Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Bubs]

@bubs, I think we can assume that if they haven't called all those witnesses then those witnesses could not add much to the case. I wonder if AEG will call the rest of the Jacksons to the stand.


Good question. Wait for Ivy but I'm guessing they get paid for all their research - but I'm wondering if they get paid extra to testify.

I would have thought that they would call Tohme on stand, no matter whether he likes to call himself king on england or whatever, to at least talk about that UK announcement if nothing else. Plaintiffs made a such a big fuss about MJ being drunk in UK announcement and RP testifying what happen, so I though that would have being a good reason to call him, but obviously they thought differently.

About calling Jackson's, re Randy's letter I would assume there is going to be al least some of them. I certainly hope seeing and hearing certain members.

 

[gerryevans]

Gerryevans, I stated Michael could do 260 shows and obviously AEG believed it as well as they felt Michael could do 2 shows a week as did this expert. I disagree with Jamba that age is a factor as Jamba’s post gave an example of how the show would be tailored based on Michael’s age and physical limitations. He would continue to be the world’s greatest entertainer but, he would not be giving the exact same physical show he gave during the Bad tour during the TII tour. He did not give the same physical Bad tour show during the Dangerous and History tours either but, most would not notice because he was that incredible.

Michael nearly died during the History tour period from dehydration. Age does make a difference, performing since you were a five year old kid does make a difference, and being the greatest entertainer in the world, where it seems that even when you say they think I'm a machine when doing 50 shows, it's rationalized how he could do even more, shows that the expectations on him were overwhelming. And I think it's very sad that what MJ himself has said about how he feels about touring is being dismissed to rationalize and justify some humongous figure for an award in this suit.

 

[LastTear]

I would have thought that they would call Tohme on stand, no matter whether he likes to call himself king on england or whatever, to at least talk about that UK announcement if nothing else.
About calling Jackson's, re Randy's letter I would assume there is going to be al least some of them. I certainly hope seeing and hearing certain members.

I think if they can add something to either side then they will get called, If the Jackson side want to call all of them then I don't think their side will finish today if KJ is to be their last witness and given that she gets tired in the afternoon.

But I'm with you, I really want to hear from all these people as well, I'm just not sure if the questions I want answers to would be asked!

 

[Bubs]

I think if they can add something to either side then they will get called, If the Jackson side want to call all of them then I don't think their side will finish today if KJ is to be their last witness and given that she gets tired in the afternoon.

But I'm with you, I really want to hear from all these people as well, I'm just not sure if the questions I want answers to would be asked!

Sorry, I know KJ is the last witness for plaintiffs, but I meant that I assume AEG is going to call some of Jackson's, re Randy's letter that big bad AEG is going to destroy their family:smilerolleyes:
and this
allowed(motion denied)- Motion 4 - Michael's siblings have or had financial problems

 

[HIStory]

Something to keep in mind about the number of shows:

448 shows after age 50 up to age 66 is about 28 shows per year.

Cirque du Soleil performers play 10 shows per week, with 2 weeks vacation and 10 sick days - 490 shows per year.

Broadway performers play 8 shows per week, with vacation and 8 sick days - 400 shows per year.

Broadway performers with exceedingly demanding roles play 6 shows per week, with vacation and sick days - 294 shows per year.

Paul McCartney, age 71, has played 21 shows in the last three months, mostly one nighters. http://www.paulmccartney.com/live/tour-archives/27468-out-there He has 9 more shows scheduled through November for a total of 30 shows in 30 weeks.

The Rolling Stones, all over age 66 and pushing 70, played 29 concerts this year, mostly one-nighters. http://www.rollingstones.com/tickets/

How many of those performers have chronic insomnia which worsens when they are on tour?

I don't think we should compare Michael to anyone and say things "if the Rolling Stones/McCartney/etc. can tour above 70 Michael too could/should tour between 50-66". Michael was not the Rolling Stones and not Paul McCartney. For one, his shows were different, he was just as much a dancer as a singer. He didn't just stand on the stage with a guitar. (I know Mick Jagger used to move around a lot on stage, and maybe that's still so, I don't know, but it's still not dance, especially not choreographed dance.) Second, people are different. Some people are more physically fragile than others. Michael was physically healthy based on his autopsy but he had this massive chronic insomnia - he had it basically all his adult life and it got a lot worse during touring. This factor just cannot be ignored as if it doesn't exist - after all this is the thing that eventually took his life.

