Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Bubs]

Bubs@ I must say all i do here is read but what you just mentioned about Prince saying what he said about Paris in PUBLIC seems a bit unfair to me (what Prince said but you just mentioned it) It looks like he is taking advantage of what has happened to her to twist her story so his will sound correct.

I find Prince's testimony about Paris worrying as after reading reports from Jackson camp, they all seem to be portraying Paris as teenager who does funny things for attenttion. Second worry was that Prince came to Paris rescue during granny-napping episode when the situation was going to turn against Paris and there were talk that it is all Paris imagination or something similar. Now her suicide attempt and her words about Grace are brushed under the carpet and Prince is not there to support her, and I wonder why? That made me think of if the rumours are true about their relationship is not as good as it used to be, and what is behind it?

 

[Petrarose]

I find Prince's testimony about Paris worrying as after reading reports from Jackson camp, they all seem to be portraying Paris as teenager who does funny things for attenttion. Second worry was that Prince came to Paris rescue during granny-napping episode when the situation was going to turn against Paris and there were talk that it is all Paris imagination or something similar. Now her suicide attempt and her words about Grace are brushed under the carpet and Prince is not there to support her, and I wonder why? That made me think of if the rumours are true about their relationship is not as good as it used to be, and what is behind it?

^^Yes there is an oddness there. I am really getting an idea that someone told Prince that it is in the family's/grandma's best interest to present testimony in a certain way. I am really not buying the idea of his fuzziness being due to the lapse of 4 years, since he is too eloquent on certain minor details, plus the way he sticks to his guns when he is shown that there is a contradiction in his deposition, shows that he knows he has to "say" some detail in a "specific" way. He is not saying "oh I made a mistake." When I read the testimony over it does not make sense, and look at the way he phrases the answer about Paris and Grace--it is a "lawyer's" way of answering a question in not really saying in plain words his sister got it wrong but indicating they were getting along so you draw your own conclusions--an intelligent kid who is good with words. So what happened there with the details of the 2 visits that are given with less eloquence? How could I blame this on the passing of years since when he gave his deposition he spoke more coherently, and that was done not long before the trial.

Bubs I hope there is no distance between those 2 kids, because the way their dad brought them up it is sad that something like that could happen within 4 years. Then again if something like that happens in a home it is up to the parents to put a stop to it.

 

[Bubs]

Bubs I hope there is no distance between those 2 kids, because the way their dad brought them up it is sad that something like that could happen within 4 years. Then again if something like that happens in a home it is up to the parents to put a stop to it.

I just hope kids are not put into situation that they are pitted against each other. Prince was very vocal last summer that granny doesn't know what was going on and was fooled by her own cubs. He seems to be very protective towards Katherine, and I was wondering if he was asked to help granny's case? Reminds me of times when Michael was put in that position.

Of course this is all speculation from my part, but Prince's testimony made me wonder.

 

[qbee]

I was misled by some comments made here about the opening statements. but that was my own fault because I didn't fully read, remember or comprehend what was stated. So I decided to go back and re-read. Maybe it would be good for us all to refresh our memories this weekend on what each side is claiming.

Plaintiffs (Katherine Jackson) Opening statement: Attorney Panish
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...on-AEG-Trial?p=3822980&viewfull=1#post3822980


Defendants (AEG) Opening Statement: Attorney Putnam
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...on-AEG-Trial?p=3822982&viewfull=1#post3822982


After re-reading I also see valid points from both sides and things that I missed. I don't feel AEG is absolved in causing emotional harm to Michael. While I do personally see so far based on the evidence and testimonies that they did not directly hire Murray or cause his death by their actions. I feel much of their actions were responsible for adding stress and anxiety on Michael. I personally can't with any good conscience defend their actions or words on these side issues even if I can't see evidence they hired Murray. While they are not the legal claims against AEG, I don't feel Randy Phillips (acting on behalf of AEG) actions in a adressing Michael and others should be brushed under the rug as insignificant or appropriate either.

So far I personally don't see evidence or proof that AEG hired Murray. I only see intent to hire him on MJs behalf, only if MJ signed the contract. but if the plaintiff cans show such evidence before they rest. I won't ignore it or brush it off. I may very well change my mind on that claim.

