Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

passy001 · Aug 11, 2013

That Other Fan said:
Thank you for reading my mind on what my response would be. lol

No, I understand people being against this trial. There are many legitimate reasons that can be made for this trial not taking place. I understand people not wanting the information being paraded out and making international headlines. I understand people feeling this somehow damages Michael's legacy. I understand being concerned about the well being of Michael's children and not wanting to see them being put through this. I get it.

However, I also feel the double standard needs to be removed from how some (not all... I must stress this) feel about and talk about this situation. You can't get upset at the Jackson for talking about Michael's issues, call it lies, etc... but then at the same time go out of your way to defend AEG's actions, simply because you don't want the Jacksons to win. That's what I see, and that's how I feel about what I've seen within the fan community.

I feel there has to be acceptance. Michael had legitimate health issues, and on top of that, emotional turmoil that few have faced in a 90/100 year lifetime much less 50 years. I understand his struggles.

I feel that the anger within the fan community first began with members of the family openly discussing Michael's battles. Then it turned to "they are lying", etc. The disappointment has been allowed to manifested itself into outright anger and vitriol for the family no matter what the situation is. I don't agree with it and the fans especially lose me when they start talking negatively about Katherine.

Unfortunately the jacksons make it more difficult to find a reason to support them. Personally I have run out of excuses. I was one of staunch supporters back in 2009. but with horrible public acts (I'm not going to cite them here.) one after the other completely I felt alienated. I also felt the family was making deliberate attempt to undermine MJ legacy and the interests of his children.

now you have a trial with the plaintiffs side openly lying about MJ in an attempt to win a jackpot. that I can tell you I will never ever support. It;s one thing to have mere suspicions and seek explanations but it's another to make blatant extortion attempt via the court, dragging your deceased loved one through the mud in the process. That's exactly what many fans feel here. a campaign to get rich at the ultimate expense of MJ, the only one who matters.

also, some people seem to have some misplaced expectations that because we are MJ fans we should automatically be fans of his family. that is unfair. MJ is the only reason I have become a fan and as such don't relate at all to his extensive family. it's fine if you do have some affection for the family, etc... but don't expect to see that affection in MJ fan clubs.

As for KJ, she remains in my book the biggest disappointment and i'll leave it at that.

crillon · Aug 11, 2013

Any truth to the rumor that Randy will be testifying on Monday?

That Other Fan · Aug 11, 2013

somewhereinthedark said:
The problem that I have with this family is that they waited until Michael was MURDERED before they came forward with this so-called "drug addict" story and so-called ""interventions". I want all of the Jackson Defenders to remember that this is the SAME family who was badgering Michael NON-STOP to tour with THEM. IF these "addict" stories (and I don't believe them) are true, then WHY would his own family want him to tour with THEM? Use your brains people, this doesn't make sense. Put yourselves in this family's place, If YOUR loved one was in as bad a shape as Randy, Janet and the rest claim, would you ask that loved one to do a grueling tour with you? Their assertions have no validity or logic to them. Not one time, did this family ever say anything about this while Michael was alive. The ONLY reason that this "family of greed" is doing this NOW, is because they are COWARDS. They wouldn't have dared to say or do the things that they are doing now, when Michael was alive. Michael is not here to defend himself and Randy and others in that family are classless enough to throw him under the bus. Again, this family is the lowest of the low and I have nothing but contempt for their actions since Michael was murdered. I am hoping that they lose this lawsuit and if they win, I hope that AEG appeals and ties the money up for YEARS. The bottomline is that all that Katherine wants is MONEY. She doesn't care about justice, or she would have accepted restitution from the REAL murderer, Conrad Murray. Btw, I don't give a damn about AEG and hate them with a passion. However, AEG did not murder Michael, Conrad Murray did and the Jacksons have basically given this piece of scum a free pass for murdering Michael. They only care about $$$ and I hope they fail in this endeavor.

What point would it serve to discuss his issues with the public prior to his death? Having the world know the extent of what he was going through wouldn't have helped him overcome and/or successfully combat his battle.

passy001 said:
Unfortunately the jacksons make it more difficult to find a reason to support them. Personally I have run out of excuses. I was one of staunch supporters back in 2009. but with horrible public acts (I'm not going to cite them here.) one after the other completely I felt alienated. I also felt the family was making deliberate attempt to undermine MJ legacy and the interests of his children.

now you have a trial with the plaintiffs side openly lying about MJ in an attempt to win a jackpot. that I can tell you I will never ever support. It;s one thing to have mere suspicions and seek explanations but it's another to make blatant extortion attempt via the court, dragging your deceased loved one through the mud in the process. That's exactly what many fans feel here. a campaign to get rich at the ultimate expense of MJ, the only one who matters.

also, some people seem to have some misplaced expectations that because we are MJ fans we should automatically be fans of his family. that is unfair. MJ is the only reason I have become a fan and as such don't relate at all to his extensive family. it's fine if you do have some affection for the family, etc... but don't expect to see that affection in MJ fan clubs.

