Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Annita]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 16h
The last 3T album was in 2003. "We dropped everything after Michael passed to be with his kids," Taj explained.

I don`t get the explanataion. There are 6 yeary between 2003 and 2009.

 

[ivy]

video of deposition on the link.

MICHAEL JACKSON DOC
His Butt Was So Scarred...
It Nearly Broke My Needle
EXCLUSIVE DETAILS071113_finkelstein_launch
Michael Jackson's buttocks were so scarred and infected from long-term drug injections ... the singer's thickened skin nearly broke his doctor's syringe -- this according to the doctor's testimony.

Dr. Stuart Finkelstein -- who cared for MJ back in 1993 during his "Dangerous" tour -- sat for a deposition earlier this year in Katherine Jackson's wrongful death lawsuit against AEG, describing the signs of MJ's drug addiction, and the testimony was just shown to the jury this week in court.

We got video of the depo and the details are crazy -- Finkelstein described one incident, saying, "I attempted to give [Michael] a shot of Demerol [a painkiller] but his buttocks were so scarred up and abscessed that the needle almost bent."

Finkelstein said the scarring resulted from "significant, extensive" shots of drugs over time.

He also describes his bizarre interactions with MJ back in the day, including squirt gun fights. You gotta see it.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/07/12/michael-jackson-doctor-butt-scarred-needle/#ixzz2Yr7p82hF
Visit Fishwrapper: http://www.fishwrapper.com

 

[Tygger]

I am enjoying the dissection of Taj’s testimony and how he perjured himself in others’ view when he said Michael wanted monies to go to his family instead of many he may have seen as unsavory.

I know about Mann / Vaccaro / Katherine Jackson. Because everything I said including contracts was filed in Howard Mann / Vaccaro lawsuit. It's not my fault youdon't know about it. And now that you know will you still make excuses for it.

Ivy, you say I chose to ignore it AND do not know about it? Use an “or” operator there but, I digress. I know only the details about Vaccaro’s deal that is posted in this thread and I admitted to that. With this knowledge, I still maintain he took advantage of every Jackson he had dealing with.

everything aside , in one breath you say AEG made profit from Michael's death and in other one you claim AEG could have sued Murray for damages? It doesn't make sense to me.

A scenario Ivy , If they did not profit and could not be made whole by the estate, can you understand they would indeed sue the doctor in that scenario? In reality, they did profit and was made whole so they do not have a claim. Simple as you often say but, maybe not.


I have a number of comments directed to me regarding restitution. To save space, I will just respond below instead of re-quoting.

No law forces an outlet to pay the doctor directly. Last Tear, I am not ignoring your post about “book deals, etc.” I do not see any proof that they exist except in hopeful conversations here. I am only aware of his interviews and his documentary in which he was not directly paid. If he has other business ventures, please post so I can learn.

I understand what others are referring to regarding restitution and have maintained an opposite view because I have consistently posted scenarios where restitution would not allow the Jacksons to protect or control anything the doctor chooses for financial gain.

Simpson did keep the advance, correct? Would anyone here like to guess why? What is being ignored or maybe not remembered is that Simpson was NOT a convict at that time which allowed him those direct monies for the advance which he was allowed to keep. That is NOT the situation the doctor is in; he is a convict and monies will NOT be given directly to him. If anyone feels that was a successful example of the control granted through restitution that is your view, it is not mine.

'Some fans do the very same' - I don't understand that comment.

Last Tear, here is an example of hurting another to one’s own detriment. When that amazing book by the convicted doctor is available for purchase that the Jacksons cannot stop, what will fans do to “fight?” Let me venture a guess: buy it, make it available to other fans, discuss ad nauseum in a dedicated thread for the doctor’s book of fabrications and hate for Michael and his family, and lastly, blame the Jacksons that the book exists for purchase. The Jacksons DO NOT have control in that situation and restitution would NOT grant them that control. I do not support floating the responsibility to the family so that some fans may feel less responsibility in the doctor’s future financial success.

It is fact that the monies where floated to his lawyer. If the Jacksons took restitution they could NOT stop that from happening. If anyone feels the Jacksons should have taken restitution that is your view. However, it would NOT stop that documentary from happening or any other venture where the monies do not go DIRECTLY to the doctor.

