Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[bouee]

another link to Prince's depo clip (at 0:54)

 

[Vici]

Im sorry if this have been answered already. How did these videos leak? Or are they public since they were shown in court??

 

[myosotis]

Paris appears to be very open and honest, but sadly she's being used as a pawn in a high stakes game imo. She should not have been put in this position--no one should hear testimony about private conversations Paris had with her father. I cannot imagine this is what Michael had in mind for his young daughter when he named his mother primary guardian. And, again, we have to ask--what does this even have to do with the central question of the trial--who hired Murray.

I agree...and I can't help thinking that if Michael did have 'close personal relationships' he would have asked his children not to speak about them in public (Ain't nobody's business....). A cover story of 'she was obsessed' would explain any 'relationship related ' circumstances very nicely.
I seem to recall that the owner of Grouse Lodge in Ireland was quoted as saying that Grace was 'more than a nanny'......he could have meant in a business sense, or not. Really isn't any of our business.

As to Kai's testimony...well I'm just feeling that there aren't many people in this trial who are giving an objective view. Most witnesses seem to be either linked to one side or the other or to have been paid. I was surprised that she reported the children as going on a snail hunt with their teacher and looking for a daddy, mummy and baby snail in the garden. I thought all land snails were hermaphrodite ie no such thing as a daddy or mummy snail. Maybe Californian snails are different. If I can't see truth in supposedly factual information unconnected with the trial, I don't feel that I will find truth in verbal reports of the events leading up to the 25th June.

 

[bouee]

Im sorry if this have been answered already. How did these videos leak? Or are they public since they were shown in court??

They are public

 

[bouee]

I agree...and I can't help thinking that if Michael did have 'close personal relationships' he would have asked his children not to speak about them in public (Ain't nobody's business....). A cover story of 'she was obsessed' would explain any 'relationship related ' circumstances very nicely.
I seem to recall that the owner of Grouse Lodge in Ireland was quoted as saying that Grace was 'more than a nanny'......he could have meant in a business sense, or not. Really isn't any of our business.

As to Kai's testimony...well I'm just feeling that there aren't many people in this trial who are giving an objective view. Most witnesses seem to be either linked to one side or the other or to have been paid. I was surprised that she reported the children as going on a snail hunt with their teacher and looking for a daddy, mummy and baby snail in the garden. I thought all land snails were hermaphrodite ie no such thing as a daddy or mummy snail. Maybe Californian snails are different. If I can't see truth in supposedly factual information unconnected with the trial, I don't feel that I will find truth in verbal reports of the events leading up to the 25th June.

I agree with you re Grace. And if it got personal, maybe Michael didn't tell the kids. Paris says in her depo that Michael didn't say what Grace lied about, she says "nope" with a weird expression, I don't know what she meant, but there was something there.
It's none of our business, and completely irrelevant to the trial.
There was no point in using Paris' depo at that point, to impeach Kai Chase. How is Grace's relationship with the kids or with Mqichael is going to help determine AEG's liability in hiring or supervising Murray ? Or determine damages ?
I think it was a tactical move of some kind, like keeping Grace off the stand, getting the Jacksons to discredit the kids, or discredit Michael, getting that video in the media.... I don't know.
What Prince said is more important.

Everybody is twisting the story, on both sides, some more than others IMO. Sometimes it's normal, because we all have different perceptions, sometimes it's not and clearly lying/ twisting/exaggerated.
The truth will come out , partially, from what different people say, and from the logic of the events.
For example, at the beginning I was not sure Michael was losing weight. But the info came from a lot of people, from both sides, so that's true IMO. About Michael's health declining obviously in the last weeks, a lot of people say that too, so that's a fact. AEG was aware of it, that's a fact too. Little by little all the different aspects will become clearer, when everybody testifies and you confront different testimonies with the events.

 

[LastTear]

The 'supervising' aspect to me is still interesting also... so forgive me to come back to this...
Could be the meeting they had with Murray and Michael... the supervising you usually do with an independent contractor is, that you oversee if the person is really doing the work you want the way you want it.
I mean it's difficult as there's only AEG ppl who can tell what went on. Michael can't say a word about it anymore. The Murray guy is a proven liar... and the rest of the possible witnesses do tell 'hearsay' or tell things others either do not remember cuz of memory loss and/or being drama queens.