 

[Bubs]

I would be careful about trying to make appear that Michael was going to do countless shows after 02.
Plaintiffs made it sound like it was going to be easy beasy to MJ to do all those dates, but the fact is if MJ couldn't get even past rehearsals without help from propofol, so what do they think how many gallons of it he would have needed to complete their insane amount of shows? Or do they think MJ imsomnia miracously disappeared at some stage?
Also I would like to point out that with those mad numbers, they make MJ look like he wanted to do a lot of shows, so who at the end, was putting MJ under the pressure? Michael or concert promoter? Wasn't that what plaintiffs have been trying to point out that concert promoter AEG put MJ under the pressure, but he wasn't going to be under the pressure when he was expected to do nearly 500 shows?
Also, didn't K Fake testify that before 30th anniversary concert she found Michael basically unconcious and she fed him bagel to clear his head?
How can plaintiffs say that MJ would have done that amount of concerts when (I don't know the reason for 2001 incident) he reacted that way and those were only 2 concerts?

Lastly, I know CM's lawyer is following the trial, and hopefully she is not going to use that MJ put himself so much under the pressure (as per plaintiffs Erk testified) that he saw no way out than drink/self-inject/ what else they might come up with when they are looking for appeal.
CM lawyers already tried that during the trial, and I believe in their appeal they put the blame on MJ, once again.
I just hope that whatever comes out of this case, doesn't help him.

 

[Aquarius]

"ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Dr. Brown billed $1,000/hour and asked to donate the funds to Mass General Hospital. The total: $75,000 donated to Mass General Hospital."

Did the Jacksons get the message?


I don't know if it's just me but, I understand is painful for a mother to talk about her dead son but is it necessary to say "we're told it will be a very emotional testimony"? To me it sounds as if Katherine's emotions will be rehearsed instead of coming out of her hearth. Probably I'm wrong about my interpretation.

 

[LastTear]

@bubs That has also been one of my concerns, even if it doesn't help his appeal whether it will help CM in the eyes of public opinion, especially if AEG are found liable.

I think when we are calculating the nearly 500 shows we should factor in that he probably couldn't give a 'Michael Jackson' type show past late 50's, if you take him up to 66 that would probably be Michael moving a bit but mostly standing in front of a mike. So for selling out huge venues its probably more like 500 divided by say 7 years.

What was the quote from Michael regarding James Brown still performing past a certain age?

 

[Bubs]

^^I got the same feeling after reading this article.
Do they really have tell to the reporters that is is going to be emotianal testimony, don't the reporters see it themselves without lawyer telling them?

Michael Jackson's mom Katherine set to give testimony in wrongful death case against concert promoter
Michael Jackson's 83-year-old mom Katherine will face a jury to give testimony about her controversial superstar son in her wrongful death case against concert promoter AEG Live.


BY NANCY DILLON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Michael Jackson's beloved mom is expected to face a jury for the first time in her 83 years Friday and give emotional testimony about her peerless and polarizing musical genius son.

The matriarch is slated as the final plaintiff's witness for her billion-dollar wrongful death case against concert promoter AEG Live.

"Katherine's going to talk about Michael growing up as a child, his life, his family, his career, his relationship with his children and how his death has affected her and her children and Michael's children," her lawyer Brian Panish told the Daily News.

"It will be off the charts," in terms of emotions, he said.

The closely watched trial started in April and is expected to stretch into September with defense witnesses for AEG starting next week.

Asked Thursday if Katherine was nervous about tough questions related to her famous family, Panish shook his head.

"You think she's a tough woman? No question," he said.

The mother of nine and legal guardian of Michael's three kids has attended much of the downtown Los Angeles trial but was absent Thursday to get her hearing aids checked in preparation for her testimony.

"She listens really hard, and that tires her," Panish warned the judge Thursday as he proposed a series of hourly breaks Friday. "She gets tired in the afternoon."

Katherine is suing AEG for wrongful death claiming the concert giant negligently hired and supervised the doctor now serving four years in connection with Michael's June 2009 overdose death.

AEG denies any wrongdoing, claiming it was Michael who demanded and personally hired Dr. Conrad Murray and secretly begged for the surgery-strength anesthetic that killed him.