As for KJ, she remains in my book the biggest disappointment and i'll leave it at that.

That's where we disagree, because I don't see outright lies. I see things being revealed that some don't want to accept and/or don't want to be public knowledge. Which I understand, that however, doesn't mean they are lies.

There is difference between expectations that someone who is a fan of Michael's must also be a fan of the family, and saying, it's a double standard to how some are approaching discussion of this case (which is what I've said).

passy001 · Aug 11, 2013

That Other Fan said:
What point would it serve to discuss his issues with the public prior to his death? Having the world know the extent of what he was going through wouldn't have helped him overcome and/or successfully combat his battle.

That's where we disagree, because I don't see outright lies. I see things being revealed that some don't want to accept and/or don't want to be public knowledge. Which I understand, that however, doesn't mean they are lies.

yes certain things are being revealed. but many things are also being fabricated. in other words it's half truth half lies all in the mix. add to that lots of exaggerations(especially from experts). after all $1.5b or more are demanded and need justification.

There is difference between expectations that someone who is a fan of Michael's must also be a fan of the family, and saying, it's a double standard to how some are approaching discussion of this case (which is what I've said).

There is bound to be some bias at some point. that's inevitable. "it is what it is" as the sitting judge like saying.

Soundmind · Aug 12, 2013

ivy;3885650 said:
chill, I did not say such thing. That Other Fan claimed the anger towards Randy was just the disdain towards Jackson family. [FONT=&amp]I said no that's not true Some fans - you being a perfect example - are angry with anyone and everyone who calls Michael an addic[/FONT]t. It's not limited to Randy or Jacksons.

The second part was about anyone - whether Randy or not - helping Michael through his hard times - whether it's a problem with drugs or anything else. Everyone that stood for/with Michael when he needed them deserves a kudos. For example I am also grateful for Elizabeth Taylor for convincing Michael to go to rehab in 1993. If you disagree with that , fine.

[FONT=&amp]I understand your position is no issues with drugs = no intervention = everyone lying = no thanks for intervention /help attempts but perhaps you can chill and dial down the attacks on other fans[/FONT].

I've never said that you do know that. I've never said he did not have a problem. My problem is with your tendency to give credibility to anything you believe proves he was an addict.
I have every right to be angry with people who calls him an addict, why should not I? Did Randy ever talk about MJ's health problems ? No , why should I not attack him ?

You have never sent kudos to Randy Jackson before, in fact you have been spending significant time refuting everything claimed in the lawsuit (brought by him as you many times stated) but now when it comes to drugs kudos to him!!

Do I need to remind you how many times you posted it was only realistic and objective to assume the 2002 incident was drug related although you’ve been told many times there were no drugs , no alcohol no doctor around .What was your reply ? “doctor could have come in the evening “ , right ? A doctor no one saw.

What was your reply when you were told the paramedics did not feel he needed hospitalization? You said he probably refused to go, they could not have forced him ...etc , how many posts you made to bolster this theory of yours?

What was your reaction when the bodyguard eventually said the paramedics told him MJ suffered low blood sugar? "It was stricken the jury won't be allowed to take it into consideration ". But you read it ivy you know what you consider realistic and objective does not reflect what truly happened that day, or you will do another lengthy research to prove the paramedics were wrong?

No records of MJ abusing drugs on daily basis even in 2001-2002. You felt you needed to be objective again , “ he probably was getting it from somewhere” .

The records in 2009 especially June and May don't support demerol addiction. Again your objectivity triggered you to reply “no records does not mean he was not getting it”. It’s objective to always ALWAYS speculate when you have no evidence and assume the worst, right?
Why do you always feel you need to point out lack of evidence does not mean anything when it comes to drugs?
You have the right to write what you want, but I don’t? I have the right to question your approach, as long as you keep pushing what you believe not supported by evidence, I will keep responding.

Where did I say MJ did not have a problem? where did I say everyone was lying ?

Finally,it’s not about attacking other fans , my stand in this matter theories unsupported by evidence should not go unchallenged . We are fans of Michael Jackson , we are not advocates for the Jacksons or AEG . We are interested in the TRUTH , period .