I hope we all will make an effort to look at this objectively. I feel Both sides have good points to make in what led up to Michael's death. I hope we will also be fair to the issues MJ faced and how actions from both the Jacksons or AEG may have affected him. Regardless if we believe the claim AEG hired or supervised Murray or not. I personally don't think any one side will be coming up smelling like roses once this is finished.

ETA
I also want to state that just because I or others can't the see evidence so far that AEG hired Murray or that we questions and dissect each person's testimony, ( Like a Jury would do) That doesn't mean we are are all defending AEGS actions or how they mistreated Michael. I think we all agree he was treated like a commodity by some in that organization. While not all I think most members here are basing their opinions on the evidence presented and not a preconceived notion that AEG hired Murray or was the cause of his demise. Some of you are implying members should not look at or discuss the testimony or evidence ( as a Jury would do) That all members should just support the defendant's claim that AEG hired Dr Murray because they are related to Michael. I don't understand that reasoning. All members should be able to discuss the evidence and testimony and debate those issues without being ridiculed. I'm glad MJJC will enforce that in this thread.

 

[ivy]

The addict theory was placed on the plaintffs by some fans and was presented in opening statements by the defense.

I guess you forgot this from hearings before the trial start :

ABC7 Court News
?@ABC7Courts
Jacksons atty: They (AEG) hired an addicted man a drug-pusher to be his tour doctor. AEG atty: You're not to use experts as your mouthpieces

https://twitter.com/ABC7Courts/status/327206484746317824

"A woman approached two alternates last week."
How did you draw conclusion that it was defences doing? How mistrial would benefit AEG?
If anything, it looks like plaintiffs job as they have previously leaked emails, they put the blame on AEG that they made up the claim that plaintiffs wanted $40 billion, when in fact it read in their court document, they accused AEG for putting kids on stand when they in fact called Prince on stand first. Sorry but I don't believe it was AEG's doing, sounds something that desparate people would do, and plaintiffs are so desparate that they twice offered settlement for AEG.

Or it could be just someone not related to either party that felt so strongly against Jacksons that she/he went for it.

because there's a trend of "Blame AEG for everything".

In my opinion it's nothing more than an over zealous, kinda crazy and clueless fan who was at LA for June 25th. It's silly to assume that lawyers of this caliber - both Jackson and AEG- would need to resort to jury tampering. Plus the woman approached to alternate jurors and alternate jurors do not make decision in the case unless a regular juror is excused for some reason. So this is really a quite unsuccessful attempt at jury tampering.

 

[crillon]

Ivy, you're right but the Doc also said Michael's major problems were insomnia & pain and "if MJ were treated appropriately for pain and sleeping problems, it would not have an effect in shortening his life."

And who's decision was to look for the appropriate treatment? I believe the decision had to be Michael's and not AEG. Michael knew which were his health problems and he was the one who had to look for the appropriate doctor. but unfortunately, he chose Conrad,

Whenever culpability is mentioned it's always someone else's fault and seldom do we talk about Michael's responsibility. He was an adult and if he thought TII was too much for him, he could have canceled it. But, he did not. For a lot of reasons, he wanted to do TII and as an experienced & brilliant businessman he knew what his contractual obligations were to AEG and theirs to him, as well.

As fans we want to finger point and baby our beloved Michael because of all the crap he went through over many years--which was all unfair, cruel and unquestionably destructive to him. Our hearts hurt just thinking about it. He wasn't to blame for most of that, but when we talk about TII and who is responsible for Murray--it was Michael. Murray was Michael's idea; not AEG's. And, only Michael knew the reason why he needed Murray. And, thus far in the trial, there is no evidence suggesting AEG knew that Michael needed Murray to primarily solve his insomnia and do it with the administration of propofol.

 

[Bubs]

I guess you forgot this from hearings before the trial start :

ABC7 Court News
?@ABC7Courts
Jacksons atty: They (AEG) hired an addicted man a drug-pusher to be his tour doctor. AEG atty: You're not to use experts as your mouthpieces

https://twitter.com/ABC7Courts/status/327206484746317824


because there's a trend of "Blame AEG for everything".