Interesting how these outlets float monies to others so the Jacksons would not be able to control where the monies go in those ventures and THAT does not offend anyone.

 

[LastTear]

I guess we can't see the whole deposition anywhere, can we? TMZ have cut it so badly, jumping from injections to water pistol fights.

The whole world knows that Michael had an issue with painkillers at that time.

 

[bouee]

I know this was directed at bouee, but really have reply to this. Will you have a look at plaintiffs opening statement?

Frankly Bubs, I'm not a supporter of the Jacksons at all, but what AEG is saying in their opening statement, verdict forms, and their line of questionning is far worse to Michael than what the Jacksons are saying. And given how things are turning out, I don't think it's necessary for them to do that.
It's the same as using Paris video during Kai Chase's testimony. They did not use it when it was relevant (when PG testified about firing Grace), but they use it to impeach an irrelevant statement by Kai Chase.
We'll see what the jury thinks of that. Whatever they might think it won't change what I think of AEG now. They are unneccessarily aggressive and using low arguments. They have a much simpler and easier defense IMO, so if they resort to that, they feel they have a problem. That's my opinion anyway.
And needless to say that I think AEG does have a problem, and Phillips does too. He had all the information one could possibly have to understand Murray was incompetent - from Ortega, Houghdahl, Branca, at least. He chose to believe Murray, in spite of what happened on june 20th. He heard Murray say Michael was fine, he heard him being agressive to Ortega, and he was there when it seems , according to Ortega, that there was a discrepency between what Murray said & what really happened on june 19th. What else did he need ?

I can give him the benefit of doubt because he was under a lot of stress at the time, but that doesn't make him not liable, and I can not accept his testimony and his attitude on the stand. Again, whatever the jury will decide, that will not change my mind about this.

Again, and that's not specifically directed to you, not supporting the Jacksons, does not mean supporting AEG 150% and justifying everything they do.

Bubs, many of Bouee’s posts discussed Phillips/Gongaware not remembering if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues at length.

treat[/B] MJ's sleep issues".

Interesting indeed.

Yes, very interesting indeed.
I've quoted Phillips testimony 2 or 3 times in this thread , Ill quote it again

Phillips said he remembers the meeting on June 20th lasted at least an hour. Dr. Murray and Phillips were sitting in one couch, MJ was in a bench and Ortega on another couch. In his deposition, Phillips said Ortega talked about MJ's physical and mental status. On the stand today, Phillips explained Ortega did very little talking in the meeting. "He addressed Michael coming to rehearsals." "I do not believe he talked about MJ's physical condition and mental state. Dr. Murray did most of the talking," Phillips testified.
...........
Without getting into details, Phillips said Ortega and Murray "were a little combative" at the meeting. Phillips said Murray reassured everyone that Jackson's health was fine. He said Jackson also assured them nothing was wrong with him. He said Murray told the group that Jackson may have had the flu, or some similar ailment. He said Jackson's health was discussed. Phillips said he couldn't recall whether Jackson's sleep issues were discussed. A portion of Randy Phillips' deposition was played in which he said sleep issues were discussed at the June 20, 2009 meeting.(AP)
.........
Phillips said lack of sleep was discussed in the June 20th meeting, but wasn't the main focus. Phillips said the reason of the meeting was to find out what happened in the night before, what was the issue and also MJ missing rehearsals.

Is this an assumption ?