In his opening statement, AEG lawyer Marvin Putnam said AEG had no idea Michael was engaging in nightly intravenous infusions of propofol in a reckless and misguided attempt to treat his insomnia.

"With Michael Jackson, the public and private were two very different worlds," he said. "AEG, like everyone else, was an outsider, outside the security gates."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ul-death-case-article-1.1403243#ixzz2ZUksNn9x

 

[myosotis]

How many of those performers have chronic insomnia which worsens when they are on tour?

I don't think we should compare Michael to anyone and say things "if the Rolling Stones/McCartney/etc. can tour above 70 Michael too could/should tour between 50-66". Michael was not the Rolling Stones and not Paul McCartney. For one, his shows were different, he was just as much a dancer as a singer. He didn't just stand on the stage with a guitar. (I know Mick Jagger used to move around a lot on stage, and maybe that's still so, I don't know, but it's still not dance, especially not choreographed dance.) Second, people are different. Some people are more physically fragile than others. Michael was physically healthy based on his autopsy but he had this massive chronic insomnia - he had it basically all his adult life and it got a lot worse during touring. This factor just cannot be ignored as if it doesn't exist - after all this is the thing that eventually took his life.

Also I think there is a very big difference psychologically (pressure wise) between wanting to do multiple concerts and 'having' to do them because of financial needs. I think the anxiety about finances would add enormously to the pressure (which must partly have come from the family ie the need to support Katherine etc). Plus MJ was the centre of a concert that would not go on without him..unlike Cirque, where you can substitute performers/ performances if someone doesn't feel well / decides not to continue. So not just MJ's finances, but the whole cast and crew's were resting on his shoulders.

 

[ivy]

AEG disagrees with you. Their estimate of two shows per week matches the expert. AEG and the expert differ in regards to the amount of time the tour would last and the monies amount. Notice how quick the cross was of the economist?

they also differ in regards to the breaks. AEG's actual schedule had 3 month break, I don't think this expert allowed for that schedule - 3 month of concerts, 3 month break.

Question please: this tweet from McCartney was confusing. He has access to same day court transcripts?

Anybody can get the one day transcripts if they are willing to pay $1.50 per page. Given that LaTimes also had a detailed story about the in chambers meeting , I would say that at least some media got those transcripts.

I don't understand the purpose of calling Dr. Formuzis and Emery Brown as they didn't bring anything new or groundbreaking on the table?
There was expert already tesifying how much money MJ was going to make, and then there was a sleep specialists, so what was the purpose of these two?

Dr. Brown was redundant IMO. He said Propofol sleep is not real sleep which was pretty much established before.

Formuzis is actually calculated net present value. It's a financial (or economic or even perhaps accounting) concept. Erk assumed Michael would be working and earning until 66 years old, so that's a 16 year span into the future. Formuzis calculated the present value.

From wikipedia

Present value, also known as present discounted value, is a future amount of money that has been discounted to reflect its current value, as if it existed today. The present value is always less than or equal to the future value because money has interest-earning potential, a characteristic referred to as the time value of money

Ivy, I have a question. When defendad or plaintiffs list they witnesses, do they pay to them even if they are not called or only when they take a stand? I was wondering as plaintiffs list above have many Dr's in it and they would have to prepare for the case, so do they get paid regardless if they are called or not?

Good question. Wait for Ivy but I'm guessing they get paid for all their research - but I'm wondering if they get paid extra to testify.

Lasttear is right. Anyone that is listed as "retained expert" is getting paid their hourly rate (whether it's $300 or $1000) for every hour they work on the case, they get deposed or testify during trial.

The rest - regular witnesses- get $35 a day for every day they are deposed or testify on stand. They are also getting paid for their travel costs at $0.20 per mile.

I would have thought that they would call Tohme on stand, no matter whether he likes to call himself king on england or whatever, to at least talk about that UK announcement if nothing else. Plaintiffs made a such a big fuss about MJ being drunk in UK announcement and RP testifying what happen, so I though that would have being a good reason to call him, but obviously they thought differently.

or what Tohme says did not fit with their version and they avoided him. AEG can still call him.

About calling Jackson's, re Randy's letter I would assume there is going to be al least some of them. I certainly hope seeing and hearing certain members.

I'm thinking Randy, Janet, Jermaine and Rebbie will be called by AEG.

 

[LastTear]

Why do they feel the need to say she gets tired in the afternoon? Maybe reading too much into it.

