Latest on MJJC
Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
- Status
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
Qbee I agree with you on this one^^. TMez is very good when it comes to explaining the allegations & fighting for Michael, but I find in all other areas I do not agree with him. He is pro Randy & Jackson. If I remember correctly, I think he said he met Randy at some African-American church, I don't know if he meant the first time they met, because I thought I read somewhere that Johnny told Randy to get TMez.
Anyway what I am trying to say is that TMez has some bias due to his acquaintance to the family, which does not look good for his credibility. How can he look at the trial & make those interpretations. However, I think he is only reading bits & pieces of the media reports, since he does not have the full transcripts. He did the same thing with granny napping where he did not have all the facts & claimed the family wouldn't do what it was claimed the siblings did.
Boure your comment: AEG threatened to pull the plug....So he/they did pressure both Michael and Murray. If we believe Phillips it was not possible to actually "pull the plug". So he/they did that thinking more pressure- huge pressure- would help. Not really suprising given what we heard so far. It doesn't sound good for them.
But does it mean that AEG threatened Michael with this? Depending on which media outlet you read, Travis said AEG said the plug might have to be pulled. Travis did not say AEG said this to Michael or Muarry, so I do not know to what extent AEG threatened both Muarry & Michael ^^ with this. It appears this comment was made to the high ranking staff like Travis. I am looking at that comment within a context like this: Michael is missing & not performing to standard, so I say, "if he carries on like that, this whole show will be cancelled." In this context, I think AEG was simply saying that if things go as it is going this show will not happen. I think AEG was angry and blowing off a lot of hot air & making nasty remarks. Even with the e-mails, when I look at them, it seems these were mainly "internal" correspondence. They were sent mainly to high ranking staff like Ortega, and not directly to Muarry & Michael, so I also do not think the e-mails, threaten Micahel & Muarry either (I know you did not say that). I think the person who got the e-mail, might go to Michael & inquire but will not use the same nasty language in the e-mail. Anyway we will see when AEG puts on their case...
I think managers write these correspondence among themselves & some of us will be horrified if we find out what comments they are making in the privacy of the e-mails.
mjj19582009
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 203
- Points
- 28
This is a snapshot of the 30th anniversary with a TelePrompter
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
I guess Travis did not know that Michael used it before ^^.
Many stars use the teleprompter & it is ok; Michael wants it for TII & it is a big problem & a waw factor.
About Karen: She was Michael's hairdresser, so why would someone tell her not to take instructions from Michael. It is not as though Michael was giving her production, music, dance instructions. He was telling her to fix his face and hair. Maybe he told her a few problems he had on the set, but what important instruction that would influence the concert would he give to her? She often makes her duties more than they are. She claims she was asked to touch up Michael's images for the TII movie; I did not realize that she could do technical work like that. Why didn't AEG hire a professional if they wanted the images to look "fatter?"
I know I am going to be pissed off more when I read her transcript with all the extra details.
Many stars use the teleprompter & it is ok; Michael wants it for TII & it is a big problem & a waw factor.
About Karen: She was Michael's hairdresser, so why would someone tell her not to take instructions from Michael. It is not as though Michael was giving her production, music, dance instructions. He was telling her to fix his face and hair. Maybe he told her a few problems he had on the set, but what important instruction that would influence the concert would he give to her? She often makes her duties more than they are. She claims she was asked to touch up Michael's images for the TII movie; I did not realize that she could do technical work like that. Why didn't AEG hire a professional if they wanted the images to look "fatter?"
I know I am going to be pissed off more when I read her transcript with all the extra details.
AliCat
Proud Member
Now I understand immensely what is going on and why Leonard Rowe thought he was Michael Jackson's representative, along with Katherine and Joe Jackson, on May 15, 2009, at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The meeting was for the understanding that Michael Jackson was the property of Joe and Katherine Jackson and nobody else's. I get it now. Sue baby sue for those property rites!
Aquarius
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 975
- Points
- 0
It hurts me to read certain words AEG used to refer about Michael, that was cruel but what the Jacksons were & are doing to Michael is inhuman, they treated Michael as a commodity not as a son or brother. Michael is being hurt again & that is with his family consent.
loveforever
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,141
- Points
- 0
No one care about Michael. We are alone in this never ending battle. Money is the root of all evil.