I'll use the example of the dog handlers in the Oldies nursering home again (thanks bouee!) if you bear with me again:
If I'd see after some time it just doesn't work, like the oldies are not responding to the dogs or even more respond anxious and the dog handlers do not respond accordingly, or the dog handlers would acting disrespectfull with some ppl suffering dementia or any other reason I'd call them into a meeting and they would have to adapt to my wishes or I'd probably fire no matter who had the idea or insisted to me before to hire them.
That's to me are also the possibilities AEG had. As they were encouraging eachother in the aspect like: Let's tell him where his salery is coming from!
On the other hand if they just advanced the money to Michael (well you wouldn't say the salery thing then and honestly why including Murray in that meeting at all then? but that's maybe only my thinking) and Michael was satisfied with the Murray guys action their possibilies would have been close to nothing?!

To me that would be 'my supervision' aspect of an independent contractor in this?! but I might be wrong also And I'd assume that's why the 'infamous' meeting in Michaels home 5 days before his death was arranged for example.

However after this meeting Michaels performance improved and health seemed to have been better... the question is was everything possible for Michaels health really been done with the knowledge and possibilities AEG had... or was whatever missed or wrongly done or too lazy handled... that's up for the jury to decide I guess.

It's not really I'm on any side about this trial, it's just a poor try to understand what's really going on what was really going on causing Michaels death and why this trial was possible at all.

The scenarios of dogs, trees and old people really don't work because they are missing a key element, patient confidentiality. Hence why Ivy showed us the word or in front of supervising. Besides which all these other contractors we are talking about can be fired, AEG could not fire Murray.

I honestly do believe that the salary thing was to remind Murray that even if he was paid by Michael the funds for his salary were only in place because of this tour and as such were funded by AEG. As much as I love Michael, I honestly don't feel this is sinister or unreasonable.

About the dog scenario. Any dog that is introduced into a hospital, school, nursing home type setting has to be trained to be a 'support' dog, 'therapy' dog or 'guide' dog--specially trained to be docile, obedient, nonviolent, etc. These dogs go through training and are certified. So if the dog would injure anyone, it would probably be the company that brought the dog to the facility or the company that trained and certified the dog (IMO).

re what was going on with AEG and MJ I am wondering if AEG could have made it a condition for going forward with the tour that MJ would go to an independent doctor for an evaluation (medical and/or psychological--but probably a medical doctor would be most logical). Not that this hypothetical doctor would treat MJ but simply evaluate his physical condition. The only problem with this is that, as Ivy said, they were running out of time. The concerts were supposed to start in July. Also, would MJ have agreed and/or cooperated? And would the doctor have said, as the coroner did, this guy is basically healthy?? I think hindsight is affecting us all--this was a confusing time and there was pressure coming from various sides. MJ, if Kai is accurate, deteriorated dramatically in May. Was this the result of CM's 'treatment"--seems to be. She would notice it more than people who saw it evolving over time, as you get used to small, gradual changes more than sudden ones. But she was feeding him for 3 weeks--so did she notice any improvement?

very cute and poignant stories today about mj as dad, how well he loved and cared for them. i loved the story of the snail home with cocktail umbrellas--so cute. and all the animals in the house, such a far cry from the sterile no-pets world of calabasas.

Biq question--who canned the cook??

The butler did it, in the library with the candlestick.

Why, oh why would AEG fire the cook? It's funny a lot of the testimony is mentioning Michaels weight and yet nobody questions the cook! Perhaps she was the one who needed supervising.

 

[Aprilmay]

The story Paris told about Grace is extremely odd.....
Michael knew Grace before the kids were even born. Why hire someone like that? Why keep a sneaky person you can not trust to take care of you and your children? Grace went on outings with the kids by her self. Her and Michael did so as well, in fact the last time they were seen together was at a shop in LA called Moist purchasing things. Grace actually drove them there. At one time Grace was even in charge of Michael finances. You dont give someone who you are suspicious of that kind of power. I dont think Paris is lying or she made up this story but I do think the person who told her this story WAS. Why? I have no clue. I am interested in hearing her testimony to see if she can clear up some things because this is extremely confusing.

I mean who knew you could have gotten into Michael hotel room by simply telling the people who work there that you're his wife? :laugh:

Also I remember his driver speaking about his relationship with Grace and how Michael told him he was going to take her around with Europe with him.

Heres the quote.