In my opinion it's nothing more than an over zealous, kinda crazy and clueless fan who was at LA for June 25th. It's silly to assume that lawyers of this caliber - both Jackson and AEG- would need to resort to jury tampering. Plus the woman approached to alternate jurors and alternate jurors do not make decision in the case unless a regular juror is excused for some reason. So this is really a quite unsuccessful attempt at jury tampering.

I wonder how it is going to work for plaintiffs to say that Michael was a drug addict but not enough addict that he would have lived ripe old age?

Whenever culpability is mentioned it's always someone else's fault and seldom do we talk about Michael's responsibility. He was an adult and if he thought TII was too much for him, he could have canceled it. But, he did not. For a lot of reasons, he wanted to do TII and as an experienced & brilliant businessman he knew what his contractual obligations were to AEG and theirs to him, as well.

As fans we want to finger point and baby our beloved Michael because of all the crap he went through over many years--which was all unfair, cruel and unquestionably destructive to him. Our hearts hurt just thinking about it. He wasn't to blame for most of that, but when we talk about TII and who is responsible for Murray--it was Michael. Murray was Michael's idea; not AEG's. And, only Michael knew the reason why he needed Murray. And, thus far in the trial, there is no evidence suggesting AEG knew that Michael needed Murray to primarily solve his insomnia and do it with the administration of propofol.

I too feel that sometimes MJ is portrayed like some sort of puppet, everyone else was responsible of pulling his strings but he couldn't do anything?
I know sometimes we look things through MJ coloured classes, but it is helpful to try to put some another entertainer in MJ's shoes and after that would I still think the same way about testimonies etc.

 

[serendipity]

Panish also said outside of court to the media that Finklestain supposedly told Gongaware that MJ was addicted, so therefore AEG should've known. I guess that's why they will be playing his deposition on Monday.

So basically they will use "addiction" where it suits their agenda (ie. AEG should've known) and then for the higher damages they will use "dependency"

 

[AliCat]

The Jackson's did a pretty good job, through the media, of portraying Michael Jackson in a bad way. The drug addict one was most damaging.

There is absolutely no proof, in fact contrary, that the Jackson family did Interventions. I think they became consumed with Michael Jackson doing Concert's with the Jackson family. The fact that I have to read, before Michael Jackson died, that part of the wishful thinking Jackson Family Reunion Concert, was to include Michael Jackson writing song's for new albums for the various family member's. Even Janet Jackson was on board for a Jackson Family Reunion, as of 2008. In fact, her tour in 2008, ended up being canceled due to lack of ticket sales. If it wasn't bad enough LL Cool J left the tour, which was a glaring red flag the Janet Jackson tour was failing. Since Michael's death, her Career became revived. To be Interviewed after her brother, Michael Jackson died, there seems to be some kind of commitment to talk about Michael Jackson being a drug addict while alive. Then we can go on to her antics, I mean actions, during the granny knapping incident of last summer, the let's blame Paris Jackson for making me look bad!

 

[Tygger]

Bubs, I have never said Phillips/Gongaware lied in their testimony. I have only consistently written what they testified to: they do not remember if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues.

"A woman approached two alternates last week."

How did you draw conclusion that it was defences doing? How mistrial would benefit AEG?

If anything, it looks like plaintiffs job as they have previously leaked emails, they put the blame on AEG that they made up the claim that plaintiffs wanted $40 billion, when in fact it read in their court document, they accused AEG for putting kids on stand when they in fact called Prince on stand first. Sorry but I don't believe it was AEG's doing, sounds something that desparate people would do, and plaintiffs are so desparate that they twice offered settlement for AEG.

Or it could be just someone not related to either party that felt so strongly against Jacksons that she/he went for it.

because there's a trend of "Blame AEG for everything".

Bubs, Ivy, I never said the attempt at jury tampering was the defense’s doing; I said it favored the defense. I blame AEG for allegedly hiring the doctor. If I have blamed AEG for anything else, please requote my posts to refresh my memory.

Bubs, the other items you mentioned I discussed previously. If you believe those items are the plaintiffs’ “doing” that is your right and your interpretation of those events which do not match my interpretation of those same events.