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>AR-SA</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

ivy · Aug 12, 2013

^^

I never said you can't be angry with people calling Michael an addict. That being said I would imagine that you understand that not everyone will approach to the testimony as you do, people will have different perceptions, different personal experiences and could come to different conclusions than you do and you do have anger issues against other fans who don't agree with exactly what you think. My opinion is my opinion and my opinion isn't as black or white as you make it sound like, it has a lot of gray areas which you either don't understand or don't even bother to understand. I respect your choice to disagree with it but your anger is only affecting you and not me. I'll leave it at that.

jrsfan · Aug 12, 2013

somewhereinthedark said:
The problem that I have with this family is that they waited until Michael was MURDERED before they came forward with this so-called "drug addict" story and so-called ""interventions". I want all of the Jackson Defenders to remember that this is the SAME family who was badgering Michael NON-STOP to tour with THEM. IF these "addict" stories (and I don't believe them) are true, then WHY would his own family want him to tour with THEM? This doesn't make sense. Put yourselves in this family's place, If YOUR loved one was in as bad a shape as Randy, Janet and the rest claim, would you ask that loved one to do a grueling tour with you? Their assertions have no validity or logic to them. Not one time, did this family ever say anything about this while Michael was alive. The ONLY reason that this "family of greed" is doing this NOW, is because I think they are COWARDS. They wouldn't have dared to say or do the things that they are doing now, when Michael was alive. Michael is not here to defend himself and Randy and others in that family are classless enough to throw him under the bus. Again, this family is the lowest of the low and I have nothing but contempt for their actions since Michael was murdered. I am hoping that they lose this lawsuit and if they win, I hope that AEG appeals and ties the money up for YEARS. The bottomline is that all that Katherine wants is MONEY. I don't think she cares about justice, or she would have accepted restitution from the REAL murderer, Conrad Murray. Btw, I don't give a damn about AEG and hate them with a passion. However, AEG did not murder Michael, Conrad Murray did and the Jacksons have basically given them a free pass for murdering Michael. They only care about $$$ and I hope they fail in this endeavor.

I have no problem with the Jacksons wanting him to tour with them. If my son or brother had an addiction problem, the family may think it was better for him to be around family to make sure he didn't relapse - so to me it makes perfect sense. Just because someone has an addiction problem at times does not mean they don't ever work again, which would not be healthy.

Aquarius · Aug 12, 2013

Mneme said:
For me it is not only an simple understatement about Michael's weight.
That "But he was 90 pounds, it wouldn't do much." is contemptuous and humiliating. I mean: Why he draws such pathetic and puny picture about his dead brother?
90 Pound are 40,8 kilogramm. That is more than unrealistic! It is simply spiteful.
Everybody knows this cannot be right, Randy too. And, nevertheless, Randy had to say it. As a sort of compulsive act.
No, jaydom is right. There was and there is no love, respect and grief about Michael's passing. (imho)

I always thought Michael's brothers were jealous but now I'm thinking it is more than that, I think they despise Michael, especially Randy and their father.

Even if is untrue Michael weighted 90 lbs, he just said to diminish Michael and not to underline any health, or as he puts it, addiction issues. Every time they do or say something negative towards Michael I think, this is the worst but then, they come with something else that tops their previous actions. I really don't get this family. Doesn't Randy remembers in whose home his children were living? This guy is a derange human being, he takes a lot from his father.

I would never understand how a father, two days after his son died, said in an interview he was doing great, started with the promo with his record label, and instead of referring to Michael as his son, he said we lost the biggest star, and that was Michael was for him. On the other hand when Gongaware told KO about Michael's passing he said "our boy is gone". Gongaware showed more affection for Michael than his own father.

Someone posted a portion of the interview where Katherine tells Oprah about the day Michael went to court in pajamas. Seems she really was worried about losing the $5mil posted for bail, I wonder if she was that worry about Michael being arrested if he didn't show up on time. Did someone remember?

I don't think that family knows much about love, seems to me that money and hate is what keeps them together. If by some unknown reason Katherine gets some $ from AEG, does Joe have any benefit out of that money since they're married?

crillon · Aug 12, 2013

I've never thought of Michael as a "drug addict" in the sense of someone seeking street drugs for a "high," but someone who needed pain medication for an injury which then grew into a dependency over the years. He admitted to that in 1993 & sought treatment. I also think that dependency was "situational" and oftentimes exacerbated by medical doctors (like Klein, et al) for procedures or triggered by the pressures of touring and nothing I've read from the trial transcripts says otherwise. The Jacksons are at least exaggerating, if not fabricating, all these interventions for their own purposes. imo

jrsfan said:
I have no problem with the Jacksons wanting him to tour with them. If my son or brother had an addiction problem, the family may think it was better for him to be around family to make sure he didn't relapse - so to me it makes perfect sense. Just because someone has an addiction problem at times does not mean they don't ever work again, which would not be healthy.

