Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[ivy]

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.

now I'm confused. so do you try to say you did not express any personal opinion whatsoever and did not imply knowledge , lying and liability / responsibility on AEG's part? ever?

 

[Mechi]

Sometimes it's not only about right and wrong guys! Reality is usually pretty subjective! Keep that in mind and be able to just agree to disagree on stuff!
Going around in circles makes most ppl involved only upset and it often destroys a good discussion.
You don't have to convince eachother. You don't even have to convince the jury.
*shrugs*

I must say I'll stick with my opinion that to me AEGlive, especially in the person of Randy Philips, had every chance life can give someone to know Murray was not the right choice for Michael. To me they, especially Randy Philips, didn't act according to the knowledge he had and that's as neglient as I understand the whole meaning of this word or better as neglient as one could have been in that situation and also position. Honestly not even this jury deciding differently would make me change that opinion. lol well that's me.

Also let me state again my heart would cry out if AEG would have to pay to those Jacksons. The only loss I do detect in ppl with the name Jackson is really the children... not that family.

However I still like to follow this trial and also everybodys opinion here... but sometimes some of you are really going in neverending circles... overcome that please!

 

[crillon]

I actually find the debate back-and-forth pretty interesting and you guys are really good at it. You know your trial facts--even if you disagree--and it's a simulation of what likely will go on in the jury room. The hardest thing to do is to set aside pre-conceived ideas and biases and be totally open-minded to the testimony. A few of you manage to do that--but, it's a challenge to keep emotions out of it. As fans, we are passionate about what we know, and unlike a jury, we have Michael's (& the family's) backstory.

 

[Petrarose]

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.

I was thinking of that too, but it was such a terrible thought that I kept it to myself. I remembered both kids walking up to the stage holding hands when they accepted the award for their dad. We all know Michael brought them up to be close, so this rumored rift sounds odd unless it is getting support to remain in place. Oh well...


Then the lawyer was looking for Grace, who certain family members made leave because she wanted the children to maintain the way their dad brought them up. Now people are happy with Grace again because she has something they want. If they can mend their disagreement with Grace, they could certainly mend the rift between 2 teens. Anyway, I have noticed that family members including the children will have their disagreements and then rout for the family unit as a whole. Everyone supports grandma here and what she is doing, even though individuals may have their disagreements, so I guess that is good. Something else I noticed is that the Jacksons will crush 1 member if something could be gained for the family unit as a whole, and I see a certain child is now doing something like that. So no doubt this behavior is learned and socialized within the family unit.

About back and forth: No problem with it unless people get offended if someone does not agree with them. If we all read the thread, even though AEG has not put on their case yet, we will all see that there are different camps. A select few are really looking at the facts and are only commenting on the facts and what the facts tell them and then they add some examples.

Some are looking for bad behavior that to them show AEG is liable. Some see lots of "facts" that show AEG is liable. Some have seen no facts to show AEG is liable. Some want the family to win. Some want the family to lose. Some get mad when people don't agree with them or question them.

 

[Tygger]

now I'm confused. so do you try to say you did not express any personal opinion whatsoever and did not imply knowledge , lying and liability / responsibility on AEG's part? ever?

Let us start from the beginning:

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.

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”

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.

Go back to page 282 and you can see the cycle begin after that. You will also see my personal opinion was not asked. I was not aware reposting testimony was backtracking but, I guess Passy001 and I have different definitions for that word.

 

[passy001]

Let us start from the beginning:





Go back to page 282 and you can see the cycle begin after that. You will also see my personal opinion was not asked. I was not aware reposting testimony was backtracking but, I guess Passy001 and I have different definitions for that word.

This a waste of time.

we are here to debate not to paraphrase testimonies and the press.

and when we debate we express our opinions based on our perceptions of facts and other evidence available to the public.

there is nothing unnatural or uncommon to see people interpreting facts and evidence differently. That's just human nature.

now let's have a constructive debate. it's not about being right or wrong. it's about educating each other. how about that?

 

[Tygger]

Passy001, that response made me chuckle.

 

[passy001]

Passy001, that response made me chuckle.

I don't understand how this advances the debate, which by the way is about whether AEG knew of MJ suffering from insomnia while rehearsing for the TII concert.

 

[Bubs]

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.

You claim that these are not your words:
"Bubs, I find it interesting that Gongaware can remember Michael wanting the doctor with clarity and the exact same "machine" line Phillips recants consistently but, cannot remember if the doctor was treating Michael for sleep issues."

These are your words because there are no such a words in ABC or AP tweets. That is your take of 2 things what was testified on trial.

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.

To me it was insinuating because you wrote it favoured defense. How it favoured defense, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion?

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.

inserted past participle, past tense of in·sert (Verb)
Place, fit, or thrust (something) into another thing, esp. with care: "inserted the key in the lock".