I hope we will also be fair to the issues MJ faced and how actions from both the Jacksons or AEG may have affected him. Regardless if we believe the claim AEG hired or supervised Murray or not. I personally don't think any one side will be coming up smelling like roses once this is finished.

Qbee, I appreciate that you reviewed the opening statements. However, I do not understand your statements above. The claim is negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of the doctor allegedly by AEG. What past actions by any Jackson, particularly the plaintiffs in this case, his mother and children, have any bearing whatsoever on that claim?

I know that there are many posters in this thread and on this forum who have a distaste for the Jackson family for whatever their reasons. I have always supported the plaintiffs in this trial and if they are successful, I can understand if others may see this as another reason to add to their distaste but, it will not be that way for me.

I guess you forgot this from hearings before the trial start :
ABC7 Court News
‏@ABC7Courts
Jacksons atty: They (AEG) hired an addicted man a drug-pusher to be his tour doctor. AEG atty: You're not to use experts as your mouthpieces

Key words: “before the trial start.” Still, the plaintiffs have maintained throughout the trial exactly what Panish said in the tweet you reposted so they have not changed their case whatsoever.

Repeating: Michael had dependency issues and sought help for those issues; that is NOT a negative. Because this is the plaintiffs’ stance and their last name is Jackson does not make it a negative either. I do not understand how and why some are twisting this into a negative. Michael chose some doctors who in turn saw his struggles to help himself, took advantage of that, and acted unethically towards him; THAT is the negative here! AEG allegedly hired a doctor to inappropriately and unethically anesthetize a man who had dependency/addiction (as these terms are used interchangeably) issues for the TII tour. Sound familiar? I just said the same thing as Panish using different words.

What is AEG’s response? Do not use experts to support this concept which is ridiculous. I do not and have not seen AEG ever say Michael is not an addict nor that the doctor was not there to anesthetize him inappropriately and unethically. Their opening statements say, again repeating, Michael was an addict, was secretive about his addictions, and may have not wanted help for that. Those are their words, NOT mine.

It is obvious BOTH sides stipulated to Michael’s dependency/addiction, NOT just the plaintiffs as some fans have suggested and continue to. After that stipulation however, each side goes their separate ways.

Plaintiffs: Michael sought help but some doctors treated Michael unethically in turn one of which AEG allegedly hired to treat him unethically. Defendants: Michael may not have wanted help and was secretive about his issues.

 

[ivy]

Key words: “before the trial start.” I do not understand how and why some are twisting this into a negative.

Let's clarify something here. First of all no one - at least me - did not talk about Michael's issues and said it was something negative.

You wrote

The addict theory was placed on the plaintffs by some fans and was presented in opening statements by the defense.

meaning it was some fans that say Jacksons lawyer claim Michael was an addict. Your sentence sounded like you say Jackson lawyers have not said Michael is an addict, it's the fans that says Jacksons lawyers say Michael is an addict.

I reminded you of this from Jackson lawyers

Jacksons atty: They (AEG) hired an addicted man a drug-pusher to be his tour doctor.

showing you indeed Jackson lawyers have called Michael an addict.

So whether you'd like to call it addict or dependency, it doesn't change the fact that Jackson lawyers call Michael that. So perhaps you shouldn't accuse "some fans" of placing that on Jackson lawyers.

 

[loveforever]

Anyone know What's the difference between murray's contract and other dancers contract? Are they the same? Thanks!

 

[abigaillovesmj]

Hi everyone I just re - read something from last month and I saw no other mention of this in the press. If true isn't this huge?

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP1m
[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]Putnam also keyed in on language that said Murray was being engaged “on behalf and at the expense” of Michael Jackson.
[/FONT]
​

if the contract itself states that Murray is engaged at the expense of MJ, this element of the lawsuit as well as the whole case is just completely without merit (which I already think is the case anyway). this was only discussed in Gongware's re-cross by AEG's lawyer. I don't understand why they didn't mention this earlier. it totally disproves Katherine's case.

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]​

 

[Tygger]

Let's clarify something here. First of all no one - at least me - did not talk about Michael's issues and said it was something negative.