I think this rationale supports co-dependency--just ignore the problem and have him go on tour.
If you really believe a family member has a drug problem serious enough to warrant an intervention, you get him medical help, not ignore the problem and convince him to go on tour to line the family's pockets with money.

That Other Fan · Aug 12, 2013

passy001 said:
yes certain things are being revealed. but many things are also being fabricated. in other words it's half truth half lies all in the mix. add to that lots of exaggerations(especially from experts). after all $1.5b or more are demanded and need justification.

I'm speaking of those saying the interventions never took place or that it's outright lies... that's what some don't want to deal with or don't want out in the public. Which, I do understand. However, I think we as fan base need to come to a point of acceptance. Michael had those issues. He had that battle. He had real health issues. He had real emotional turmoil (the likes of which you and I can't even imagine) that led to excessive use. Along with doctors that didn't have his best interest in mind when treating him. As we've seen though, Michael did take steps responsible steps in dealing with his issues. He didn't accept his family's help, but he did try.

Like I said before, is it possible there was a conflict of interest with the motives of family. Yes.

They were concerned about his addictions, but at the same time attempting to convince him to tour with the family. However, Michael was in fact planning to tour at that time. I would've told him not to tour altogether. Continue living his life out of the spotlight, but that doesn't mean the attempts at interventions didn't happen. It also doesn't make Michael a bad person that he dealt with those issues. Nor does it confirm any of the negative things said about him in the media. Which, IMO, is what really worry some within the fan community.

passy001 said:
There is bound to be some bias at some point. that's inevitable. "it is what it is" as the sitting judge like saying.

Of course there is bias. I said there is difference between saying someone has to be fan of Michael's family and saying there is a double standard in how conversations about being approached. They don't correlate is my point. We all have bias though. This is true.

Soundmind · Aug 12, 2013

jrsfan said:
I have no problem with the Jacksons wanting him to tour with them. If my son or brother had an addiction problem, the family may think it was better for him to be around family to make sure he didn't relapse - so to me it makes perfect sense. Just because someone has an addiction problem at times does not mean they don't ever work again, which would not be healthy.

He did not like to be around them he said that on the glenda tapes , he rarely saw them after he left Encino . How would he feel better if all they knew was to ask him for something ?

Soundmind · Aug 12, 2013

That Other Fan said:
I'm speaking of those saying the interventions never took place or that it's outright lies... that's what some don't want to deal with or don't want out in the public. Which, I do understand. However, I think we as fan base need to come to a point of acceptance. Michael had those issues. He had that battle. He had real health issues. He had real emotional turmoil (the likes of which you and I can't even imagine) that led to excessive use. Along with doctors that didn't have his best interest in mind when treating him. As we've seen though, Michael did take steps responsible steps in dealing with his issues. He didn't accept his family's help, but he did try.

Like I said before, is it possible there was a conflict of interest with the motives of family. Yes.

They were concerned about his addictions, but at the same time attempting to convince him to tour with the family. However, Michael was in fact planning to tour at that time. I would've told him not to tour altogether. Continue living his life out of the spotlight, but that doesn't mean the attempts at interventions didn't happen. It also doesn't make Michael a bad person that he dealt with those issues. Nor does it confirm any of the negative things said about him in the media. Which, IMO, is what really worry some within the fan community.

Of course there is bias. I said there is difference between saying someone has to be fan of Michael's family and saying there is a double standard in how conversations about being approached. They don't correlate is my point. We all have bias though. This is true.

If Randy was concerned about MJ he would not have tried to steal his assets . If Rebbie was concerned about MJ , she would not have gone public with her support of Stacy Brown during the 2005 trial. If they were concerned about MJ , if they really cared about MJ , they would have cared about his beloved kids . Let's talk about their "love" toward his kids . Randy & Rebbie love them , right ?

passy001 · Aug 12, 2013

That Other Fan said:
I'm speaking of those saying the interventions never took place or that it's outright lies... that's what some don't want to deal with or don't want out in the public. Which, I do understand. However, I think we as fan base need to come to a point of acceptance. Michael had those issues. He had that battle. He had real health issues. He had real emotional turmoil (the likes of which you and I can't even imagine) that led to excessive use. Along with doctors that didn't have his best interest in mind when treating him. As we've seen though, Michael did take steps responsible steps in dealing with his issues. He didn't accept his family's help, but he did try.

Like I said before, is it possible there was a conflict of interest with the motives of family. Yes.

They were concerned about his addictions, but at the same time attempting to convince him to tour with the family. However, Michael was in fact planning to tour at that time. I would've told him not to tour altogether. Continue living his life out of the spotlight, but that doesn't mean the attempts at interventions didn't happen. It also doesn't make Michael a bad person that he dealt with those issues. Nor does it confirm any of the negative things said about him in the media. Which, IMO, is what really worry some within the fan community.
.

