one of the world’s largest waterfalls — Victoria Falls in southern Africa — on the stage. “I was ready to jump off the balcony of my office,” says Randy Phillips, president of the concert promotion firm AEG Live. “We went and met with Michael, and [director] Kenny [Ortega] said, ‘Michael, you’ve got to stop. We’ve got an incredible show, we don’t need any more vignettes.’ Michael said, ‘But Kenny, God channels this through me at night. I can’t sleep because I’m so supercharged.’ Kenny said, ‘But Michael, we have to finish. Can’t God take a vacation?’ Without missing a beat, Michael said, ‘You don’t understand — if I’m not there to receive these ideas, God might give them to Prince.’ ”

To be honest, if MJ had said the same thing to you pre 06/25/2009, would you have thought that MJ has serious sleep problem, or thought he cannot sleep at all?

This is why I have a lot of respect for AEG Live. They supported Michael Jackson to put on the best Shows for the 02 Arena. Do you think Allgood Entertainment would have? No. They did not have the money that AEG Live did. Besides, as Michael stated in his book, sometimes too many cooks can ruin the stew. Meaning family can wreak havoc on your projects. I rest my case. Just watch "This Is It," and see how great the production was and Michael Jackson would have returned to the grandeur of the greatest Entertainer who ever lived!

 

[PrɛttyღBµʈʈɇrƒℓу]

Finally i recognize Ortega in the same person who testified in the criminal action. I remember that in the trial of Murray his testimony seemed one of the most touching and sincere. I can imagine how difficult it must have been narrate that moment. It is difficult to read, it must have been worse experience it.

 

[8701girl]

For example what are you going to do if Murray releases a book that trashed not only Michael but Jacksons too? Don't you realize a restitution would give the power to Jacksons that would allow them to say "uh no" and get the control of the book and pull it from the shelves? That they could get any money - even if it's minimal- and send the message that "no murray you won't even make a cent over Michael". It doesn't need to be perfect. It was still something. Now what do we have to stop Murray from profiting Michael? Nothing.

They just dont care

 

[AliCat]

Weeks before the planned opening of Michael Jackson's comeback tour, show director Kenny Ortega says he and the star worried that the production would not be ready. Ortega testified that special-effect numbers demanded more time.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=9167665

I sometimes wonder about Kenny Ortega. When he made regular twitter comments, before Michael Jackson died, he stuck to his guns about how fantastic the Shows were going to be. It was all positive.

Then production started late, because of Kenny Ortega. I wonder if Kenny thought this would be a problem, since he came on board around mid-April and the first Show was to begin on July 8, 2009, but was moved, on account of time.

Kenny Ortega does testify about all the rehearsals Michael Jackson was missing, but with all the lidocaine and propofol being pumped into Michael Jackson, I can see why Michael was missing rehearsals, he was probably resting. Those treatments weren't really working.

Kenny Ortega speaks about how Conrad Murray was now deciding the schedule for when Michael Jackson would come to rehearsals. That Kenny Ortega had not done that before. This is the tension in the room, on June 20, 2009, at Michael's home. Conrad Murray was livid with Kenny Ortega, making decisions about Michael Jackson's rehearsal schedule.

In all reality, Michael Jackson allowed Conrad Murray this power. And as history has taught us, Conrad Murray did not have his patient's best interest at heart. Because of how over-confident Conrad Murray became, he neglected his patient, Michael Jackson!

 

[Mechi]

Think it's a question of pr talk you just do in front of ppl to keep them curious but also wanting to attend as director Kenny Ortega did, that has to be all positive always of cuz... and what reality really was that time and that's his testimony.

 

[Tygger]

you are correct that criminal trials are a lot more narrow focused while civil trials are more relaxed and therefore take longer. but honestly don't you think there are a lot of side topics that doesn't necessarily address the main issue but mentioned just to create an emotional reaction from the jury?

Can you give an example?

I think that backlash happened based on actions of Jacksons. For example Vaccaro who Michael sued twice, who helped Sneddon and who tried to sell MJ's underwear in 2008 for $1 Million gets Mann as his advisor / front and they sign a deal with Katherine where Michael's kids are signed for life to them and in which she only gets 33% of the profit where Mann / Vaccaro gets 66%. So for example do you see a reaction to this example as a valid one or is it backlash that you find interesting?

f I am to speak honestly I have not held The family in very high esteem for probably 20 + years, since Michaels death it has just been one further disappointment after another. So actually I could join you in the fact you find fans views of the family interesting, the only difference being that i would be doing so from the other side of the fence.

This is what I find interesting: negative feelings about Michael’s family that were not discussed publicly where Michael could personally view those feelings and react to those feelings. Michael was in a position to be taken advantage of by Vacarro and he received sympathy. The same man took advantage of Michael’s family member(s) and that member(s) received a negative backlash.

I felt it was Bouee's assumption that they knew or should have known sleep issues. I certainly don't remember any testimony that said "treat MJ's sleep issues".

I couln't find such a testimony from AP, ABC (or your summary combined with articles) that Gonga couldn't remember if CM was treating MJ's sleep problem, and it wasn't even asked from Gonga, so I don't know where such a statement came from but I'll leave it.

Interesting indeed.

Issue might be money too. As I said some people don't see money judgments as justice. and this is not related to us or MJ fans. Check back the jury questionnaire and you would see it's a question there.

Some fans are very concerned any amount of money will go to Katherine for fear she may give any amount to her living children which is her right to do. For her to be awarded monies it would first have to be proven that AEG was culpable in her son’s passing. If that is proven, she deserves damages just like any one else in her unenviable position.

Lloyds lawsuit still cover the same events surrounding Michael's death - hence the 6 day depositions of Karen Faye and such. If the goal was seeking the "truth" about what happened then I don't see why that would not be of interest to fans.