You wrote

meaning it was some fans that say Jacksons lawyer claim Michael was an addict. Your sentence sounded like you say Jackson lawyers have not said Michael is an addict, it's the fans that says Jacksons lawyers say Michael is an addict.

I reminded you of this from Jackson lawyers

showing you indeed Jackson lawyers have called Michael an addict.

So whether you'd like to call it addict or dependency, it doesn't change the fact that Jackson lawyers call Michael that. So perhaps you shouldn't accuse "some fans" of placing that on Jackson lawyers.

Ivy, when you have time, look back and review this thread and the pre-trial thread. There are several posts about Michael being characterized as an “addict” and it was viewed as negative. There are opposite posts from me and a small group of others who have said regardless of Michael’s issues, he was trying to help himself.

You will also see posts that say the Jacksons characterize Michael as a “raving and/or raging addict” since his passing and that is why some are confused by the testimony of Dr. Schnoll (a paid expert by the plaintiffs) who corroborated the plaintiffs' actual opening statements.

I do not need accuse any poster of anything opposite their posts because I receive no benefit from that. The posts are still there unless the authors have since edited their posts. If they were not there and they did not place the addict theory on the plaintiffs, why would Qbee admit to being misled by those statements posted here which caused Qbee to go back and revisit the opening statements?

I do not care if the plaintiffs’ lawyer call him an addict or dependent and have said several times now those terms are interchangeable. Stating again: the difference is the plaintiffs maintain Michael sought help for those issues and some doctors in turn, treated him unethically and inappropriately. The defendants maintain Michael did NOT seek help because he was secretive about his issues and may not have wanted help. It is all there in black and white in the opening statements that I did not author, draft, or post.

I was misled by some comments made here about the opening statements. but that was my own fault because I didn't fully read, remember or comprehend what was stated. So I decided to go back and re-read. Maybe it would be good for us all to refresh our memories this weekend on what each side is claiming.

Plaintiffs (Katherine Jackson) Opening statement: Attorney Panish
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...on-AEG-Trial?p=3822980&viewfull=1#post3822980


Defendants (AEG) Opening Statement: Attorney Putnam
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...on-AEG-Trial?p=3822982&viewfull=1#post3822982

Qbee, again, I appreciate that you stated that and went back to review the original statements. My apologies for using your quote above but, I do not appreciate my understanding of the posts I read being twisted. I understand what "raving and/or raging addict" means and the negativity it carries. When I have been confused by posts, I have always requoted and asked for clarity.

Hi everyone I just re - read something from last month and I saw no other mention of this in the press. If true isn't this huge?

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP1m
[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]Putnam also keyed in on language that said Murray was being engaged “on behalf and at the expense” of Michael Jackson.
[/FONT]
​

if the contract itself states that Murray is engaged at the expense of MJ, this element of the lawsuit as well as the whole case is just completely without merit (which I already think is the case anyway). this was only discussed in Gongware's re-cross by AEG's lawyer. I don't understand why they didn't mention this earlier. it totally disproves Katherine's case.

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]​

No it does not. It only shows AEG inserted themselves as a third party between a doctor and his patient. That is why we are at trial.

 

[Petrarose]

Hi everyone I just re - read something from last month and I saw no other mention of this in the press. If true isn't this huge?

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP1m
[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]Putnam also keyed in on language that said Murray was being engaged “on behalf and at the expense” of Michael Jackson.
[/FONT]
​

if the contract itself states that Murray is engaged at the expense of MJ, this element of the lawsuit as well as the whole case is just completely without merit (which I already think is the case anyway). this was only discussed in Gongware's re-cross by AEG's lawyer. I don't understand why they didn't mention this earlier. it totally disproves Katherine's case.

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]​

Yes but then the good judge said there could be an oral or implied contract so the case went to trial.
Hopefully AEG does not take 2 months to present this case, so I can do something happy for Michael's birthday.

 

[crillon]

I just hope kids are not put into situation that they are pitted against each other. Prince was very vocal last summer that granny doesn't know what was going on and was fooled by her own cubs. He seems to be very protective towards Katherine, and I was wondering if he was asked to help granny's case? Reminds me of times when Michael was put in that position.