I told you about exaggeration. true MJ had his faults etc. noone is denying that. There could have been interventions. how could you stage interventions with someone you don't have much contact with. on what ground? you can't just suspect drugs out of the blue. for the most part these were more harassment for touring because randy story does not add up when you read his testimony. there is a lot of loopholes. plus there is no evidence MJ was under drug abuse between 1993 and 2009. absolutely zero. so far it's randy's word. Instead of impeaching him, AEG are quite happy to use his depo. Randy is doing the work for them. they could not have asked any better.

yes MJ was planning to tour. but he planned on doing so solo. not with family who were practically harassing him. no wonder he was distant. instead was befriending surrogate families.

Petrarose · Aug 12, 2013

I think that the family made about 2 attempts to ask Michael about drugs, and maybe 1 intervention. I am basing that on the fact that others saw them around, such as the bodyguards. Even the one where they say they brought a dr., I can't remember the bodyguard saying a doc or non family member came in the car to Neverland. We will see if Rebbie said a doctor was with them. All the other 6 - 7 interventions I don't believe, because I have no corroboration from other sources, and it seems to me that since Michael always traveled with security, they would know if a group of family members came to visit him.

I think they went to Asia to show the world they supported him. I don't think it was a drug intervention as Randy said. It makes no sense that a person says he is going to rehab, and then his family comes and do an intervention. I know some here believe that, but it makes no sense. Think about it. Elizabeth comes to take me to rehab and I say I have a problem. Then, my family rushes to do a drug intervention? Why? I already admitted I have a problem, and I am on to the next step--I am off to rehab!!! So Asia was not an intervention, but an attempt to show support and to make Michael sign a paper during his weakened moment.

About New York, it could be after the Madison show. They could have asked him about drugs then, because we know from the testimony that the dr. gave him a shot for him to sleep. That is still not an intervention.

I feel Michel became addicted to demerol. He knew it, which is why he did 2 rehab and took the patch. Even though he was addicted to it, he still used it for pain. Even the hospital gave it to him, according to Jermain, so it seems even though the drug was a problem, it was still given to him.

I think at times when Michel slurred his speech, he had taken something for sleep or pain. The problem is that I think people saw the effects of the drugs and each time assumed he was abusing the drug. They never think that maybe this time, he had taken something for a legit pain, and I think that is the reason why some here get frustrated--the fact that every effect is seen as the result of taking the drug for no other reason than to feed an addiction.

If you look at Randy's testimony he simple tells you the effects: Michael slurred, he collapsed and had to be lifted and seem to be on something. However, he never asked Michael why he took the drug. He says Grace got it from the pharmacy. What was the drug prescribed for? We don't know. He throws out the pills. Why? If Michel needed them for legit pain & he throws it away, what would Michel do when the pain comes back? He didn't say after he threw them away he asked the doc to give Miachel another pain med. So we are left with the idea that doctors prescribed drugs for Michel, & for what reason? We and the jury do not know.

Anyway it seems to me that some of the stories in Randy's drug testimony occurred around the time when the bodyguard said Michael was engaged in a lot of projects. This is the same guard who said he saw Randy try to land in a helicopter and he told him Michael did not want to see him. So it seems drugged up Michel was able to work & make money........

About this thread:
I also think that we cannot discuss the trial and what the witnesses say in a vacuum or be ahistorical. Why? We already know facts about most of the key witnesses. We already know some of their actions and what situations were occurring when they did or said particular things. Therefore, when such people like Randy, Katherine give evidence, what they say is placed within the correct context that we already know about. That is why it is easy for us to spot inconsistencies, problems, lies.

It is not as though we are jurors and only can look at evidence presented in court. We are members on a forum talking about a trial, evaluating what the people said, and comparing what they said in court to what they said elsewhere and thus finding a lot of problems with their testimony. If Randy, for example, said he was in a hospital with Michael, and we find out he was not there, even though that fact was not brought up in court, we have a right to discuss this here, as long as it relates to the inconsistencies of Randy's testimony. If Randy says Michel like to tour, and we have videos of Michael saying otherwise, we have a right to post it here and discuss this consistency, even though the video was not part of the evidence in court. We are not jurors confined to the limits of what the witnesses provide.

ivy · Aug 12, 2013

Petrarose said:
About this thread:
I also think that we cannot discuss the trial and what the witnesses say in a vacuum or be ahistorical. Why? We already know facts about most of the key witnesses. We already know some of their actions and what situations were occurring when they did or said particular things. Therefore, when such people like Randy, Katherine give evidence, what they say is placed within the correct context that we already know about. That is why it is easy for us to spot inconsistencies, problems, lies.