I said it was clear that at least Phillips knew about sleep issues.
About Gongaware , it's not as clear, but his answers and what AEG did after those meetings IS suspicious. Call that an assumption, deduction, but their attitude about that doesn't make sense.
- PG said in his depo he could not remember if sleep issues were discussed in one of the meetings, then on the stand he remembered they were NOT discussed.
-1st meeting, early june, Murray supposedly agreed to take care of nutrition (according to either PG or RP's testimony or both), then on june 15th and after the second meeting, and then again after the june 20th meeting, they start looking for a nutritionnist / food person. So my question still stands why when you have a full time doctor who can do that ? Until someone gives me a plausible answer- which has not happened yet (even PG could not explain it....) I can only see 2 options : they knew Murray was working at night and / or they knew - and accepted he was incopmetent.
-another question that still has not been answered : Why is it so difficult for Phillips and Gongaware to admit that those issues were discussed ? I don't see any problem with that. They could say that they knew Murray was dealing with sleep issues, Michael wanted Murray, they trusted Murray, and could not have imagined what the extent of the problem was and what Murry was doing.
Until someone gives me a credible answer that I can't think of, I think the answer is simple. They saw Michael's health declining under his care, they- at least Phillips- pressured Murray, in spite of all those warning signs, and used him to get Michael to rehearsals. They were aware of the possibility of inappropriate drug use, as per Branca's email, Finkelstein's depo, and their own pathetic Klein defense . If the dates of the visits to Klein were not enough, now we know that the highest dose of demerol was given in april, and it was significantly higher than the doses of may and june- that makes me wonder when they actually saw Michael being out of it, if it was only in april, or also in may and june, when the visits were less frequent.
-Now we also know that Phillips came unnannouced to Carolwood, 'in the evenings closer to the night, when Murray came around" and he met Murray at Carolwood.



AEG could not have sued for wrongful death (which is by definition limited to the families of the person as you can see from the law I posted) , they could have sued for gross negligence of an employee during the course of work given that they have damages (lost income from TII) and they are willing to accept an employment relationship between them and Murray. (no they did not need to wait for this trial end to prove employee/ independent contractor, they could have filed that lawsuit if they were willing to accept / state Murray is an employee with a contract) It's not really rocket science to understand that there are a lot of different lawsuit types and the possible lawsuits for AEG is not called "wrongful death" but employer suing employer for gross negligence, breach of contract and recovery of damages payable to third party.

edited to add: I'll clarify

gross negligence

(not a perfect example) Company hires Jane. Jane at work acts in a gross negligence and burns down the plant. Company sues Jane for gross negligence during the course of work to recover the damages (cos of building).

Murray example : AEG hires Murray to provide first class services to Michael. Michael dies due to Murray's gross negligence. TII gets cancelled. AEG sues Murray for the damages (loss of TII income).

As you can see this requires AEG stating Murray is an employee and was grossly negligent during course of work. Given that they state he's not their employee such lawsuit is highly unlikely. Plus if there's no damages, it becomes impossible.

breach of contract

very similar to the above.claims a breach of the contract. As you can see this requires acknowledging a valid contract and given that AEG is stating the contract wasn't signed and therefore not valid such lawsuit is highly unlikely. Plus as mentioned above if there's no damages (whether AEG recovered the costs and even made profit), it becomes impossible.

---------------------------------
everything aside , in one breath you say AEG made profit from Michael's death and in other one you claim AEG could have sued Murray for damages? It doesn't make the slightest sense.

-----------------------------------------

QUOTE]

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.

Re bolded : what did the judge say about that ?

While I agree with what you say re restitution, I think you failed to understand Tygger's question, which is actually interesting.

So i'll give an example to say it in other words :

Company ABC is a 5 star hotel. Mr Soandso is a very important client. Mr Soandso wants his room refurbished by Mr Jerk, because Mr Jerk knows exactly what mr Soandso likes, he has refurbished Mr Soandso's home before. Hotel ABC accepts, hires mr Jerk as an indep contractor (NOT employee). Unfortunaletaly while painting Mr Soandso's room, Mr Jerk starts a fire , that kills Mr Soandso and burns down a part of the hotel.

Mr Soandso's family does NOT sue hotel ABC.

Can't Hotel ABC sue mr Jerk for the damages (ie : burning down a part of the hotel) ? It can apply to the situation since AEG suffered losses from TII being cancelled. What is the insurance (so the Estate since they paid and ar dealing with Lloyds now) influence on the situation, does Murray's conviction influence the situation as well ?

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

Mot note: Please do not copy tweets, testimony, summary etc from other fans or fan sites.

you can only do very brief summaries in your own words.

I'm not sure I understand : can we do brief summaries of what we see on other websites, or not anymore ?


http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tory-Summary?p=3802439&viewfull=1#post3802439

This is from the trial summary thread. Whose testimony is it ?