Ashtanga
Proud Member
Given all that we are seeing.... for me, at no time will any of these people shown worrying with Michael... Do these people loved and cared so much with him? Is so clear that no one cared. 
*big sigh*
*big sigh*
How the **** does the presence of a teleprompter help the jury decide whether aeg hired Murray or not?
I brought it up a few posts back. Travis said that Michael wanted one and he never had it on other tours. I was wondering if it was a common thing to have it. From reading the posts, it seems that it is common to have it. It was a side question to what's going on.
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
How the **** does the presence of a teleprompter help the jury decide whether aeg hired Murray or not?
^^Funny. You only found one such piece of useless information? There are so many that it is a shame, that the government has to waste so much money to keep this case going all these months. Panish is not asking specific questions and stopping his witnesses when they stray. Another thing I do not understand is why each witness has to give a long, long, resume of their work. I mean they are not experts. Usually an expert gives a long CV which shows he is really an expert. All the rest of people need to say is their name, their job with AEG, & how long they worked with Michael. It is all these extraneous information that is making the trial so long. They should have at least 3 people testify in 1 day, but rather we have 1 person like Karen being on the stand for a day and a half, and nothing she said shows who hired Muarry, but rather how nasty AEG was, what an addict Michael was, who was jealous of her, & some of Michael's private business.
Something I notice with Travis, the AEG witness & I also noticed with Randy in the Muarry trial, is that they brought in what a good father Michael was to his children & how much the children loved him.
I have to be honest and say I loath both parties in this case. If AEG looses, they will do so on a technicality, that is, losing because they hired Michael. I will never see anyone as causing Michel's death other than Muarry, although I concede that taking prof was a free choice that Michael made as well.
Last edited:
smoothlugar
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 484
- Points
- 0
I think they do it to emphasize that he was not ok and that he could not remember the lyrics.How the **** does the presence of a teleprompter help the jury decide whether aeg hired Murray or not?
I asked myself too why so long resumes, but then I realised that in their field they are "experts" too and worked with Michael and could appreciate physical changes and condition.
Karen besides what you say she also told the jury that she saw Michael feeling unwell, sick, too thin... and that's another point of the plaintiffs: to show that Michael was unhealthy, that they were very concerned (Ortega's mails, testimony of dancer, Kate and even Travis), but that AEG didn't do any other thing besides trust the medical doctor and go on with the show at all cost.
8701girl
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 22,375
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
OK i thought you were like saying the judge has been pro jackson all the way
thanks for answering
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
But experts in their field means they will give expert evidence on make up & hair or dance steps, etc. I was a witness once, and all I had to do was state my name, work, title & what I do. I did not come as an expert of what I do, but as a witness of what happened, what I did, what i saw, what i said. If Karen, Travis, & that other woman were experts they would give expert evidence on what they are experts in. That is the way an expert works in court. I have been in court and see experts in action, so to me their long, long resume is just wasting time in court. They are not experts on body mass, the right weight for Michael, or the ability to judge what weight Michael can perform in, so I cannot see how that can be given for the reason they give these long CVs. We see they were wrong anyway because the coroner already went against all those "inexpert" claims by stating as an expert that his weight was ok, that is weight was mainly in his muscle, that he was not starved or malnourished & that his body was healthy, even though you claim ^^ these witnesses show Michael was unhealthy. This is what happens when people try to be experts in a field they are not experts in. The coroner & Anderson basically gave the same evidence that they gave in the muarry trial. Their evidence shows that Michael did not die because his body was unhealthy.
Another thing is just because a person works in a job a long time it does not mean they are experts in their field. Muarry worked at his craft for years, but he is not an expert.
Another waste of time activity is the lengthy videos they have to show a witness, which AEG had complained about before the trial & the judge allowed. None of these things relate to negligent hiring.
In this second week all I see here is Michael on trial. On one hand the witnesses say how great he was to work with; he was in all aspects of TII but then they claim he was not performing well, he missed rehearsals, some days he was out of it; so exactly when did they get to work with this person who they claim was great to work with & was involved in all aspects of TII.