AEG didn't insert themselves as 3rd party between doc-patient relationship. They were asked to it by surrounding circumstances and I don't see it as their fault.

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.

I remember they were asked if they knew MJ had a sleep problem, but I cannot remember they were asked if they knew doc was there to treat MJ's sleep issues?

Can you show me that part of their testimony?

 

[ivy]

Let us start from the beginning:

thanks but not the answer to my question. I asked "ever" not "starting from page 282"

To me it was insinuating because you wrote it favoured defense. How it favoured defense, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion?

yes there's a little insinuating, at least in the part of the first incident.

we don't know much about the first incident other than that someone approached to the jurors and the judge told the people not to do it. No information about details, any conversation (if it happened or not) etc were mentioned. That wasn't referred as "jury tampering" as well. So it's impossible to say if the first incident favored anyone yet alone it's impossible to say even if a single word was said.

In the second one the woman approached 2 alternate jurors and said "don't award them money" which means she told the alternates not to give money to the Jacksons which can be seen as favorable to AEG. However there several limitations to this theory :

- Alternate jurors don't decide about the case unless a regular juror is excused and alternate replaces them. So the two alternates as of now have nothing to do with the decision of the verdict.
- saying "don't award them money" doesn't remove the possibility that the jury can find AEG negligent of hiring Murray but determine there is no monetary damages. So if the people want "justice" and if this case is not about money such verdict should still be desirable to the Jacksons side. In my mind a favorable to AEG sentence would have been "AEG did not hire Murray".

 

[mjchris]

interview with Majestik Magnificent...

[youtube]PngnY8UzzXU[/youtube]

 

[Tygger]

Indeed!

Passy001, your response made me chuckle, not you personally.

The summarized and/or “paraphrased testimonies” from “the press” (correct me if that is not what you meant) IS the “facts and evidence available to the public.” Without this data we can have a debate and/or conversation but it would not be knowledgeable. It would be great to educate each other on simply the legal issues being presented and that does happen here; unfortunately not at this moment.

You asked me a question and I gave you the answer using summarized and/or paraphrased testimony which is as factual as we can get. If that is a waste of time in your opinion, I have no problem with that. The original conversation was actually the addict theory being attributed incorrectly to the plaintiffs. The sleep issues conversation derived from that.

Bubs, forgive me for not responding to your post but, it is cyclic for me. My words are being twisted for whatever reason. Maybe sport? Maybe boredom? Just because? I do not know and I do not want to participate in it.

Example:

"We already had two jury tampering attempts in favor of the defense"
Whats this is about, did I miss something?

A woman approached two alternates last week.

Those are the original posts. I answered your question with absolutely no intentions but to impart information. You have shown me it was foolish of me to do because the words were twisted to mean all three attempts which was not the original question or answer. However, that does not seem to matter as the conversation continued with the intentions of my words being given to me and I will not accept that.

Ivy, you were originally confused by my response and I showed you the conversation between Passy001 and I to explain. In response, you have ignored the attempt at clarification to ask if I ever gave an opinion. I do not understand the purpose of that question and what purpose it would serve for me to answer it. How will my answer to that question support continued conversation in this thread?

 

[Bubs]

In the second one the woman approached 2 alternate jurors and said "don't award them money" which means she told the alternates not to give money to the Jacksons which can be seen as favorable to AEG. However there several limitations to this theory :

- Alternate jurors don't decide about the case unless a regular juror is excused and alternate replaces them. So the two alternates as of now have nothing to do with the decision of the verdict.
- saying "don't award them money" doesn't remove the possibility that the jury can find AEG negligent of hiring Murray but determine there is no monetary damages. So if the people want "justice" and if this case is not about money such verdict should still be desirable to the Jacksons side. In my mind a favorable to AEG sentence would have been "AEG did not hire Murray".

Thanks Ivy. I realised that I misunderstood the meaning of favourable, as I viewed "being favourable to AEG" as if they benefitted somehow of that jury tampering episode. They didn't benefit of it that way at all, only that woman was on their side/ against Jackson's
I had to go throught AP, ABC7 and some articles from newspapers to see where that word came from but none of them used it while reporting that incident, so I quess someone wants to push certain agenda here.

Bubs, forgive me for not responding to your post but, it is cyclic for me. My words are being twisted for whatever reason. Maybe sport? Maybe boredom? Just because? I do not know and I do not want to participate in it.
Those are the original posts. I answered your question with absolutely no intentions but to impart information. You have shown me it was foolish of me to do because the words were twisted to mean all three attempts which was not the original question or answer. However, that does not seem to matter as the conversation continued with the intentions of my words being given to me and I will not accept that.