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 7h
Ortega said he wanted Jackson to be evaluated by a professional, someone other than Murray.
Expand
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 7h
After the break, Panish asked Ortega if he was concerned about Conrad Murray. Ortega said yes.

At least some common sense. That reminds me that Travis also questionned Murray. Why couldn't the ones in charge, who had more info than Travis & Ortega ?

Trying to defend Murray for profiting off MJ to pay off his debts. It does not matter whether the money was paid directly or indirectly to his lawyer, he still benefits from MJ, the real victim and that is the bottom line. That money came from his direct EXPLOITATION of MJ. that is a FACT no matter how hard you want to spin this.
.

What I understood from Tygger's post is that restitution would have been useless, because the money would not go directly to him. And I don't agree with this, I share your point of view and think that there is no excuse for Katherine for dropping the restitution. The kids could have used it, at least it gave them a possibility, now they are left with nothing.

 

[LastTear]

Ivy, I know only the details about Vaccaro’s deal that is posted in this thread and I admitted to that. With this knowledge, I still maintain he took advantage of every Jackson he had dealing with.

In what way do you think he took advantage of every Jackson he dealt with? I'm not necessarily disagreeing but I'm curious as to how you feel that happened.

No law forces an outlet to pay the doctor directly. Last Tear, I am not ignoring your post about “book deals, etc.” I do not see any proof that they exist except in hopeful conversations here. I am only aware of his interviews and his documentary in which he was not directly paid. If he has other business ventures, please post so I can learn.

I understand what others are referring to regarding restitution and have maintained an opposite view because I have consistently posted scenarios where restitution would not allow the Jacksons to protect or control anything the doctor chooses for financial gain.

Simpson did keep the advance, correct? Would anyone here like to guess why? What is being ignored or maybe not remembered is that Simpson was NOT a convict at that time which allowed him those direct monies for the advance which he was allowed to keep. That is NOT the situation the doctor is in; he is a convict and monies will NOT be given directly to him. If anyone feels that was a successful example of the control granted through restitution that is your view, it is not mine.

The convict not being able to profit part - do you know for a fact or is that simply your opinion. I don't know much about law, but if Walgren pushed and wanted restitution then there is a solid reason for it. He does know the law.

Nobody here is 'hopeful' for a book, please don't say that, it's really not nice to your fellow members.

Perhaps restitution isn't an iron clad security blanket, but at least it's something. They could have tried to protect Michael and gone after AEG at the same time. The outcome? Less money in the bank.

Why do you believe they chose to drop restitution on Murray and only go after AEG?

Okay, lets say you are right and Murray could still profit indirectly without restitution he is now free to profit directly from Michael.

 

[MIST]

After "TII" tour ended, MJ and Taj would make movies. "I think when TII ended, he would've shifted his focus to films primarily," Taj said.

Do movies profit nowadays?
Michael wanted the best and for movies..I think it would be very expensiv and take time to do.
Maybe Michael would put his own money in movieprojects, during that time the siblings, nephews, nieces, cousins etc would have had to fend for themselves

 

[LastTear]

@Bouee It's nice to see you back.

I'm not a supporter of the Jacksons at all, but what AEG is saying in their opening statement, verdict forms, and their line of questionning is far worse to Michael than what the Jacksons are saying.

I am quite prepared for hearing an awful portrayal of Michael when AEG take over, and whilst it wont be okay, AEG are not related to Michael, it's one thing for them to say something but for me it's another thing entirely for a family member to do so.

 

[ivy]

You refuse to accept there is this additional, simplistic method. It is rare indeed, which may explain why you are not being able to find it so you can speak to it or maybe silently accept it without posting the method is correct but, it does exist.

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 .

-------------------------
@bouee

I'm not sure I understand : can we do brief summaries of what we see on other websites, or not anymore ?

you can do brief summaries in your own words but you can't link or post transcripts and/or summaries done by other websites / fans.