Of course this is all speculation from my part, but Prince's testimony made me wonder.

I think (maybe cynically) based on the dynamics of the Jackson Family, their penchant for strategic "plans" and the likely backlash from the Grandma-napping event, that there may have been an effort to "divide and conquer" Paris and Prince in order to dilute the significant power and influence they exhibited last year. I think Prince may be very aware of the cards he holds, along with his siblings, and the three of them together as one is a formidable voting block, even at their young ages. I can see this being pretty intimidating for some family members and I can also see a few trying to garner some of that power by controlling the kids separately. That Paris was so depressed that she attempted suicide with reports of her being on the "outs" with her brother, made me think that wasn't altogether coincidental. That's just me and my imagination, because of course I don't know for sure and I'm just piecing various clues together. But, I have the very same concern about the kids' relationship to one another as you do.

 

[passy001]

The defendants maintain Michael did NOT seek help because he was secretive about his issues and may not have wanted help. It is all there in black and white in the opening statements that I did not author, draft, or post.

That is not what the defendants are saying. They are saying that MJ was so secretive that there is no possible way they could have known about his insomnia problems and therefore could not help him or intervene in the most effective way. and so far the Jacksons have not proven that AEG should have known that MJ had insomnia. the people who knew are MJ and Murray. MJ is dead while Murray is refusing to talk. he can easily set the record straight for either side. but he's keeping quiet because of his so-called appeal, which is going to be turned down anyway.


I see people like using the term 'sleep issues' to imply that AEG knew MJ has insomnia. it is a rather vague term that could mean anything. Regardless, the reality is AEG executive did not know that MJ had chronic and severe sleeping problems. AEG was actually suspecting other problems given the obvious weigh loss symptoms. first they thought he was not eating well, so they suggested a nutritionist. Pay attention to the word 'suggested'. AEG had no right to force MJ to use a nutritionist or whoever else even if that were the right decision. second, they thought his simultaneous visit to Klein could be interfering with the care he was getting from Murray, and so were placing the blame on klein while trying to convince MJ to cut down the visits.

 

[Tygger]

The defendants maintain Michael did NOT seek help because he was secretive about his issues and may not have wanted help. It is all there in black and white in the opening statements that I did not author, draft, or post.

Passy001, it is exactly what the defense has said as I am paraphrasing the opening statements from Putnam. The below is from Ivy's select transcript summaries.

Putnam says at various times Jacksons tried to do interventions but they failed. He says Michael was an addict and no matter how much you want to help an addict you can’t help them unless they want to help themselves. Putnam says the jury will hear Jacksons testify that Michael told them he was fine and they too thought it was true.

Putnam: “you can't blame him for that. Michael Jackson was an addict, and when you're an addict, you convince the world, and oftentimes even yourself, that you don't have a problem”

I see people like using the term 'sleep issues' to imply that AEG knew MJ has insomnia. it is a rather vague term that could mean anything. Regardless, the reality is AEG executive did not know that MJ had chronic and severe sleeping problems.

The plaintiffs have asked Gongaware and Phillips specifically if they were aware the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues and they have maintained they do not remember.

 

[Bubs]

Bubs, I have never said Phillips/Gongaware lied in their testimony. I have only consistently written what they testified to: they do not remember if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues.

No you didn't, but your words were insinuating that they were lying.

Bubs, Ivy, I never said the attempt at jury tampering was the defense’s doing; I said it favored the defense. I blame AEG for allegedly hiring the doctor. If I have blamed AEG for anything else, please requote my posts to refresh my memory.

Bubs, the other items you mentioned I discussed previously. If you believe those items are the plaintiffs’ “doing” that is your right and your interpretation of those events which do not match my interpretation of those same events.

No you didn't directly blame AEG, but again with your words you were insinuating that AEG was behind that woman approaching alternate jurors.

I
No it does not. It only shows AEG inserted themselves as a third party between a doctor and his patient. That is why we are at trial.

You are playing with words again. By using word "inserted", you make it sound like AEG pushed themselves as 3rd party between CM and MJ. Had MJ had enough money to pay his doc himself, we wouldn't be here talking about this trial.