In regards to recent reports that Michael was secretly dating his children's nanny Grace, Seropian said he couldn’t confirm if the two had a relationship together; however, he did add that Grace and Michael “were very close. Sometimes he would tell Grace that he’s going take her to Europe and take her around [with him]. He was very close with her, but I don’t know if they were intimate or not,” Seropian tells Hollyscoop.

lol yeah thats something you do with someone you dont trust *side eye*

 

[Virre]

^^
She said it was her father who told her that story, (or us) as she said I think. She is not the only one though who said this, he seem to have told other people the same thing. And she was more than a nanny, she took care of his business at some point, that is how I read into the comment "she was more than a nanny", from the owner. At least when reading the whole thing he said, he didn´t insinuate anything. Paris also made it clear what the "relationship" was on her formspring. Most men who worked for Michael like Grace though, they all speak very well of her, or most of them do. Pearl Jr also said Shana Mangatal was dating Michael, Grace´s bestie.

And don´t forget what Grace herself said about Michael.

Sorry I made this in to a sort of gossip thing, but it amaze me that some indicate Paris is lying.
And why he kept her? She worked at his office first and thought she would be a good nanny, and I do not doubt she took good care of them, but maybe it got a bit to much at some point. She did hire other nannie´s so she could take care of Michael´s business. The comments about her wanting to be his wife and acting like one is probably true.

 

[Big Apple2]

She claims she did not tell about the vase because the police did not ask, so did Katherine ask her about a vase then. I mean how did the family know about a vase or that Chase had good information for them. Funny about her comment about the pre-birthday gift and then claiming that it was not a birthday gift and Katherine is a JW. I have seen old magazines with interviews in which Katherine received birthday gifts from Michael and also Janet, so Katherine takes gifts for her birthday.

Ms. Chase has done herself a great disservice here, in my opinion.

I mean, in "most" cases, the jury panel does NOT like witnesses who add information after the fact and then to justify doing so, they say: "Well nobody asked me." That's just NOT a good look for Ms. Chase, or any other witness for that matter. Stick to what you know, that way you avoid getting yourself into trouble and thereby having to be confronted by the opposing side. It just messes with your credibility, in my opinion.

I have a feeling that the jury is ALREADY giving her the side-eye, as to her sudden employment at Ms. Katherine's home. I'm giving it the side-eye as well.

 

[Big Apple2]

Little by little all the different aspects will become clearer, when everybody testifies and you confront different testimonies with the events.

Mr. Panish has about NINE or so days left, as per himself. I believe he said that he would be wrapping up his case on July 8th.

He better get it cracking, he has a lot more folks to put on the witness stand, if you look at his witness list, and not a lot of time to do so.

Aren't some of Michael's siblings on Mr. Panish's witness list? I wonder if he plans on using any of them. Times a wasting Mr. P.

Me, myself, I'm waiting for Prince, Diana Ross, Gladys Knight & The Pips, and/or Quincy Jones to take the witness stand. LOL! I'm just kidding about Gladys Knight & The Pips. They're not on Mr. Panish's witness list, OR ARE THEY!

 

[8701girl]

[QUOTEI partially agree with you. I think the oldest will not contribute to the image of his father being seen as less than strong and I understand that. If the chef says she saw it and he is saying he could not have helped, I am conflicted on what to believe.[/QUOTE]

I was just thinking though i remember that pic of michael in 2009 with the kids walking and prince was only 12 then and looking at him in that pic hes not as build up muscular wise as he is now. So he probably wouldnt been able to hold mchael up the stairs...i dont know..

 

[Aprilmay]

but it amaze me that some indicate Paris is lying.

I never said Paris was lying. I actually dont believe Michael was being truthful.
"He kept bringing her back because she had no money" What? How is this possible? Was he not paying her? "he felt sorry for her" How do you feel sorry for someone who lies and tries to get in bed with you without your approval? How is it possible for this women to get away with telling a hotel employee she's his wife and is allowed in his room? These things makes no sense to me.
This story about Michael and Grace sleeping together in the same bed have been circulating since 2005. You mean to tell me he took "crazy" Grace and only Grace with him out of the country with his children, and had put her in charge of booking their stay- knowing good and well you dont like this woman and she has tendencies of crawling in bed with him? "He was always trying to get rid of her but she just keeps coming back" Huh?