I also wonder how relevant it is to hear about Michael growing up? Is this going to take all morning then Katherine will be too sleepy for cross I wonder, that would be quite handy as the jury can then spend the weekend mulling over her emotional testimony. Yes, I sound sarcastic but only because it doesn't really help in the who hired Murray question.

 

[Mechi]

"With Michael Jackson, the public and private were two very different worlds," he said. "AEG, like everyone else, was an outsider, outside the security gates."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ul-death-case-article-1.1403243#ixzz2ZUksNn9x

That's not too convincing when there's an eyewitness telling Randy Philips was inside Carolwood even when Michael wasn't around?! hmmmmm

 

[ivy]

That's not too convincing when there's an eyewitness telling Randy Philips was inside Carolwood even when Michael wasn't around?! hmmmmm

I think you are talking that quote too literal. I think they mean they did not know Michael's secrets and/or what happened in his bedroom.

 

[#MJforever57]

Well what i see is the emails are huge right now as you know AEG try to keep them out of this trial. Like the doctore said AEG cause a confict with Murray. Murray and AEG had a argeement between them. Murray sign the contract and fax it back to AEG on June 24 it was only sign by Murray AEG or Michael didn't sign. Now this email makes me think that AEG did hire Murray because of what it say remind Murray who is paying his salary not MJ and he know what is except of him that how i see it.

The Jackson have a good case so far but i know this is just one side of the case and i am sure AEG will take the glove off like their said it will get worst so i will not be surpries but if their case is all about Michael life then i will leave it there and wait to see the out come.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

I don't know why this trial needs to last three months when they've got a judge weighing in with remarks like that Rolling Stones one. After the closing statements today, she should just continue with her bias and give the jury the instructions... now how much do you want to award the Jacksons. Just end the misery.

I like your thinking i feel that way to but!

 

[#MJforever57]

I would be careful about trying to make appear that Michael was going to do countless shows after 02.
Plaintiffs made it sound like it was going to be easy beasy to MJ to do all those dates, but the fact is if MJ couldn't get even past rehearsals without help from propofol, so what do they think how many gallons of it he would have needed to complete their insane amount of shows? Or do they think MJ imsomnia miracously disappeared at some stage?
Also I would like to point out that with those mad numbers, they make MJ look like he wanted to do a lot of shows, so who at the end, was putting MJ under the pressure? Michael or concert promoter? Wasn't that what plaintiffs have been trying to point out that concert promoter AEG put MJ under the pressure, but he wasn't going to be under the pressure when he was expected to do nearly 500 shows?

Lastly, I know CM's lawyer is following the trial, and hopefully she is not going to use that MJ put himself so much under the pressure that he saw no way out than drink/self-inject/ what else they might come up with when they are looking for appeal.
CM lawyers already tried that during the trial, and I believe in their appeal they put the blame on MJ, once again.
I just hope that whatever comes out of this case, doesn't help him.

You bring out some good points in your post.

IMO i don't think Michael could have done all of the shows he was 50 yr old and he had a sleep problem and taking the Propofol every night was not the answer.

 

[jrsfan]

Well what i see is the emails are huge right now as you know AEG try to keep them out of this trial. Like the doctore said AEG cause a confict with Murray. Murray and AEG had a argeement between them. Murray sign the contract and fax it back to AEG on June 24 it was only sign by Murray AEG or Michael didn't sign. Now this email makes me think that AEG did hire Murray because of what it say remind Murray who is paying his salary not MJ and he know what is except of him that how i see it.

The Jackson have a good case so far but i know this is just one side of the case and i am sure AEG will take the glove off like their said it will get worst so i will not be surpries but if their case is all about Michael life then i will leave it there and wait to see the out come.

It was odd that CM did not get Michael's sig & then fax it back. And that email about remind Murray who is paying his salary will be critical imo.

 

[Bubs]

What happened to Grace - is she in or out?

Will they be wrapping up without her testimony. If so, not good for Mother, in my opinion.

A bit late but better late than never

I was re-reading some case history and came across this:
-Gongaware deposition nanny termination inadmissible However likely admissible on cross as Gongaware's ability to fire professionals hired by Michael Jackson

AEG says Gongaware firing nanny Grace at Michael’s order is irrelevant to the matters at hand. They say AEG never employed or paid Grace and Gongaware was given an already prepared letter and just contacted Grace because Michael told him to

So maybe she wasn't useful for plaintiffs.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

But what if the jury thinks this[aeg negligently hired/supervised murray]? you expect AEG to put all of their eggs in one basket and only focus on one part of the claims while risking the others? I don't find that realistic.