Mechi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,472
- Points
- 0
It seems to me the Jackson lawyers just try to influence the jurors and try to create the atmosphere everybody could see something was wrong with Michael... so AEG is guilty (just like many fans reacted to Michaels death). Although that's no way the question in this trial.
Yet the Jackson side is not even interested in proving that Murray was hired by AEG and AEG had to check/supervise him.
To me if they can't prove that it's pointless cuz every Jackson sibling then would have the same responsibility as everybody at AEG live. The key figure is that Murray guy who killed Michael.
However AEG seems to want to blame it all on Michael. That's also not the question in this trial and only jury influencing. They have to bring clear evidence they weren't hiring Murray (who might requested that or not doesn't matter) so they had no supervising obligations.
Less bla bla and more evidence could help the situation.
The contract (we know there was one), its content, who negotiated it with whom, who had to sign it, was it signed, if not did the parties act as if they had already a spoken agreement and how valid was it, how much did the parties acted accordingly, if those AEG producers were in supervising obligation, did they act accordingly or neglient... that's all.
They can talk on for years about Michaels more or less healthy behavior, teleprompters, clothes, weight... there's a coroners report pretty clear in what caused his death: Michael was a not perfectly but pretty healthy 50 years old adult, who was killed by a neglient 'doctor'.
This jury system has it weaknesses to me.
Yet the Jackson side is not even interested in proving that Murray was hired by AEG and AEG had to check/supervise him.
To me if they can't prove that it's pointless cuz every Jackson sibling then would have the same responsibility as everybody at AEG live. The key figure is that Murray guy who killed Michael.
However AEG seems to want to blame it all on Michael. That's also not the question in this trial and only jury influencing. They have to bring clear evidence they weren't hiring Murray (who might requested that or not doesn't matter) so they had no supervising obligations.
Less bla bla and more evidence could help the situation.
The contract (we know there was one), its content, who negotiated it with whom, who had to sign it, was it signed, if not did the parties act as if they had already a spoken agreement and how valid was it, how much did the parties acted accordingly, if those AEG producers were in supervising obligation, did they act accordingly or neglient... that's all.
They can talk on for years about Michaels more or less healthy behavior, teleprompters, clothes, weight... there's a coroners report pretty clear in what caused his death: Michael was a not perfectly but pretty healthy 50 years old adult, who was killed by a neglient 'doctor'.
This jury system has it weaknesses to me.
oh no :lol: There are so many i dont know where to begin.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 5h
Gongaware email: "We want him to understand what is expected of him. He has been dodging Frank so far."
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 5h
Gongaware email: "... a face-to-face meeting w/ the doctor... We want to remind him that it's AEG not MJ who's paying his salary"
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 5h
Another part of the same email chain, from Gongaware: "Frank and I have discussed it already and have requested...
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 5h
Email continues: "Please don't underestimate the need to stay on top of this."
We never saw the whole email chain or did we? That dodging Frank part is new to me.
I wonder was that about Gonga giving out about CM not doing the blood work on Michael that Frank requested?
If these are related, I don't necessarily see this is bad for AEG as they wanted doctor to do his job and make Michael healthy.
Gongaware email: "We want him to understand what is expected of him. He has been dodging Frank so far."
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 5h
Gongaware email: "... a face-to-face meeting w/ the doctor... We want to remind him that it's AEG not MJ who's paying his salary"
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 5h
Another part of the same email chain, from Gongaware: "Frank and I have discussed it already and have requested...
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 5h
Email continues: "Please don't underestimate the need to stay on top of this."
We never saw the whole email chain or did we? That dodging Frank part is new to me.
I wonder was that about Gonga giving out about CM not doing the blood work on Michael that Frank requested?
If these are related, I don't necessarily see this is bad for AEG as they wanted doctor to do his job and make Michael healthy.
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
Oh , OK I see what you mean, thank you. Maybe they said that only to Ortega & Travis, not to Michael and Murray. Honestly I'm having a hard time believing that did not say that to Murray. Not to threaten him, in their minds, but to inform him of what was at stake (and that's the conflict of interest).
We'll probably never know, I would assume that if Murray is made to testify he would take the 5th on this kind of questions, since it would mean he acted under somebody else's order , against his patient's best interest.