Company ABC is a 5 star hotel. Mr Soandso is a very important client. Mr Soandso wants his room refurbished by Mr Jerk, because Mr Jerk knows exactly what mr Soandso likes, he has refurbished Mr Soandso's home before. Hotel ABC accepts, hires mr Jerk as an indep contractor (NOT employee). Unfortunaletaly while painting Mr Soandso's room, Mr Jerk starts a fire , that kills Mr Soandso and burns down a part of the hotel.

Mr Soandso's family does NOT sue hotel ABC.

Can't Hotel ABC sue mr Jerk for the damages (ie : burning down a part of the hotel) ?

yes the first type of lawsuit I mentioned. that's the employer suing employee for gross negligence during the course of work. but as I tried to point out multiple times such lawsuit is based on the premise / fact that Hotel ABC states/ accepts they hired Mr. Jerk to do renovations and claim he was grossly negligent during the course of the work. Given that AEG says they did not hire Murray as the contract wasn't signed and given that AEG says they did not hire Murray for sleep / pain etc. issues, you will see that expecting such lawsuit is becoming unrealistic.

In other words you cannot sue an employee for negligent work when you claim that's not your employee because no contract was signed. AEG cannot simultaneously say "we did not hire Murray" and sue him for being "negligent worker during the course of his job". Similarly AEG cannot simultaneously sue Murray for "breach of contract" and claim "there's no valid contract".

Honestly I fail to understand what is so hard to see that " we did not hire Murray" and "Murray is a grossly negligent employee" are two conflicting positions.

It can apply to the situation since AEG suffered losses from TII being cancelled. What is the insurance (so the Estate since they paid and ar dealing with Lloyds now) influence on the situation, does Murray's conviction influence the situation as well ?

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?

I know this is a silly example but imagine in your example part of the hotel burns and they find a gold vein in the ground. so what are they going to sue for? "the bad contractor you burned the hotel and now we are richer"? Does that make sense to you?

Murray's conviction just makes the gross negligence claim easier to prove.

 

[bouee]

@Bouee It's nice to see you back.



I am quite prepared for hearing an awful portrayal of Michael when AEG take over, and whilst it wont be okay, AEG are not related to Michael, it's one thing for them to say something but for me it's another thing entirely for a family member to do so.

Bouee, I know you and Ivy have knocked heads but I think you are unfair to post the boards rules, I don't think her post warranted that.

Thank you, and I missed you : )

 

[bouee]

-------------------------
@bouee
you can do brief summaries in your own words but you can't link or post transcripts and/or summaries done by other websites / fans.



yes the first type of lawsuit I mentioned. that's the employer suing employee for gross negligence during the course of work. but as I tried to point out multiple times such lawsuit is based on the premise / fact that Hotel ABC states/ accepts they hired Mr. Jerk to do renovations and claim he was grossly negligent during the course of the work. Given that AEG says they did not hire Murray as the contract wasn't signed and given that AEG says they did not hire Murray for sleep / pain etc. issues, you will see that expecting such lawsuit is becoming unrealistic.

In other words you cannot sue an employee for negligent work when you claim that's not your employee because no contract was signed. AEG cannot simultaneously say "we did not hire Murray" and sue him for being "negligent worker during the course of his job". Similarly AEG cannot simultaneously sue Murray for "breach of contract" and claim "there's no valid contract".

Honestly I fail to understand what is so hard to see that " we did not hire Murray" and "Murray is a grossly negligent employee" are two conflicting positions.



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?

I know this is a silly example but imagine in your example part of the hotel burns and they find a gold vein in the ground. so what are they going to sue for? "the bad contractor you burned the hotel and now we are richer"? Does that make sense to you?

Murray's conviction just makes the gross negligence claim easier to prove.

ok, thanks for the explanation.

 

[ivy]

So if it was not an issue for AEG to say they hired Murray, they could do that, ie sue Murray. Did I get it right ?

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.

 

[LastTear]

In fairness I don't do all that the staff here do, especially Ivy, and it's gotta be draining to keep repeating the same thing over again. I just think it's a bit unfair when you take that into account together with the posts they were in response to.

 

[ivy]

it's gotta be draining to keep repeating the same thing over again.

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.

 

[LastTear]

Ivy, for what it's worth I don't think you are wrong. I sometimes find it difficult sifting through posts and trying to establish what is a fact and what is an opinion or a thought. What I do know is that you have always been very patient with me when my really poor memory shows me up.