See my reply to Ivy re certain wording. No, I don't ask questions for boredom or sports. To me, they were genuine questions and I wanted clear aswers. Sorry if my questions don't qualify for your specifics or criteria, but I have not seen your instructions as to how and what way I should write my questions.

FYI, when you post in board where are many people posting their opinion, you can expect all sort of replies to your posts. You either take it or leave it, no need to make a fuss about it.


Ps, I would still like too see the part of testimony where RP or Gongaware were asked if they knew CM was there to treat MJ's imsomnia.
Note, it is genuine question and not for sports or fight off boredom

 

[qbee]

I know Belindo doesn't like the Jackson's (per her twitter) and she doesn't want her father exploited, she has now turned over her fathers PC.

'Smoking gun' evidence expected in MJ's manager's laptop


New York, July 08 (ANI): Michael Jackson's family is set to receive his late manager's laptop, which they hope will have a "smoking gun" evidence in their wrongful death lawsuit against AEG Live.


Jackson family matriarch Katherine's lawyers subpoenaed the computer before the wrongful-death civil trial started in April, but were foiled until an Ohio judge found Frank's daughter, Belinda DiLeo, in contempt of court last week and vowed to jail her if she didn't produce the computer, the New York Post reported.


Sources told the publication that first DiLeo said that she didn't have it, but then she miraculously found it, and is handing it in on Monday. (ANI)


http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsd...idence-expected-in-MJ-s-manager-s-laptop.html

 

[ivy]

Prosecutor Wanted Katherine Jackson To Seek Restitution From Michael Jackson Death Doc

Posted on Jul 7, 2013 @ 8:21AM | By Jen Heger

Getty Images


Katherine Jackson was “implored” by the Deputy D.A. who successfully put Conrad Murray behind bars to seek restitution from the disgraced former physician, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

Michael Jackson’s mother refused to pursue that option though, because her attorneys in her wrongful death action against AEG Live convinced her it would jeopardize their case, a source close to the Jackson matriarch tells us.

Even though Murray was broke at the time of his conviction, former Deputy D.A. David Walgren “implored Katherine to seek restitution, mainly, to prevent him from profiting off of her son’s death in the future, the source explains.

PHOTOS: Paris Jackson Testifies In Videotaped Deposition

“Murray had already been paid for an in-depth interview that he did before being convicted, during the trial. The D.A. knew that Murray would absolutely try to make money off Michael in the future, like he did with the recording of Michael seemingly slurring his speech on his iphone that was played during the trial for jurors,” the source says.

However, in a stunning development during the scheduled restitution hearing after Murray was convicted, Walgren announced to Judge Michael Pastor that Katherine didn’t wish to pursue it.

“It absolutely gutted the D.A. because he wanted Murray to be held accountable once he was released from jail. Murray has never accepted any responsibility for Michael’s death, and blames everyone but himself,” the source says.

PHOTOS: Shocking Evidence Found In Michael Jackson’s Bedroom

If Katherine Jackson had sought restitution, “Judge Pastor certainly would have been inclined to give it to her. Neither Murray, nor his associates would have been able to profit from voice mail messages, future interviews, book deals, etc., because all of that money would go directly to Katherine,” the source explains.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...wanted-katherine-jackson-to-seek-restitution/

 

[LastTear]

Michael Jackson’s mother refused to pursue that option though, because her attorneys in her wrongful death action against AEG Live convinced her it would jeopardize their case, a source close to the Jackson matriarch tells us.

Would it have jeopardised the whole case or simply just the monetary aspect?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

^^I don't get how that could happen, if she allowed her lawyers to convince her with that argument, it was very reckless and gullible of her.

 

[Bubs]

“It absolutely gutted the D.A. because he wanted Murray to be held accountable once he was released from jail. Murray has never accepted any responsibility for Michael’s death, and blames everyone but himself,” the source says."

It also gutted most of Michael's fanbase. Real killer CM got off lightly because there is more money on Jackson's sight than the pennies Katherine could have collected from CM

"If Katherine Jackson had sought restitution, “Judge Pastor certainly would have been inclined to give it to her. Neither Murray, nor his associates would have been able to profit from voice mail messages, future interviews, book deals, etc., because all of that money would go directly to Katherine,” the source explains."

This is what we can start expecting once that loonie is out of jail, and he can keep all the money for himself, courtesy of Jackson's camp.

^^I don't get how that could happen, if she allowed her lawyers to convince her with that argument, it was very reckless and gullible of her.

I'm sure her lawyers got back-up help from certain siblings.




"'Smoking gun' evidence expected in MJ's manager's laptop"
I wonder if they are expecting similar kind of "smoking gun" evidence as the not so smoking gun emails?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

She obviously couldn't get much money from him but the fact she's gonna allow CM profit on Michael because she preferred not taking Wallgreen's advice instead, it pisses me off.