If Phillips and/or Gongaware never told Michael directly , maybe it was casual as you say, maybe not. It's also a way to "manipulate" for managers : get Travis and Ortega to do the bad job themselves. The bad job would be pressuring Michael (even if done in a kind way), Michael would have sensed that , without understanding it completely, unless Travis / Ortega explained it to Michael. It's not better, but it's true the intention could be not to hurt/embarrass Michael. We'll see what Ortega and Kai Chase will say about those meetings.
Also , I think liability is not exactly = to responsability, in the sense that you don't have to do things intentionally to be found liable. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Jacksons have to prove an intention. Meaning we can think AEG meant well , but in Phillips case for example, just express themselves poorly. We can think that AEG honestly tried their best in a complicated situation, but find that they could / should have seen this or that, or reacted in another way and find them liable, even if we understand what they did or didn't do.
About the fact that those e mails were "internal comments" : yes they were, I agree that MAYBE they would not say those things to the people's faces. My thought about this comes from my personal experience with this kind of people. If you are respectful you don't write/say these things behind people's backs. Whether it is said directly to the people or not doesn't change the opnion of the persons who do that. They ARE disrispectful and treat people disrespectfully.
And I think the "hysteria" thing for example could be manipulative : "don't bother me with small unimportant stuff", "I don't want to hear about it again".
I agree that they want to show many things, for the Jacksons every litlle thing is another red flag that AEG should have noticed. When you put them all together , it sounds impressive. The contract was still being negotiated until the 24th, I think they want to say that AEG had until the very last days to take Murray out of the picture.
I think they're saying AEG was negligent, and Murray's "treatment" was keeping Michael from going back to his abilities. Especially when people like Ortega suggested other options. The argument here could be that AEG chose tough love in the wrong direction : if other healthcare providers had been imposed on Michael and Murray, they would have understood what the real problem was. The fact that Michael was refusing them was just another red flag (in Jacksons' mind). That's why I was asking about Lou Ferrigno in another post. When and how did he start to work for Michael ?
I agree. I think both of them are going to address that particular point (the contract) .
The fact that AEG is refusing to say that Murray killed Michael ... They could adress the Jacksons role too, later on.
So it's like what was first, the hen or the egg ? Who started that, and what do you do from that.... They kind of mutually drag themselves into that line of arguments.
We'll see how it turns out. The problem is that you also have to evaluate potential damages, ie Michael's ability to earn money.
Another thing is that so far AEG's defense seems weak to me. Witnesses from both sides so far are saying the same things basically, they just don't say it the same way, but they are referring to same facts.
I think Karen was a weak witness for the Jacksons though, she went too far, she didn't need to give so many details, and Panish should have stopped her or question her a little bit diffferently. We'll see that with the transcripts. AEG will have no problem discrediting her. She did that herself.
I had never really followed a civil case, and I'm really disappointed to realise that it's not about telling the truth at all. What they are doing here is twist it to fit their agenda (Michael's health and Murray's role so far).
Last edited:
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
yes, but the 10 547 details of Michael not being healthy, or not improving in spite of the doctor being there is a ... red flag. I don't see how this can help AEG....unless they get Murray on the stand or use the police interview to say that Michael was lying/concealing things from Murray. I know it's extreme given Murray is such a huge liar himself, and his lies are the reason all this happened, but I can totally see AEG do that if they feel they have to.
EDIT : Honestly, I think Murray put the blame on Michael, and AEG believed him at the time.
Last edited:
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
Agreed. I was wondering what the consequences could be if AEG loses, particularly in sports business- doping. Can you imagine Lance Armstrong , or his family, sueing US Postal or whatever previous team he was with for his cancer, or other health problems he could have because of doping ?
yes, at first I didn't think it was that imortant, that she ws talking about a disagreement about clothes, but thanks to you and other posters here I understand it could be far more important than what I thought. We'll have to wait for the transcripts.
smoothlugar
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 484
- Points
- 0
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
I agree with the part CM putting blame on Michael, it is something that he does, blame others.
I don't know about that red flag, it can also show that they were doing more than it was expected from them if they took time to see if doctor was taking care of Michael, and if that Frank thing is what I believe to be, then they showed more "duty of care" than it was expected.
Judge dismissed the part of lawsuit that AEG had duty of care, the only one left is negligent hiring and supervising.