 

[mdiegee210]

I wonder how will wade robson try to use dr finkelstien testimony.

 

[jamba]

I have been pondering WHY MJ went to use propofol so early--meaning BEFORE he started actual shows--compared to the times he used it in the past (to come down from the adrenaline rush of performing, and get some sleep for the next show). So I am speculating about WHY--and the short version has to do with what we all know--the stress of the 50 shows given he had not performed since 01 AND the family stress re the AllGood pressures. I am speculating that it was the COMBINATION of these 2 pressures that made him unable to sleep while PREPARING for the show (not performing).

Here are some dates to lay this theory (and it has been made by others) out:

2009

March

March 5th, 10 shows announced. March 11-13th, ticket sales through the roof, shows incresed to 50.

March 21st, KJ influences MJ to consider AllGood concerts. MJ tells her he will 'think about' hiring Leonard Rowe as his manager. AllGood writes a check for $2 M made out to MJ.

March 26, Leonard Rowe makes public announcement that HE is MJ's manager. MJ denies it.

April

April 2nd, Patrick Allocco talks to KJ on the phone for 45 minutes, asking her to set upmeeting at Carolwood with Joe and Leonard Rowe. This meeting happens mid-April.

April 6th CM orders first batch of Propofol. (more orders made April 28, 30).

April 14th, MJ meets with Joe (first time he has seen him since 05) and Leonard Rowe at Carolwood at 7 am. MJ signs the contract that says LR is his manager (but adds in writing the contract can be cancelled at any time).

April 19th, MJ has Cherilyn Lee nurse stay over to watch him sleep. He only gets 3 hours.
April, 20th, MJ meets with Metzger and asks re intravenous "sleep meds." MJ express his concerns re the tour and his health--dehydration, weight, sleep.

April 23rd or thereabouts, CM starts the propofol treatments. These last until June 22nd or so (not sure precise dates but this is the 60 day window).

May

May 15th, meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel, MJ, KJ, Joe, LR, RP, PG
May 20th, concert schedule start date shifted from July 8th to July 13.


I think IF the AllGood concerts, family pressure had NOT come into the mix of an already stressful situation re lauching and preparing for the AEG shows, MJ would NOT have had such severe insomnia that he resorted to propofol administered by CM. The time period of from March 13 to April 23rd is the critical time period when he chose to go down that route. I always ask WHY and this is the answer I come up with--family BETRAYAL, meaning instead of love andd support there was pressure to do other shows to make the family happy--to be their cash cow. IMO AEG alone did not pressure MJ into a state of such anxiety that he could not sleep-- b/c he did not start the propofol until after the AllGood stuff came into the mix. I think the family is hypocritical in pointing to one source of pressure and not looking at the other--themselves!

 

[ivy]

^^

April 14 is also the date Michael goes to Vegas and Murray alleges that Dr. Adams administered him Propofol in his office. If he didn't go to Vegas before it might be probably sometime April 14 to 16

 

[Petrarose]

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?

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.

 

[serendipity]

Joe and Rowe also visited Carolwood on April 3rd, Paris birthday. There were pictures of them in front of the gates and after awhile they were let inside. So this is probably the first time MJ saw Joe.

 

[jamba]

^^

April 14 is also the date Michael goes to Vegas and Murray alleges that Dr. Adams administered him Propofol in his office. If he didn't go to Vegas before it might be probably sometime April 14 to 16

Yes, he met with Joe and LR at 7 am b/c he was going to Vegas the same day. I guess he chose that day b/c he had a good reason to cut the meeting short?

 

[jamba]

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?

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.

I came across someone who was selling black and white photos of the Jackson 5 tour to Japan when MJ was 13. I didn't see the whole collection but some selections. There were photos of Rose Fine, the tutor, Joe and KJ, and the brothers and some with MJ, also lots of Japanese fans. The seller wanted 4K for the whole collection and did not want to sell individual photos. I asked where the seller got the photos from, but did not get an answer. Maybe they came from the Vaccaro storage unit?