It is not as though we are jurors and only can look at evidence presented in court. We are members on a forum talking about a trial, evaluating what the people said, and comparing what they said in court to what they said elsewhere and thus finding a lot of problems with their testimony. If Randy, for example, said he was in a hospital with Michael, and we find out he was not there, even though that fact was not brought up in court, we have a right to discuss this here, as long as it relates to the inconsistencies of Randy's testimony. If Randy says Michel like to tour, and we have videos of Michael saying otherwise, we have a right to post it here and discuss this consistency, even though the video was not part of the evidence in court. We are not jurors confined to the limits of what the witnesses provide.

this. agree 100%

Snow White luvs Peter Pan · Aug 12, 2013

I don't know how people wants us to react. Do they think we like people blatantly lie about Michael trying to portray him as someone he's not even though we know they barely had contact with him? Do they think we like Michael's own "family" throws him under the mud not giving a damn about his memory and reputation in the name of money? Do they think we liked they just reached him to use him and trying to take advantage of him? In my opinion they've have done even more evil and despicable acts than all the cursing words we could tell them for f*** sake!

crillon · Aug 12, 2013

Petrarose said:
About this thread:
I also think that we cannot discuss the trial and what the witnesses say in a vacuum or be ahistorical. Why? We already know facts about most of the key witnesses. We already know some of their actions and what situations were occurring when they did or said particular things. Therefore, when such people like Randy, Katherine give evidence, what they say is placed within the correct context that we already know about. That is why it is easy for us to spot inconsistencies, problems, lies.

It is not as though we are jurors and only can look at evidence presented in court. We are members on a forum talking about a trial, evaluating what the people said, and comparing what they said in court to what they said elsewhere and thus finding a lot of problems with their testimony. If Randy, for example, said he was in a hospital with Michael, and we find out he was not there, even though that fact was not brought up in court, we have a right to discuss this here, as long as it relates to the inconsistencies of Randy's testimony. If Randy says Michel like to tour, and we have videos of Michael saying otherwise, we have a right to post it here and discuss this consistency, even though the video was not part of the evidence in court. We are not jurors confined to the limits of what the witnesses provide.

Totally agree and this is such a great point to make, especially when considering how the jury sees the same testimony. They don't have the backstories or backgrounds (as we all do) to know whether or not what they're hearing is true or not. If a witness isn't impeached, there is no way to tell what to believe and then add to that the length of this trial and the pressure on the jury to REMEMBER & put it all together (even with good notes) is extraordinary. That's why the jury is such a wild card because chances are they do not see it the way we do. It's anyone's guess which way they will go.

All things considered it would be so great if the judge granted AEG their motion to dismiss.

Petrarose · Aug 12, 2013

^^Crillon based on the judge's past decisions, it does not seem possible that she will dismiss this case. I am really wondering about what she will do with the amendment about negligence. I think maybe she will not allow the amendment, but that's just me guessing.

Where did you hear the rumor of Randy being on the stand on Monday. I know he tweeted that he never said he did not want to take the stand.

That Other Fan · Aug 12, 2013

Soundmind said:
If Randy was concerned about MJ he would not have tried to steal his assets . If Rebbie was concerned about MJ , she would not have gone public with her support of Stacy Brown during the 2005 trial. If they were concerned about MJ , if they really cared about MJ , they would have cared about his beloved kids . Let's talk about their "love" toward his kids . Randy & Rebbie love them , right ?

Michael didn't accuse Randy. Michael accused Don Stabler. As I told you before, pay attention what Michael actually said and not what insinuated by the writer. Also, as we both know, Stabler wasn't the only person Randy introduced to Michael to handle his affairs. There have been many shady characters that have entered the family's life, Michael included. I've been apart of the online fan community for years, I've seen it all. I've seen people in Michael's circle that we felt he shouldn't be trusting only for him to be burned publically. The family isn't going to be any better at navigating through the sharks than Michael was.

passy001 said:
I told you about exaggeration. true MJ had his faults etc. noone is denying that. There could have been interventions. how could you stage interventions with someone you don't have much contact with. on what ground? you can't just suspect drugs out of the blue. for the most part these were more harassment for touring because randy story does not add up when you read his testimony. there is a lot of loopholes. plus there is no evidence MJ was under drug abuse between 1993 and 2009. absolutely zero. so far it's randy's word. Instead of impeaching him, AEG are quite happy to use his depo. Randy is doing the work for them. they could not have asked any better.

yes MJ was planning to tour. but he planned on doing so solo. not with family who were practically harassing him. no wonder he was distant. instead was befriending surrogate families.