Focus on one part of the claim? - hiring and supervising murray negligently is the whole trial. There are no other claims to risk. The allocation of blame part in the verdict form is sharing the responsiblity at the end, i would say between a murray hired by aeg and mj. You seem to believe aeg can just omit murray and pretend he had no role in mj's death - that i would say is unrealistic.

I don't know what others think but to me it was clear that they would blame Michael. It was clear in their opening statement when they talked about personal responsibility. and honestly to me it seems unrealistic to expect them to put on blame on Murray when the claim is based on they are responsible because they hired murray.

Well, unfortunately for aeg they just need to suck it up if they are found liable for negligently hiring and supervising murray. They have plenty of good defence against murray - unforeseeability, his lying and deceiving them etc, they can lessen the responsibility even at the end if found liable, by putting some of it onto mj who agreed to having prop, but to entirely avoid or deny murray's involvement? There were just 2 people in that bedroom on 25 june, the facts show that mj didn't committ suicide or had the ability to self-inject so that leaves murray who has already been convicted and in jail for mj's manslaughter. An aeg defence strategy that doesn't accept and address murray as being a major factor in mj's death is absurd and lacks common sense - in my opinion. So much so, that i can hardly believe that is what they would do which is why i said i was jumping the gun and just going off thier verdict form and opening statements and lack of stipulation as to how mj died. I've got to say i'm surprised that you think it's just 'common sense'.

I mean think like this Company ABC hires John who drives recklessly and causes an accident hurting Pam. Pam sues company ABC. and you are saying why doesn't Company ABC says "John was drunk as a skunk and guilty as hell but we could not see he would drink and drive". I don't see that as realistic defense because that admittance could backfire. I would think either "accident was Pam's fault" or "john was an angel so we don't know how this happened" as a lot more likely defense scenario.

For an example to work surely, you need to adapt it to the aeg/murray/mj situation. And then your eg becomes a civil trial and shows exactly the problem aeg have with murray. John is already convicted of drink driving in a criminal court and of injuring pam. Now your defence scenarios don't work, or at least will only lessen damages if pam behaved negligently too. Company abc's only defence would be they never hired john or/and unforeseeability, not trying to just avoid john's role in injuring pam.

 

[Bubs]

That's not too convincing when there's an eyewitness telling Randy Philips was inside Carolwood even when Michael wasn't around?! hmmmmm

If you mean Prince's testimony, didn't AEG say that it never happened and they'll get back it when its their turn?
We'll see whats coming.

Anyways, that quote was taken out of context.
Putnam said this in his opening statement:
"Putnam says the evidence will show that what is public and what is private were two very different words. He says the public Michael Jackson was very different that the private Michael Jackson. He says Michael erected a wall between himself and his family, his staff and people he worked with. Putnam mentions Michael was a child when he started his career and he had 40 years that he learned the cost of having things exposed to public and he knew very well how to ensure things did not come out in the public."

Nancy D who wrote that article took only part of it.

 

[serendipity]

AEG disagrees with you. Their estimate of two shows per week matches the expert. AEG and the expert differ in regards to the amount of time the tour would last and the monies amount. Notice how quick the cross was of the economist?

I'm talking about what MJ would've done or agreed to do. Not about what AEG or the Jacksons were/are dreaming about. That's why I said anyone who knew MJ would know he would have never agreed to do that many shows AND 4-5 major world tours after that. Which is doing twice as much shows that he'd done in his solo career between the age of 50 to 65 when his insomnia is at its worse.

It is completely unrealistic to believe that IMO. And AEG knew it - Gongaware said MJ won't like the big number of shows. What they were doing was just ideas, plans and hopes for the future and it would have depended on how the London shows went. But them having talks like that and MJ agreeing to it are two completely different things.

Like I said I could see him agreeing to a few more shows around the world (20-30 more shows, which is more realistic and reasonable), but 180 or 260? Nope.

 

[ExoticPrincess]

Well, I suspect that this second phase of this trial is gonna get really difficult to handle.

For sure AEG is gonna go all out, and it won't be Katherine or any of the other Jackson's who will bear the brunt of the attack, only Michael Jackson.