 

[jamba]

Joe and Rowe also visited Carolwood on April 3rd, Paris birthday. There were pictures of them in front of the gates and after awhile they were let inside. So this is probably the first time MJ saw Joe.

I read LR's book and will check what he says about this visit on April 3rd later. He says he started to get involved in the family concert idea almost immediately when MJ arrived in Las Vegas. The original concept, he said, was to help Janet after her tour was cancelled and she wanted to do something to help the band that now had no gig.

My main point is that according to RP at the press conference MJ was anxious, afraid of how he would be received, so it's clear he WAS anxious about the concerts. But people have also testified (Ortega, Faye, Payne) that he was really excited about the tour as well. I ask myself what happened that he turned to the propofol so early on and I just have to think the Allgood pressure was a big factor. What a disappointment to have the family push at you, even having the promoter they were pushing file a lawsuit, at the time you need their support emotionally to deal with what you already have on your plate.

I am thinking too that when CM ordered the propofol April 6th, that that was for the actual show--stockpiling for when they got to London. B/c MJ is still talking to Cherilyn Lee, Metzger about his sleep issues, so he had not up to, say, April 18th/19th made the decision to actually use propofol before the shows started. Something triggered him to start using the propofol late April, I am estimating the 23rd, and I am trying to understand that decision--where it came from and what was behind it.

 

[Petrarose]

I came across someone who was selling black and white photos of the Jackson 5 tour to Japan when MJ was 13. I didn't see the whole collection but some selections. There were photos of Rose Fine, the tutor, Joe and KJ, and the brothers and some with MJ, also lots of Japanese fans. The seller wanted 4K for the whole collection and did not want to sell individual photos. I asked where the seller got the photos from, but did not get an answer. Maybe they came from the Vaccaro storage unit?

Good find. Now a lot of things become clearer.

Jamba maybe Muarry can say why Michael took prof, but then his word is not trustworthy. The sad thing is that we do not know who Michael had that he could spill his sadness to. It seems that he spoke a little to that psychic woman. Maybe someone who was close to him at one point may have some idea what would lead him to start earlier with the prof. How about Debbie?

 

[Mechi]

I find some of the arguments here confusing so let me try to clear some for that it will be clear in my mind also again... please bear with me:

The Jacksons are not on trial here.

They obviously have their own way to present their life values in the way they present themselves... saying one and living the other. That's to me... well I'll not comment on this much further out of my respect for Michael... still it will be always a secret for me how some in that 'family' do talk about 'values' and othere members mistakes at all and obviously do not even care about to live what they are preaching starting with caring for their very own children. It surely is emberassing. The character of some of those is surely questionable.
That they do seek restitution here and not there... surely shows some 'life values' also to me however... I was always wondering how Michael could develope such a high genius intelligence compared to... well to me it could be a legal advice also of someone who wants to 'earn some money' also... cuz it wouldn't be the first time someone with obviously not highly general intelligence nor highly emotional intelligence is led a certain way. However it's not the point in this trial.

Back to the point...

The Jacksons to me are not on trial here... they are suing... and damages to me are simply clear and obvious when I only keep the three children in mind.

So is AEG in any way responsible for that the Murray-guy (I could never rightfully call that guy a doctor) did what he did???

I mean please... if this jury should judge one way or the other... AEG responsible or not... that doesn't make the Jacksons any way better in how they were treating Michael dead or alive, like the cash cow he was and still is to them. It is and will always be ashame.

To me the adult Jacksons in this will never come 'good' out of this trial or even in their usual way of living, but well that's me and how I feel about them... and again that's not the point?!

It would be more helpfull to focus on AEGlive ppl, the Murray guy and Michaels surroundings before his death to really discuss this trial.

That doesn't mean the different Jackson family members are free of responsiblity or maybe guilt for whatever... maybe we should keep more the children in mind when it's about loss and damages... sheeeesh really surrounded by this family now the damages are more than obvious, aren't they.