You would have to ask those fans. Maybe those fans are not interested in business entities squabbling. As you said, they can receive information regarding the same events in the civil trial.

actually no. AEG could not file a wrongful death lawsuit either.

Why would the judge tell AEG they could have sued if they had to wait for this trial to be resolved first or it was not possible? They could have suffered financially from Michael’s passing, even though they are not related by blood or marriage to him. Michael was AEG’s business partner and his death could have resulted in a business interruption or loss. Of course, there was no business interruption or lost. In fact, they recouped the pre-production budget in full from the estate and profited from TII so no valid claim there.

sorry but I don't get comparing AEG to Jacksons.

Restitution is not always symbolic as damages are not always symbolic. Many receive restitution in full. Why would anyone pursue restitution if it was almost never received in its entirety and was almost always symbolic?

Some fans believe the only living persons responsible for stopping the doctor from profiting from Michael’s passing is the Jacksons and that is not true. If the doctor could somehow hinder TII profits, he would have most likely been sued by AEG.

The Goldman example again? Sigh. They BROUGHT THE RIGHTS to Simpson’s book and made arrangements to PUBLISH IT. Simpson REFUSED to continue with the publishing of the book (which means it was NOT released by him or the publishing company who offered him the deal) because the monies would go to restitution. The book sales were NOT successful. Many saw the Goldmans as greedy because they published the book instead of ensuring it was never published. Simpson was allowed to keep the advance he received for the book as restitution only applied to future earnings.

Question please: what Simpson interview monies are you referring to?

My views on this trial haven't changed, I don't particularly care who wins I just don't want the extended Jackson clan to benefit from not doing the right thing imo and going after restitution from Murray.

so I don't get this "Jacksons would not be able to recover the full amount" or "it wouldn't stop it from happening" arguments. Doesn't people get it's not an issue of collecting money but an issue of control?

Sorry but why would anyone expect AEG to act as if they are MJ's family? I don't expect AEG to care if Murray smears MJ, but I sure expect his family to care and at least try to do something about it. Instead they have shown clearly what it is they really care about by giving Murray a green light to go out there and freely say and do whatever without a concern the family will try to stop him or take his profit (or a part of it).

Again, many do receive full restitution. The ONLY Jacksons eligible for restitution was his parents and children, not his extended family. The Jacksons (and AEG) would not received full restitution from the doctor.

Please understand that no media outlet will admit to paying a convict for an interview (book, etc.). If these outlets truly wanted the interview with a convict, it would be based on public demand and any monies would be floated to family members, friends, etc. ANYONE except the convict. How do you suggest receiving restitution if the convict does not receive the monies personally? How do the Jacksons gain any legal control in this scenario?

FANS play a huge part in the public demand of negative stories about Michael and the Jacksons. If the convict has an interview, book, etc., fans and the public will be responsible for the success, not the Jacksons.

Finally i recognize Ortega in the same person who testified in the criminal action. I remember that in the trial of Murray his testimony seemed one of the most touching and sincere. I can imagine how difficult it must have been narrate that moment. It is difficult to read, it must have been worse experience it.

Agreed. There was some testimony that were unexpected from Ortega for me but, his testimony for his second day was much more familiar and appreciated.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger, Why compare Vaccarro advertising etc of Michaels soiled underwear to any advantage taking of the Jackson clan. See, now that to me is interesting. I think you will find that the family were discussed whilst Michael was alive, sure they are discussed more now but that is only because some people are now interested in all things Jackson so this as given them a career boost. You really think that six years ago anyone would care if LaToya got a nail infection?

Please understand that no media outlet will admit to paying a convict for an interview (book, etc.). If these outlets truly wanted the interview with a convict, it would be based on public demand and any monies would be floated to family members, friends, etc. ANYONE except the convict. How do you suggest receiving restitution if the convict does not receive the monies personally? How do the Jacksons gain any legal control in this scenario?

FANS play a huge part in the public demand of negative stories about Michael and the Jacksons. If the convict has an interview, book, etc., fans and the public will be responsible for the success, not the Jacksons.

And Jermaines own words 'the lioness always takes care of the cubs'

A meda outlet has already paid for his telephone voice recordings, and if this trial continues to remove responsibility from Murray then I don't think anyone will be ashamed to admit paying him.

Re book/film deals, he would most likely receive an advance so he will make money regardless of how many copies sell.

 

[Bubs]

I took this from CM appeal thread

In the last of a series of appellate briefs submitted to the California Second District Court of Appeal , attorney Valerie Wass said jurors did not consider the pressures placed on Jackson by the concert promoter before his death because they didn't see the contract.

The lawyer suggested that Jackson might have self-administered the drugs propofol and lorazepam because of his concern over fulfilling the terms of his contract for 50 performances of the show, "This Is It."

"Admission of the contract or evidence of its terms was necessary to show what was at stake for Jackson if he could not meet his contractual obligations, which was pertinent to establish his state of mind which may have explained his conduct on the day he died, and supported the defense theory of the case," the 24-page brief states.

The defense suggested that Jackson was so concerned about being unable to sleep that he gave himself the drug that caused his death.

I see VW is using things from this trial for CM's defence and his appeal :angry:
I swear that my head will pop if anything that comes out from this trial helps with CM's appeal, and the blame goes to those creedy family members who is behing this trial. Seemingly they don't even care if one day CM practices again as long they pockets are lined up with money from AEG.

 

[Soundmind]

The defense suggested that Jackson was so concerned about being unable to sleep that he gave himself the drug that caused his death.

The jury convicted Murray based on his conduct on the months he was emplyed not only that night . Jury instructions were very clear .