 

[Tygger]

Gerryevans, Serendipity, I believe the concept of the two shows a week is truly being overanalyzed here because both are projections by the expert based on AEG’s emails and documents. The projection by the expert indeed matched the projection by AEG when some were saying 260 shows were too much without realizing it is the same calculation used to get to AEG’s 186 shows. The only difference was the amount of time the tour would last and the monies amount.

As far as Michael being a machine, again, it is being overanalyzed here to somehow reject these paper projections. I said previously Michael was reported as wanting to retire after the Bad tour. Michael did the Dangerous and History tours and was committed to doing the TII tour. We all know Michael did not like to tour and yet, tour he did. To say Michael’s thoughts are being dismissed is not accurate here as these are projections. Michael dismissed his own thoughts with the Dangerous and History tour and his commitment to TII. Adults tend to do many things they say they do not want to do if they feel it is a necessary task.

they also differ in regards to the breaks. AEG's actual schedule had 3 month break, I don't think this expert allowed for that schedule - 3 month of concerts, 3 month break.

That is very kind of AEG! Again, the expert and AEG differ only in the amount of time the tour would last and the monies amount. If the expert expected Michael to perform 260 shows back to back with no break, Michael would be done touring in a full year so surely breaks were figured into that projection as well. Thanks for the McCartney response.

Katherine Jackson’s testimony will indeed be emotional as she lost her son. What will be interesting is how her testimony will be spun to be effective for damage purposes only.

 

[passy001]

Maybe Michael was responsible and did not intermingle the AEG advance that was for business expenses with his royalties that he could spend at his personal discretion.

I believe the motor home was paid for with his Thriller25 royalties and not AEG advance monies.

you have no proof of that. like Sullivan you're merely speculating. Besides MJ could not afford it. his earnings which had decreased substantially over the years were tied up to paying down his debts. which was also the main reason for wanting to tour again.

 

[Tygger]

Passy001, if you prefer to believe that Michael irresponsibly used AEG advance monies that should have only been used for business purposes to buy a motor home for his mother, that is your choice. I prefer to believe Michael responsibly used his Thriller25 royalties that he was free to spend as he wished to purchase the motor home.

 

[passy001]

As far as Michael being a machine, again, it is being overanalyzed here to somehow reject these paper projections. I said previously Michael was reported as wanting to retire after the Bad tour. Michael did the Dangerous and History tours and was committed to doing the TII tour. We all know Michael did not like to tour and yet, tour he did. To say Michael’s thoughts are being dismissed is not accurate here as these are projections. Michael dismissed his own thoughts with the Dangerous and History tour and his commitment to TII. Adults tend to do many things they say they do not want to do if they feel it is a necessary task.

you are being dismissive of what MJ also wanted and the new reality he faced. In the previous tours he was younger, debt free, very ambitious and had no children.

But as soon as MJ became a father, his interest in music and touring really waned a bit. he was more interested in raising his kids but due to financial difficulties was forced to go back to work again. the TII tour was not by choice, that I can assure you. MJ was facing real financial ruins. he planned to tour again ONLY because of the prevailing hostile circumstances, and in a way to secure the financial future of his children. hence he was also saying he's doing TII for his kids. Had MJ lost his assets his kids would have had nothing today to inherit.

Plus, just like everyone else in life, MJ's interests changed over time. As he grew older his interests shifted more into movie production and away from music making and concerts. you also have to take that into account. the fact that the rolling stones refuse to retire today does not mean that MJ would have followed their paths. their interests were not the same. plus they were never facing the same life circumstances.

 

[passy001]

Passy001, if you prefer to believe that Michael irresponsibly used AEG advance monies that should have only been used for business purposes to buy a motor home for his mother, that is your choice. I prefer to believe Michael responsibly used his Thriller25 royalties that he was free to spend as he wished to purchase the motor home.

That does not make sense. MJ was facing financial ruins and so could not afford it. He could not even keep up with the mortgage on Havendurst. his personal budget was severely constrained by his mounting and suffocating debts. in short, he had little room to throw money away.

 

[LastTear]

A lot of the things that have been said are not the truth," Katherine Jackson said. "He's not here to speak for himself"

I wonder which things she is referring to, it would be interesting to know.

 

[ivy]

I wonder which things she is referring to, it would be interesting to know.

being called lazy