So far what I have seen, this lawsuit is not following the line hiring or supervising, it all all mixed up and judge is a fool for allowing all sort of testimonies that has nothing to do with anything. Faye telling that LMP was jealous of her has nothing to do with AEG hiring CM. How many times MJ attented to rehearsal with TP has nothing to do with it, among other things.
I said it earlier and I say it again, the judge will have to remind the jury what this trial is about as it is very muddy at best:no:
You asked about when Lou F started training with MJ, I found this interview right after MJ passed
Lou, nice to see you. And Lou, when you saw Michael Jackson three weeks ago, describe him for us.
LOU FERRIGNO, ACTOR, JACKSON'S PERSONAL TRAINER: Well, when I saw Michael about the end of May, a few weeks ago, apparently, he was in great condition because I trained him for a couple of months, and he looked lean to me but he did all the exercises I told him to do. And apparently, he seemed well. He did all the exercises. And he was very animated, very energetic. And he was as happy as he could be. And this is quite a shock I'm hearing all this.
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
thanks that's interesting, does it mean april/may or may/june ?. probably april/may.
Yeah , it's muddy. I don't get the big difference between "supervising" a doctor when you're not a doctor yourself /negligent hiring of a doctor, and "duty of care". Obvously AEG has no duty of care. But how do you supervise a doctor when you have no medical knowledge ? hence all the red flags to the Jacksons that were not red flags for AEG.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
I'm pissed off plaintiffs vile remark about Katherine and kids didn't attend TII premier because they were mourning.
Kids were mourning for sure, but Katherine didn't attend because she was busy doing deals with Howard Mann, re their contract which was dated 3 Feb 2010 and the talk about their agreement started earlier 2009.
She didn't attend to TII because the estate made the deal, and Jackson's weren't going to get any money out of it, other than Katherine was getting "lousy" 26 grand/month.
I think it is fairly clear to everyone why AEG is being sued and why they didn't take restitution or sued CM, I came across with this bit info from her previous lawyer:
Adam Streisand, who scored a victory for Katherine last week in the estate case, tells TMZ the case would be filed on behalf of Katherine and Michael's three children. But Streisand adds, the biggest factor against filing suit is that Murray is asset-challenged -- i.e., he can't even pay his child support.
Streisand said he's actually rooting for Dr. Murray to file a claim for wages against AEG, adding "At least then we'd have some money to take from him."
As we first reported, Murray may sue AEG for $300,000 for the two months he "treated" MJ.
Kids were mourning for sure, but Katherine didn't attend because she was busy doing deals with Howard Mann, re their contract which was dated 3 Feb 2010 and the talk about their agreement started earlier 2009.
She didn't attend to TII because the estate made the deal, and Jackson's weren't going to get any money out of it, other than Katherine was getting "lousy" 26 grand/month.
I think it is fairly clear to everyone why AEG is being sued and why they didn't take restitution or sued CM, I came across with this bit info from her previous lawyer:
Adam Streisand, who scored a victory for Katherine last week in the estate case, tells TMZ the case would be filed on behalf of Katherine and Michael's three children. But Streisand adds, the biggest factor against filing suit is that Murray is asset-challenged -- i.e., he can't even pay his child support.
Streisand said he's actually rooting for Dr. Murray to file a claim for wages against AEG, adding "At least then we'd have some money to take from him."
As we first reported, Murray may sue AEG for $300,000 for the two months he "treated" MJ.
smoothlugar
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 484
- Points
- 0
Yes, I know you are both right, but it seems unavoidable for some of us to react emotionally when reading all those details on how they saw Michael...
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
And after 4 months of this, the jury is likely to feel the same way as we do. It's disgusting.
Emma-Dutchie
Proud Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2013
- Messages
- 7
- Points
- 0
Debbie's name came up in the testimony a few times. Does she have to testify any time soon or not at all?
Mechi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,472
- Points
- 0
OMG please don't take me wrong! I am so sorry if someone could think I mean the discussion here with the 'blabla' remark.