 

[AliCat]

It just shows where Katherine's heart is, 'show me the money,' and it isn't with Conrad Murray, it is through AEG Live. This isn't about Justice for Michael's death, it is about feeding her cubs for life!

 

[Gaz]

So this is a clear case of putting how much we can get from AEG before what will be Murray's attempt to more than likely blame Michael sell stories to the tabloids about his personal life and all but make a living of killing him - NICE ONE JACKSONS

Money before Michael - DISGRACEFUL

I must say reading this turns my stomach and I hope they loose.

 

[loveforever]

Don't we all know this and contempt the Jacksons despicable and greedy actions when they gave up the restitution from murray in order to get $ from AEG. Nothing new! What's all this rehash of old news all about lately? I know The Jacksons don't deserve a dime and this trial is pure greed nothing more. We already see how Michael's reputation damaged again lately, the Jacksons never care about Michael from day one, we all know this, But AEG is no better than the Jacksons, a bunch of cold blood money suckers. I only feel sorry for Michael's children and the estate millions dollars wasted on Katherine Jackson's legal team and experts. Katherine should be ashamed of herself. The sad thing is she is so gullible and narrow minded, she probably thought what she done is the right thing.

 

[Justthefacts]

I always kind of knew why they did not go after Murray. But this rigt here makes hope they loose just because

 

[serendipity]

It shows where Katherine Jackson's priorities lie.

 

[loveforever]

I want AEG lose (they should) and the jury only reward money to Michael's children.

 

[myosotis]

I wonder what has suddenly prompted that report? Has someone been interviewing Walgren about the way the AEG trial seems to be going? I wonder if he declined to comment on the trial but gave the reporter this snippet of info....I can't think that anyone else would have spoken on his behalf.

Someone will look rather sick if the AEG trial awards them nothing, and Murray makes millions.

 

[MIST]

What happens if the case is prolonged, with the appeal and if Michael´s mother dies before it´s finished?(I hope not it´s just in theory).
If Jacksons wins does it mean that all the money go to Michael´s children or do they go to Michael´s children+those who inherit after Katherine?

 

[serendipity]

The original conversation was actually the addict theory being attributed incorrectly to the plaintiffs.

You know I can't pretend that AEG just came up with the drug addict theory out of the blue without the Jacksons massively contributing to it with their multiple interviews. And that will likely come back to bite them when they take the witness stand. AEG didn't put all those Jacksons on their witness list for nothing.

"Failed interventions"
"Michael a drug addict in denial"
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"
Hell, Janet even told Oprah she feared MJ will die from drugs, so it seems she didn't think he'd live too long.

All that will be brought up, no doubt. Of course they will try to spin it with "Oh we didn't know this was not an addiction, but just a dependency", but I'm not sure if this will fly with the jury once they see all these interviews.

 

[passy001]

So this is a clear case of putting how much we can get from AEG before what will be Murray's attempt to more than likely blame Michael sell stories to the tabloids about his personal life and all but make a living of killing him - NICE ONE JACKSONS

Money before Michael - DISGRACEFUL

I must say reading this turns my stomach and I hope they loose.

Don't worry based on the evidence so far, there is no way a competent jury will rule on her favor.

 

[ivy]

Would it have jeopardised the whole case or simply just the monetary aspect?

well it depends how do you define the case and "justice" I guess.

the proposed verdict forms we have seen asks if Murray was hired, who hired him, if the hiring was negligent, who is responsible for mj's death & how much responsibility and finally the damages.

any restitution from Murray would reduce any damages that can be gotten from AEG - (due to double recovery laws). So if you define justice as amount of money you win then yes restitution would have jeopardize the case. Also think like this $100 Million is an amount Murray would never be able to pay, where as AEG could pay it.

However you determine justice as a verdict that finds AEG responsible for negligent hiring and did not care about what money damages even none you receive than it shouldn't be a factor.

"'Smoking gun' evidence expected in MJ's manager's laptop"
I wonder if they are expecting similar kind of "smoking gun" evidence as the not so smoking gun emails?

They are fishing, they are hoping the computer to have deleted stuff which will be "smoking gun". What happened to the "smoking gun" emails they already have? not smoking enough?

What happens if the case is prolonged, with the appeal and if Michael´s mother dies before it´s finished?(I hope not it´s just in theory).
If Jacksons wins does it mean that all the money go to Michael´s children or do they go to Michael´s children+those who inherit after Katherine?

Nothing will change if Katherine dies. An Estate for her gets established and her Estate takes over the case and /or appeal.

The second question answer depends. Anything that's awarded to Katherine will go to her heirs. We will have to wait and see if the jurors will differentiate between Katherine and MJ's kids and so on.