I see people like using the term 'sleep issues' to imply that AEG knew MJ has insomnia. it is a rather vague term that could mean anything. Regardless, the reality is AEG executive did not know that MJ had chronic and severe sleeping problems. AEG was actually suspecting other problems given the obvious weigh loss symptoms. first they thought he was not eating well, so they suggested a nutritionist. Pay attention to the word 'suggested'. AEG had no right to force MJ to use a nutritionist or whoever else even if that were the right decision. second, they thought his simultaneous visit to Klein could be interfering with the care he was getting from Murray, and so were placing the blame on klein while trying to convince MJ to cut down the visits.

I agree with this.

The plaintiffs have asked Gongaware and Phillips specifically if they were aware the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues and they have maintained they do not remember.

You are mixing 2 things here, or you are playing with words again
They were asked if there were talks about MJ's sleeping problem during those meetings, in which they replied they don't remember.

 

[mjchris]

what about Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live -Daily Trial Testimony Summary ?
no update anymore? what about june 28, july 1-5?

 

[passy001]

The plaintiffs have asked Gongaware and Phillips specifically if they were aware the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues and they have maintained they do not remember.

If this is your proof that they knew? It's not good enough. there is no way a reasonable jury will rule in favor of the jacksons based on such testimony.

Putnam says at various times Jacksons tried to do interventions but they failed. He says Michael was an addict and no matter how much you want to help an addict you can’t help them unless they want to help themselves. Putnam says the jury will hear Jacksons testify that Michael told them he was fine and they too thought it was true.

Please Tygger, read the bold part. it says very clearly that AEG was told by MJ that he's fine and they too thought so. so how could AEG have known of such deep insomnia issues if the very man himself was not willing to talk? It's not like insomnia has symptoms that are obvious to a layman. AEG employees and executive have no medical expertise to detect insomnia just from their naked eyes. let's be fair here. Had MJ talked then it would have been a completely different story and you can bet your life that the Estate would have sued AEG from day one.

 

[qbee]

what about Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live -Daily Trial Testimony Summary ?
no update anymore? what about june 28, july 1-5?

These are updated from news stories and twitter. It takes time and posted at her convenience
The info is in news until she summarises . She is taking a well deserved vacation :beach:

• Ivy?@Ivy_4MJ11h
  enjoying time off #longweekend

 

[mjchris]

These are updated from news stories and twitter. It takes time and posted at her convenience
The info is in news until she summarises . She is taking a well deserved vacation :beach:

• Ivy?@Ivy_4MJ11h
  enjoying time off #longweekend

ah. ok. that is what i had this week. :beach:

 

[crillon]

The plaintiffs have asked Gongaware and Phillips specifically if they were aware the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues and they have maintained they do not remember.

But, that doesn't imply they did know, because if they did, a mention of it would have shown up in the countless emails going back-and-forth about Michael's deteriorating health. And, realistically, even if they knew the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues, who would reasonably think it was with anything more than sleeping pills or another medication? No one in their right mind would think or imagine that a medical doctor would be using a hospital-only surgical anesthesia to solve a sleeping problem.

 

[Tygger]

Bubs, I have consistently repeated Phillips/Gongaware’s testimony as per AP and ABC7 tweets and summaries posted here that are not written by me so those are not my words.

I did NOT insinuate AEG was behind the jury tampering attempts so I would appreciate you not suggesting that. Again, I said it favored the defense and it did.

I am unsure what your concern is regarding the word “insert.” A doctor-patient relationship is a two party relationship. If AEG “inserted” themselves into that relationship, it becomes a three-party relationship. If Michael did not have the funds to pay this doctor $150K per month, then, the doctor would have went away as he was not going to treat Michael for free. What is wrong with that? Even if Michael asked AEG nicely to allegedly employ the doctor on his behalf, it is still inserting a third party. If AEG left Michael to continue his two-party relationship with the doctor, they would not be in a lawsuit right now.