I've stated before that to me it's not about money (the loss they had to endure)... however to the legal advisor that was more the focus maybe also... but maybe it's also they want some answers on questions they had towards AEGlive actions, doings, responsibilities... but yeah to me it would have been more important also to restrict the Murray guy in his possible future doings as much as possible, then again my life values are maybe just different ones... well I mean I'm independent, had a good education, earn my own money in a pretty good job... that seems to be very different with the Jackson 'family' members also?! *shrugs* not saying this from a high horse... but I often feel ppl are just different... I honestly wouldn't wanna change my life with any Jackson also. Sometimes it makes me shiver to only imagine I would have to put money first... however the Jacksons, their live values... I understand it's interesting for some to discuss all that here but to me all that is not on trial here. And I hope for AEG it's not their defence strategy to might go that direction... but I really want to hear their side cuz I feel there's not coming much anymore from the Jacksons side...

 

[jamba]

Petra--do you mean Debbie Rowe?

Mechi--yes, I want to hear from AEG too--I just wonder when that will be due to the Dileo 40,000 emails that are now going to be examined by both sides!!

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.

 

[Bubs]

And needless to say that I think AEG does have a problem, and Phillips does too. He had all the information one could possibly have to understand Murray was incompetent - from Ortega, Houghdahl, Branca, at least. He chose to believe Murray, in spite of what happened on june 20th. He heard Murray say Michael was fine, he heard him being agressive to Ortega, and he was there when it seems , according to Ortega, that there was a discrepency between what Murray said & what really happened on june 19th. What else did he need ?

I can give him the benefit of doubt because he was under a lot of stress at the time, but that doesn't make him not liable, and I can not accept his testimony and his attitude on the stand. Again, whatever the jury will decide, that will not change my mind about this.

Again, and that's not specifically directed to you, not supporting the Jacksons, does not mean supporting AEG 150% and justifying everything they do..

You say he had all the fact in order to get rid of CM. How about what MJ said, doesn't his word count at all? He worked with MJ and he wanted to listen what MJ said, not what those other people said and if Michael says he is ok, and he says he wants CM, so simple.

Btw, I'm not justifying everything what they say, but I don't have it in me to look everything they say is a lie or they are trying to cover up something. I'm trying to look the situation as the whole picture, and take into consideration a normal human behaviour and as result, I don't get what you get, but thats ok.

Reply to your other part of question.
Also this Is this an assumption ?I said it was clear that at least Phillips knew about sleep issues.

This is the last time I address this issue, as to me it was assumption or insinuating or whatever you might what to call it.
Tygger posted this:
Bubs, I find it interesting that Gongaware can remember Michael wanting the doctor with clarity and the exact same "machine" line Phillips recants consistently but, cannot remember if the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues.

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.

 

[passy001]

Petra--do you mean Debbie Rowe?

Mechi--yes, I want to hear from AEG too--I just wonder when that will be due to the Dileo 40,000 emails that are now going to be examined by both sides!!

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.

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.

 

[Bubs]

I think IF the AllGood concerts, family pressure had NOT come into the mix of an already stressful situation re lauching and preparing for the AEG shows, MJ would NOT have had such severe insomnia that he resorted to propofol administered by CM. The time period of from March 13 to April 23rd is the critical time period when he chose to go down that route. I always ask WHY and this is the answer I come up with--family BETRAYAL, meaning instead of love andd support there was pressure to do other shows to make the family happy--to be their cash cow. IMO AEG alone did not pressure MJ into a state of such anxiety that he could not sleep-- b/c he did not start the propofol until after the AllGood stuff came into the mix. I think the family is hypocritical in pointing to one source of pressure and not looking at the other--themselves!

You could be right. As Katherine was to only one allowed in to house, she could have had added pressure on MJ by talking to him how much family needs his help and how all of them relies on him.

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, we come to the trial from different points of view and yet we were always able to have respectful discussions. What I admire is that you took quite a bit of time to seek out testimonies, process them, and state your case without trying to demean others who did not agree. You were/are truly interested in having a discussion and I appreciate that.

I have no issue when someone disagrees with me. That is time to learn another point of view and see how it compares to mine. I find that time to be valuable.

I will continue to post about testimony during the trial because it is my right. Lastly, as you know, those who read this thread and may have no desire join this particular conversation need to know there is another side and there are those, albeit the minority in this thread, who do recognize it and agree with it.

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.

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.

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.