I meant the things going on in court. Those whitnesses can a thousand times tell how they think Michael was acting strange, or that he SEEMS to have been on something. It's stupid pure speculation by ppl who... well I better stop because it would be me speculating... for example if one or some of them might ever want a job again in the entertainment business (maybe even with AEG?!) and on the other hand those who are only into money without any dignity... don't get me too serious... ITS ALL SPECULATION. While for example the coroners report is proven FACT.
Again... no way I've meant someone here... I'm frusterated something like this is possible in a 'justice-system'. That's just like being innocent in a molestation trial... one is always connected to the word molestation... always and forever although never any wrongdoing has taken place...
Justice to me is so different!
AliCat
Proud Member
Besides Karen Faye working with Michael Jackson, doing his hair and makeup, there was another woman, (Lynda Parrish) too. Same as Zaldy and Michael Bush and Dennis Thompkins, working with Michael Jackson on costuming.
Zaldy has been working on the costuming of "Immortal,' and now "One," at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas next week. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/201...u-soleils-michael-jackson-one-/#axzz2TThadcKf That's why it gets confusing about what Karen Faye has been saying since Michael Jackson died. The other makeup artist (Lynda Parrish) that worked with Michael Jackson, after Karen Faye was dismissed in 2005, hasn't gone around saying negative things about Michael's death and neither has Zaldy.
The other makeup artist (Lynda Parrish) isn't even working with Cirque du Soleil and the Estate of Michael Jackson on "Immortal" or "One" schedule to open in one week at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.
So what is the expertise that we are gleaning from in understanding how the frail Michael Jackson was slipping away from us and because he was receiving botox treatments at Arnold Klein's dermatological clinic, and using demerol to help with the injections of the botox, Michael Jackson would come to work slurring? I always thought Michael Jackson was receiving these botox treatments to look purty for us at the 02 Arena in London in 2009.
I look at it if you went to the dentist and received novacaine before dentistry work, you'd be slurring, too. Since demerol was used to help desensitized the pain of botox, lidocaine had the same purpose in administering propofol. The lidocaine helped so the propofol wouldn't burn as much, but the side effects were death dealing. I sometimes wondered if this was mixed up with the demerol that was used to help administer the botox treatments. Now, Judge Pastor ruled out Arnold Klein in Murray's trial because there was no demerol found in Michael's system at the time of his death.
By the way, you can see Michael Jackson slurring in the "This Is It," movie. It's where he is being shown computer graphics on making lots of soldiers, from twelve to thousands!
Zaldy has been working on the costuming of "Immortal,' and now "One," at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas next week. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/201...u-soleils-michael-jackson-one-/#axzz2TThadcKf That's why it gets confusing about what Karen Faye has been saying since Michael Jackson died. The other makeup artist (Lynda Parrish) that worked with Michael Jackson, after Karen Faye was dismissed in 2005, hasn't gone around saying negative things about Michael's death and neither has Zaldy.
The other makeup artist (Lynda Parrish) isn't even working with Cirque du Soleil and the Estate of Michael Jackson on "Immortal" or "One" schedule to open in one week at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.
So what is the expertise that we are gleaning from in understanding how the frail Michael Jackson was slipping away from us and because he was receiving botox treatments at Arnold Klein's dermatological clinic, and using demerol to help with the injections of the botox, Michael Jackson would come to work slurring? I always thought Michael Jackson was receiving these botox treatments to look purty for us at the 02 Arena in London in 2009.
I look at it if you went to the dentist and received novacaine before dentistry work, you'd be slurring, too. Since demerol was used to help desensitized the pain of botox, lidocaine had the same purpose in administering propofol. The lidocaine helped so the propofol wouldn't burn as much, but the side effects were death dealing. I sometimes wondered if this was mixed up with the demerol that was used to help administer the botox treatments. Now, Judge Pastor ruled out Arnold Klein in Murray's trial because there was no demerol found in Michael's system at the time of his death.
By the way, you can see Michael Jackson slurring in the "This Is It," movie. It's where he is being shown computer graphics on making lots of soldiers, from twelve to thousands!
smoothlugar
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 484
- Points
- 0
^^ Don't worry Mechi for the "bla bla bla", it was perfectly understood you were referring to some testimony.
P.S.: How horrible the other BS news of today's, by the way!!!!:angry::angry::angry:
P.S.: How horrible the other BS news of today's, by the way!!!!
:angry::angry::angry:- Status