In 2006 a woman called Grace Rwaramba arrived to check out Grouse Lodge studio for an unnamed A-list pop star. She liked what she saw and booked the studio plus a three-bed cottage on the grounds that had been converted from a cowshed. But she still didn't reveal who the artist was. Paddy and Claire only discovered the identity of their new lodger when a bus turned up and out trooped Prince Michael Junior, Paris and Blanket, followed by their father Michael Jackson, nanny Grace and the children's tutor.

Some things doesnt add up.

 

[Vici]

^^
She said it was her father who told her that story, (or us) as she said I think. She is not the only one though who said this, he seem to have told other people the same thing. And she was more than a nanny, she took care of his business at some point, that is how I read into the comment "she was more than a nanny", from the owner. At least when reading the whole thing he said, he didn´t insinuate anything.

Yeah the owner said Grace was the one who came to check out their property for a client.

I believe Grace role was not clear. Sure, she was the nanny but she was also sent abroad to buy furnitures/antiques, run on errands and go checking out properties. She was all over the place and doing bunch of stuff imo.

 

[Big Apple2]

Man, I hope Mother AND her team are happy now.

Those LITTLE clips of Paris and Prince are basically everywhere.

Just when you think the children's lives should be a little LESS public (I'm still not over the shock of their Mr. Pink appearance), comes these dang deposition clips.

"Michael, I'm so sorry your children are being put in the middle of this madness."

 

[Vici]

I really feel bad for the kids that their despositions are made public.

Paris seemed uncomfortable and looked down, gave a short answer... until she started to share this story of Grace and then smiled/laughed.

It also seems as Prince was not comfortable and troubled by this. He looked defensive.

 

[Big Apple2]

Yeah the owner said Grace was the one who came to check out their property for a client.

I believe Grace role was not clear. Sure, she was the nanny but she was also sent abroad to buy furnitures/antiques, run on errands and go checking out properties. She was all over the place and doing bunch of stuff imo.

I also remember seeing a picture of Grace WITH THE CHILDREN (Prince and Paris), while Michael was overseas. If I recall correctly, she had brought them back to America so that they could visit with Debbie Rowe. The picture was of them at an airport, and the children didn't have any mask on. Does anybody remember seeing that picture?

I was thinking last night, that if Grace does end up taking the witness stand, she's gonna say that "she and Michael had an off and on again intimate relationship." Girlfriend needs to clear her name, and I would not be surprised if that's the way she's gonna do it. I mean, Michael's not here to say whether or not it's true, so she can basically say whatever she wants to say, be it true or not true.

 

[Big Apple2]

I really feel bad for the kids that their despositions are made public.

Paris seemed uncomfortable and looked down, gave a short answer... until she started to share this story of Grace and then smiled/laughed.

It also seems as Prince was not comfortable and troubled by this. He looked defensive.

I totally agree Vici.

It's just not a position ANY child should be in. Doesn't matter who's child it is, in my opinion. No child should have to sit there and be GRILLED in such a manner.

I'm not even in THAT chair, but even looking in from the outside, it looks uncomfortable to be put in such a situation at such a tender age.

I'm sure there are grown folks, myself included, who would be uncomfortable in that type of situation. One can only imagine how MJ's children feel.

And then to know that your words will be BLASTED across the various media outlets, is just more stress and drama, in my opinion.

I know Mother wants her money, but did she think about any of this before hand? Probably not!

 

[Vici]

I also remember seeing a picture of Grace WITH THE CHILDREN (Prince and Paris), while Michael was overseas. If I recall correctly, she had brought them back to America so that they could visit with Debbie Rowe. The picture was of them at an airport, and the children didn't have any mask on. Does anybody remember seeing that picture?

Yes, it was reported MJ sent Grace back home with Prince and Paris to meet Debbie. He stayed in Bahrain.

 

[Big Apple2]

Thanks for posting that picture Vici. That's the one I was talking about.

I love this board. Ask and ye shall receive. LOL!

 

[ivy]

why this trial was possible at all.

that's an easy question. the hiring is really 50-50 and hence a question to the jury. In USA both oral and written contracts are totally acceptable so it leaves everyone in a position that they can argue 1- there was no hiring as the written contract wasn't signed or 2- oral contract / negotiations were enough to demonstrate hiring. As both of those are legally possible, it's a question to the jury.