Yes, you mentioned exaggeration and that's again where we disagree. There is evidence Michael was still struggling with it at various points in his life after 1993. Including, things that haven't even been discussed via the trial. We have stories from Frank Cascio, which ironically relatively few have criticized, but I digress. There was conflict of interest that shouldn't have been there. The focus should have been supporting Michael as he battled his issues. However, that isn't proof that the interventions never took place or that talk of it is an exaggeration.

crillon · Aug 12, 2013

Petrarose said:
^^Crillon based on the judge's past decisions, it does not seem possible that she will dismiss this case. I am really wondering about what she will do with the amendment about negligence. I think maybe she will not allow the amendment, but that's just me guessing.

Where did you hear the rumor of Randy being on the stand on Monday. I know he tweeted that he never said he did not want to take the stand.

Yea, I don't see the judge doing that either, but one can hope against hope

I also don't see her allowing the negligence claim either this late in the game, but she doesn't seem to be that predictable. That she allowed this case to go forward at all is surprising. imo.

As for the Randy rumor...not sure of the rules here and I don't want to break them. It's a fan on Twitter who has been in court and is a personal buddy of Randy's--at least she likes everyone to think that--but she was given access to Michael's grave on his death anniversary last year, compliments of RJ.

Did I give you enough clues?

ivy · Aug 12, 2013

crillon said:
I've never thought of Michael as a "drug addict" in the sense of someone seeking street drugs for a "high," but someone who needed pain medication for an injury which then grew into a dependency over the years. He admitted to that in 1993 & sought treatment.

I believe majority thinks like that. I don't even remember how many times I wrote that Michael had medical conditions (Pepsi Burn) that requires operations and legitimate treatment that required painkillers. These painkillers at times turned into dependency issues. I haven't seen anyone that thinks Michael was an addict seeking high. It's just unfortunately his legitimate painkiller use turned into dependency /extensive use at times. As suspected this trial proves some doctors played a role in that. I'll never understand giving high doses of painkillers to a person that had a dependency issue with them. As a summary I think realistic approach would be to accept that Michael had dependency issues during some times , he had clean periods and had relapses.

As for timeline of when, 1993 is when Michael publicly announced his issues and got help so I guess that's not something we are debating. On this board you would find fans suspecting issues during 2001 MSG shows as well as the during the end of trial in 2005. For me a lot of stories and testimony confirm the 2001 -2002 relapse. MSG incident, Neverland intervention, Disney event and finally the implants and clean period. Getting the implants alone demonstrates Michael thinking there was a problem and his desire to get clean. To me personally it all fits together and 2001- 2002 is another period that I would call a relapse and getting clean again. I guess someone else might require more evidence in this regard.

As for 2005 and/ or the rest of alleged interventions I would need more than Randy's words.As I said some of those interventions are more likely were concertventions - just to get Michael touring with the family.

This is the gray I'm talking about and unfortunately sometimes getting lost. I don't see anything wrong with thanking Elizabeth Taylor in 1993, Faye, Cascio, Laparreque, Farschian and Jacksons that tried interventions in 2001/2002 as all of these people cared and tried to help Michael. It doesn't mean I believe every word they say. Similarly just because I think he had a relapse in 2001 / 2002, doesn't mean I think he was a non-stop addict his whole life.

ivy · Aug 12, 2013

a perfect read about interventions versus concerventions

Michael Jackson Rehab Interventions vs Family Concert Tours

http://youtoobrutus.wordpress.com/2...son-rehab-interventions-family-concert-tours/

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

as for Randy testifying monday

you are called to stand to testify, you can't go to a court and say "I'll testify". AEG played the deposition, they won't call Randy to the stand if they don't want to. Randy's chance to take the stand will be at rebuttal case if Panish calls him.

8701girl · Aug 12, 2013

I cant belive the nerve of randy! ugghh! :angry:

Petrarose · Aug 12, 2013

Crillon funny, I know who you mean when you said the person visited the burial site.

I wonder what Panish will like to repair during rebuttal--something about the Contract, something in the drug testimony, something about AEG knowing...

crillon · Aug 12, 2013

ivy said:
I believe majority thinks like that. I don't even remember how many times I wrote that Michael had medical conditions (Pepsi Burn) that requires operations and legitimate treatment that required painkillers. These painkillers at times turned into dependency issues. I haven't seen anyone that thinks Michael was an addict seeking high. It's just unfortunately his legitimate painkiller use turned into dependency /extensive use at times. As suspected this trial proves some doctors played a role in that. I'll never understand giving high doses of painkillers to a person that had a dependency issue with them. As a summary I think realistic approach would be to accept that Michael had dependency issues during some times , he had clean periods and had relapses.