Bubs, Passy001, Crillon, I have nothing to gain by twisting testimony. You can easily review the testimony to see if I have. If you review the testimony, you will see Phillips/Gongaware was asked specifically if they knew the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues and they have maintained they do not remember. It is up to the jury to decide if they believe this and what they believe it implies. I have not ONCE written it implied lying. I have only consistently repeated it.

If this is your proof that they knew? It's not good enough. there is no way a reasonable jury will rule in favor of the jacksons based on such testimony.

Please Tygger, read the bold part. it says very clearly that AEG was told by MJ that he's fine and they too thought so. so how could AEG have known of such deep insomnia issues if the very man himself was not willing to talk? It's not like insomnia has symptoms that are obvious to a layman. AEG employees and executive have no medical expertise to detect insomnia just from their naked eyes. let's be fair here. Had MJ talked then it would have been a completely different story and you can bet your life that the Estate would have sued AEG from day one.

Passy001, I never said anyone had proof of anything and no one on this board knows what the jurors believe at any point during this trial. Again, I consistently repeated testimony as I explained above. Lastly, Putnam is referring to the Jacksons in the bolded part not his clients.

 

[passy001]

Bubs, I have consistently repeated Phillips/Gongaware’s testimony as per AP and ABC7 tweets and summaries posted here that are not written by me so those are not my words.

I did NOT insinuate AEG was behind the jury tampering attempts so I would appreciate you not suggesting that. Again, I said it favored the defense and it did.

I am unsure what your concern is regarding the word “insert.” A doctor-patient relationship is a two party relationship. If AEG “inserted” themselves into that relationship, it becomes a three-party relationship. If Michael did not have the funds to pay this doctor $150K per month, then, the doctor would have went away as he was not going to treat Michael for free. What is wrong with that? Even if Michael asked AEG nicely to allegedly employ the doctor on his behalf, it is still inserting a third party. If AEG left Michael to continue his two-party relationship with the doctor, they would not be in a lawsuit right now.

Bubs, Passy001, Crillon, I have nothing to gain by twisting testimony. You can easily review the testimony to see if I have. If you review the testimony, you will see Phillips/Gongaware was asked specifically if they knew the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues and they have maintained they do not remember. It is up to the jury to decide if they believe this and what they believe it implies. I have not ONCE written it implied lying. I have only consistently repeated it.



Passy001, I never said anyone had proof of anything and no one on this board knows what the jurors believe at any point during this trial. Again, I consistently repeated testimony as I explained above. Lastly, Putnam is referring to the Jacksons in the bolded part not his clients.

It's amazing how much backtracking you are doing. And for good measure you are even accusing the AP and ABC. Unbelievable!

 

[Tygger]

It's amazing how much backtracking you are doing. And for good measure you are even accusing the AP and ABC. Unbelievable!

Everything I said can be verified by testimony. Can you do the same?

 

[passy001]

Passy001, I never said anyone had proof of anything and no one on this board knows what the jurors believe at any point during this trial. Again, I consistently repeated testimony as I explained above. Lastly, Putnam is referring to the Jacksons in the bolded part not his clients.

Really? Please explain the quote below. You made this quote explicitly to argue that AEG knew about MJ having insomnia. in fact that quote was in direct response to my post partially quoted at the end.

The plaintiffs have asked Gongaware and Phillips specifically if they were aware the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues and they have maintained they do not remember.

I see people like using the term 'sleep issues' to imply that AEG knew MJ has insomnia. it is a rather vague term that could mean anything. Regardless, the reality is AEG executive did not know that MJ had chronic and severe sleeping problems.

 

[passy001]

Everything I said can be verified by testimony. Can you do the same?

Oh so it's no longer AP and ABC?

By the way, there is no testimony that suggests even remotely that AEG knew of MJ having insomnia. you can't quote a testimony that does not exist.

 

[Tygger]

Passy001, you will have to forgive me if I do not want to get on the carousel.

Repeating: I only consistently stated testimony as was summarized by AP and ABC7 tweets as well as the summaries of their tweets and other sources done here. There are other sites summarizing testimony but, they cannot be posted here and it is not necessary as plenty of testimony is summarized right here.

You are free to review any one of those testimony sources and see if I am writing something other than what was testified too.