Looks like that was the change in management; she could now receive payment. laughs

and again I disagree. We know that AEG gave Michael 5 million advance, 3 Million for the Bahrain lawsuit and 2 Million for his bills. Assuming personal employees - such as security & chef & nannies- were being paid from this 2 million, that money was there since January 2009. A chance in management in my mind refers to Dileo & Kane etc. who might have said "let's cut this cost or find someone cheaper to do it" Let's not forget that in June Kane asked for another $1 Million to pay Michael's bills.

Of course, the doctor believes as Chase did that Michael hired him and AEG would pay him (through an advance to Michael). However, in Chase's case, she was correct. She sued the estate and received payment.

and why is murray wrong? even though you think he was a production expense , Michael was responsible for 95% of his salary and until Michael took the stage, earned money enough to pay back the production costs ($30 + Million) and started earning money, AEG was advancing every salary.

She was not listed in the pre-production budget, AEG probably did not include an indemnity clause in her contract to protect themselves against her actions, AEG did not seek to have her salary protected by insurance, among other things AEG did in regards to the doctor.

are we really comparing a chef to a doctor now?

Chase is referring to Grace. What is this about?

from roger friedman

"Rwaramba has just put up a website named for the cause, World Accountability for Humanity."


A couple yrs ago I saw the website for Grace's charity. It was started in March 2009 as I recall, and reading the site I thought, half joking, "this sounds like $ laundering" & sent it to some friends. They thought the same, and the joke became "MJ is alive and she's funneling money to him". It seems the foundation's purpose was to match donors w/ charities that interested them, any where in the world. A kind of middleman, or directory service. One of those friends dug around and found that the address listed was for a PO box in Beverly Hills.

Now all I find is this, dated May 29 2009: "Rwaramba has just put up a website named for the cause, World Accountability for Humanity. Yes, it’s a mouthful, and a little highfalutin’ considering once you get there, it’s not completely clear what’s going on.... Most of the information on World Accountability ‘ or WAFH ‘ is vague. It seems to be about “transparency for donors and recipients.” I’m not sure if the donations are transparent, or the people giving or getting the money."

http://www.showbiz411.com/2009/05/29/20090529*****-nanny-charity-michael-jackson

I'm not sure it was left uninsured on purpose, but I agree AEG did do a pretty poor job. RP said it was left to Tohme, so indirectly to Michael & Michael was responsible for all the costs if the shows didn't happen. So in theory there was no problem for AEG until the costs went over the limits (without formal approval) , and "myriads of lawsuits" appeared...
PG was still talking to the insurance broker in february, then we have nothing until end of april and end of may. After that AEG starts pressing for insurance again, but the broker couldn't find anything : Murray said Michal didn't allow his medical records to be released, and the broker said Michael would have to take a physical exam in London. So there was a gap, the shows were uninsured at that point (end of june).

my understanding is they had $17.5 M insurance secured. The illness part would become active after the second medical. Their issue was they wanted to insure the full production cost - $30+ Million- but they could not find any insurance to cover that.

The vase info is true, RP confirmed it.
She said she thought at the time it was not relevant to what happened on june 25th.
RP MAY disagree with Kai Chase about the date. I say MAY, becasue of either the way it is reported or the questions were asked, the dates are not always clear. RP said it didn't happen in june 20th. I'm not sure Kai is talking about june 20th, i would need to read her testimony again.

It was not June 20th. She said first - second week of June and Gongaware was present. So it must be the meeting in early june.

The bolded would have ben a great idea, and very logical from Phillips given the info he had. The only logical decision IMO.
Would MJ have agreed to it ? Probably not, Phillips could have imposed it, or say it was for for insurance purposes.
Would that doctor have said that MJ was healthy : that week, I don't think so.

Yeah even though they brought in another doctor, they could not get that doctor to check Michael without his permission.

I really feel bad for the kids that their despositions are made public.

Paris seemed uncomfortable and looked down, gave a short answer... until she started to share this story of Grace and then smiled/laughed.

It also seems as Prince was not comfortable and troubled by this. He looked defensive.

Depositions are hard for everyone - and my experience has only been with grown up business man. A situation where you need to answer all questions, where everything you say can be used against you (impeachment) and where you are being recorded is nerve wracking for everyone. I cannot imagine how it must have been for young kids to be asked personal questions.

 

[ivy]

Judge: Did Jackson's attorney 'flip off' AEG lawyer?