As for timeline of when, 1993 is when Michael publicly announced his issues and got help so I guess that's not something we are debating. On this board you would find fans suspecting issues during 2001 MSG shows as well as the during the end of trial in 2005. For me a lot of stories and testimony confirm the 2001 -2002 relapse. MSG incident, Neverland intervention, Disney event and finally the implants and clean period. Getting the implants alone demonstrates Michael thinking there was a problem and his desire to get clean. To me personally it all fits together and 2001- 2002 is another period that I would call a relapse and getting clean again. I guess someone else might require more evidence in this regard.

As for 2005 and/ or the rest of alleged interventions I would need more than Randy's words.As I said some of those interventions are more likely were concertventions - just to get Michael touring with the family.

This is the gray I'm talking about and unfortunately sometimes getting lost. I don't see anything wrong with thanking Elizabeth Taylor in 1993, Faye, Cascio, Laparreque, Farschian and Jacksons that tried interventions in 2001/2002 as all of these people cared and tried to help Michael. It doesn't mean I believe every word they say. Similarly just because I think he had a relapse in 2001 / 2002, doesn't mean I think he was a non-stop addict his whole life.

I agree with your viewpoint. I know some fans object to any suggestion that he had a dependency, but he admitted he had one in 93. No one really knows for how many years he battled it & there's no way we will ever know. I think it showed great strength of character on his part that he battled it--motivated in part by fatherhood--by getting the implant & doing whatever he did to fight it. What's unfortunate is the exploitation of his situation by the family, media, etc.

Petrarose · Aug 12, 2013

Crillion you know I don't think any fans in the thread think Michael did not have a dependency. I think one of the problems is that some fans recognize 93, but for the other years, because the source of the information come from people who they find have been untruthful at times, they do not want to believe them. Another thing is they don't think he was abusing drugs all the time, which some of the experts claim.

Even Dr. F. did not ask Michel about his problem. He claims he went on the internet and found out information. I find this is crazy behavior. If you are in a one-to-one relationship with a patient, why can't you ask the patient questions?

passy001 · Aug 12, 2013

That Other Fan said:
Yes, you mentioned exaggeration and that's again where we disagree. There is evidence Michael was still struggling with it at various points in his life after 1993. Including, things that haven't even been discussed via the trial. We have stories from Frank Cascio, which ironically relatively few have criticized, but I digress. There was conflict of interest that shouldn't have been there. The focus should have been supporting Michael as he battled his issues. However, that isn't proof that the interventions never took place or that talk of it is an exaggeration.

what evidence in post 1993? the one that have been discussed in court have nothing to do with drugs. instead they relate to dehydration and stress unless I'm completely mistaken. the reality is randy's story does not stick and that's the bottom line. you can't stage an intervention for someone you've barely had contact with for 5 years or so. it's just common sense. he claimed he staged interventions with doctors in various cities yet could not identify not even one doctor. I'll tell you why because there was no doctor, you don't bring doctors to pressurize your brother to do reunion tours or to bug him with money problems. there is a reason MJ was looking for surrogate families. and to add insult to injury he goes on to claim MJ was 90 pounds, which means MJ was almost invisible, bony, emaciated. plus, the coroner has a different story claiming MJ died healthy for his age despite being very thin.

I just don't find his story credible despite your effort to the contrary.

8701girl · Aug 12, 2013

Aloso anther thing didnt elizabeth taylor kinda talk bout taking michael to hospital or somethin like that in the interview with mj & lisa marie special ?

Snow White luvs Peter Pan · Aug 12, 2013

When Michael collapsed in 1995 rehearsing for the HBO One Night Only due to DEHYDRATION AND EXTREME FATIGUE, doctors told that to LMP.

It's probably a fact Michael had a relapse in 2001 knowing he had the narcan implant in 2002. In 2005 TMezz stated he never saw him under the influence and in 2009 the coroner showed Michael was healthy for his age and like I said before, a drug addict CAN'T BE HEALTHY. I don't know how some can justifying the Jacksons if it's been proved they've blatantly lied about Michael and their actions.

ivy · Aug 12, 2013

Here's a fact check.
According to the state of California and a jury of the peers of Dr. Conrad Murray,
Michael Jackson's death was the direct result of Conrad Murray's horrible medical practice.

actually the correct fact is that a jury decided Murray was a substantial factor in Michael's death.

from CM trial summaries

Court starts with Judge Pastor reading the jury instructions.

Important points from jury instructions

- Pastor tells that there could be more than one cause of death and it’s required that the actions of Murray must be a substantial factor in causing the death. It doesn’t need to be the only factor.
- Pastor says Michael could have failed to use reasonable care and may have contributed to death. However if Murray’s actions were substantial he’s still responsible for the death.

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member