Comments
1

Michael Jackson announces comeback tour in 2009 in London. (Joel Ryan / Associated Press / March 5, 2009)
By Jeff Gottlieb
June 19, 2013, 7:10 p.m.
Opposing attorneys in civil suits usually get along fine, no matter how angry their clients are with each other.

Not so in the Michael Jackson wrongful death case.

On Monday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos called the attorneys into her chambers after allegations that Brian Panish, the attorney for Michael Jackson’s mother and three children, had made an obscene gesture at Marvin Putnam, the attorney for AEG Live.

The Jacksons say in their suit that AEG is responsible for the singer’s death because it hired and controlled Conrad Murray, the doctor who administered a fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol to Jackson. AEG says that Murray worked for Jackson and any money it was supposed to give to the doctor was an advance to Jackson.

According to an edited transcript, the conversation in Palazuelos’s chambers went like this:

Palazuelos: “It’s been brought to my attention that there was been some gesturing between counsel, which is inappropriate. Specifically, Mr. Panish, it’s been brought to my attention that you may be gesturing something to Mr. Putnam.

Is that what’s going on?”

Panish: “I don’t think I’ve even gestured anything to Mr. Putnam today.

Putnam: “You’ve given me the finger twice.

Panish: “What? Judge, if I want to give him the finger, I know how to give him the finger.”

Putnam: “And you did it quite well twice.”

Panish: “I was trying — I would tell you; OK? I admit what I do. If I wanted to give you the finger — are you complaining and saying I gave you the finger?

Putnam: “I didn’t.”

Panish: “...I went like this when he was talking (indicating), and all three of [AEG’s attorneys] were interrupting.... I didn’t flip Mr. Putnam the finger or flip him off. If he would like me to, I know how to do it, believe me. I haven’t even talked to Mr. Putnam or made any — did I have any dealings today other than when we came in here?”

Putnam: “No. Your honor, every time that you have raised an issue with Mr. Panish about something that you thought was in terms of civility and dealings between counsel, what immediately occurs, he completely then turns and blames somebody else for something else; OK? And I think that’s not only inappropriate, but it attempts to belie what’s actually going on. And I think the issue raised is an issue. I did not raise this issue with the court, but I will represent that that absolutely occurred and did occur twice.

Panish: “…I have been trying my best, in light of the conduct of counsel, to be civil. I’ve never had an issue in 100 jury trials with civility until this case…. I didn’t give Mr. Putnam the finger. If he wants me to give him the finger, I’m happy to do that. Now, have I been upset with them? Yes, absolutely. Was I upset with their witnesses? Absolutely. No question. I don’t deny that.

Palazuelos: Well, I haven’t seen it, but if that’s going on, it’s got to stop. It really does.

 

[serendipity]

I think MJ knew Grace won't do anything to hurt his kids. But he likely knew she has connections in the media (which she did) and he was probably afraid she would sell personal info about him and his kids (which is exactly what she did when he booted her). I don't think she was acting creepy initially, it likely started later, probably around the trial when MJ was in an incredibly vulnerable position. So I totally believe the story he told his daughter and others. Why would he make up such a creepy story to tell his daughter? It doesn't make sense unless it was true.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 13m
Regarding Paris deposition, Chase said her statement surprised her. "She seems just lost, she seems to just be grieving, missing her father"

Chase: I knew that she was very, she was very close with Grace when she was young

Chase said Paris has a feeling of abandonment, which is probably part of the reason she was angry with Grace.

"They were just best friend, very, very deep relationship," Chase said about MJ and Grace Rwamba.

Chang: Did you believe she was protective over MJ and the children?
Chase: Yes
DC: And she was let go?
KC: Yes

"The children felt abandoned, they weren't happy, they were upset," Chase said about Grace being fired.

See this is what I was talking about. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I feel like they are using Paris' current situation to basically say "Well she's so lost and confused she doesn't know what she's talking about". Sounds like they are clearing up the stage for Grace's testimony where she'll be picking up where Kai Chase left off and likely saying anything she wants to save face now that MJ can't respond.

Also, if Grace being fired affected Paris so much as she's trying to imply here, I wonder how she will spin the fact that Katherine also fired her?

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1m
Chase worked with MJ for about eight weeks, knew Grace Rwamba for about two weeks.

So she only knew Grace for two weeks, but she went on and on about how deep her relationship was with MJ and how amazing she was, ready to discredit Paris.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 9m
Chase said she heard Grace was going to the UK to prepare things for MJ and the children.

She heard from who? Considering Grace was fired at that time (and I'm surprised Kai didn't know) I wonder if she heard this from Grace herself? We all know why she was in London - for her big interview with Daphne Barack.

 

[Big Apple2]

Interesting little tidbit:

"Mother's attorney, Sandra Ribera, called Kai Chase and asked her if she wanted to work for Ms. Katherine."

Not only is that interesting, it's a little weird, in my opinion. I don't know, but it seems like somebody within the household should have handled that. I'm sure Mother has some sort of assistant (what happened to Mary Christmas) or even Trent.

You know what - My Side-Eye Just Got Bigger!!!!

 

[serendipity]

Interesting little tidbit:

"Mother's attorney, Sandra Ribera, called Kai Chase and asked her if she wanted to work for Ms. Katherine."

Not only is that interesting, it's a little weird, in my opinion. I don't know, but it seems like somebody within the household should have handled that. I'm sure Mother has some sort of assistant (what happened to Mary Christmas) or even Trent.

You know what - My Side-Eye Just Got Bigger!!!!

Well they said Ribera was the one handling Katheirne's hiring of staff, which sound a bit weird to me, but whatever. What's more strange is that she called Kai right after she was subpoenaed by AEG and offered her this job AND also represented her during the deposition, which would be some sort of conflict of interest, no?

 

[Big Apple2]

Well they said Ribera was the one handling Katheirne's hiring of staff, which sound a bit weird to me, but whatever. What's more strange is that she called Kai right after she was subpoenaed by AEG and offered her this job AND also represented her during the deposition, which would be some sort of conflict of interest, no?

Thanks serendipity. I didn't realize that Ms. Ribera was the one handling Mother's hiring.

That aside, I do see that as a conflict of interest also.

I mean, you are the one who hired Ms. Chase, and you are ALSO the person who took Ms. Chase to her deposition. VERY FISHY, in my opinion! Not only is it very fishy, but it's also easy for a person, to deduce that "something" is going on.

 

[loveforever]

This trial is such a shame. The only one I fell sorry is Michael's children. Both of them looked so uncomfortable and stressful during the depo. If Katherine really truly cared about Michael and his children, she wouldn't put them in such tough place. They are still so youngand haven't recovered from losing Michael, but now to relive their father's death and hear both sides trashing their father, spreading lies for their own gain, this would traumatize them even more. I know I should keep this to myself, but I think Paris's suicide attempt is the result of Katherine Jackson's irresponsible actions.

 

[Aprilmay]

Why would Kai lie? Its so weird how everything is not adding up

Just realized Paris said the "bed sneaking" thing happened before Blanket was born. So she was just a baby when Michael told her this? Strange. It shouldnt have been hard to cut her loose after that. He's no stranger to that sort of thing. Ask Jermaine and nem lol.

 

[Big Apple2]

Why would Kai lie? Its so weird how everything is not adding up

In my opinion, she's TRYING to help Mother.

I mean, Ms. Chase should have just stuck to what she really knows, instead of adding information after the fact. She's hurting herself, and I'm sure the jury can see that. They ain't stupid!

You NEVER want to give the opposing side the opportunity to say: "You NEVER said that before."

I don't know what the heck is up with Grace, but I must admit that "sometimes" when I saw them in pictures, if I didn't know better, they DID look like a couple.

I remember another picture. While Michael was overseas, and he and Grace were in a children's store, buying stuff for the children. He was showing her stuff and she was showing him stuff. Something that you "might" see a mother and father doing together. I don't know, but to me, those pictures showed a sort of closeness. More than Nanny and Employer.

 

[Justthefacts]

When Kai took the stand they asked her questions that they knew the answers too. So IMO it was more like what Kai thought of Grace or what she thought Prince was doing ESP if she had an idea that Michael was not well if she thought he lost weight and was not looking good when she got back. I do not think for one second that they put Kai on the stand so she could commit perjury

 

[serendipity]

Why would Kai lie? Its so weird how everything is not adding up

Just realized Paris said the "bed sneaking" thing happened before Blanket was born. So she was just a baby when Michael told her this? Strange. It shouldnt have been hard to cut her loose after that. He's no stranger to that sort of thing. Ask Jermaine and nem lol.

We don't know when he told her this story. My guess would be he told her later.