Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[jaydom7]

Not prosecuted, that's true, but what would the medical boards think of that ?

exactly... they could've definitely been disciplined by the medical board for unethical behavior

 

[jaydom7]

is it me or did their latest witness say that AEG exes called him freak because that's what he was called by people before ? yes that what he meant exactly reminding the jury that the public think he's a freak , the one who called him creepy was more careful when answering the question but this one seemed a complete hater on a mission to downplay everything Michael Jackson

I don't remember reading that.. I thought he said it was wrong for a professional company to call someone that.

 

[Soundmind]

Not prosecuted, that's true, but what would the medical boards think of that ?

Nothing , they were pretty much forced to revoke his license because of the combined 17 egregious deviations by Murray from the standard of care required of physicians. No sane doctor would do what Murray did , no sane doctor would leave his patient un attended under propofol . AEG would like to argue that propofol was illegal and MJ was getting something illegal, that's not the case at all , Murray was convicted because he did not follow the safety procedures written on the propofol vials .

I don't remember reading that.. I thought he said it was wrong for a professional company to call someone that.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Meglen: Freak had been used numerous times prior, I don't believe it was appropriate term for him to use but term that had been used before
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
"I think when someone is having a private conversation and later if that becomes public, that can change things," Meglen said.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish: But in private it's ok?
Meglen said he doesn't believe it's a yes or no answer.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
"It would not be a appropriate is it was in a public fashion," Meglen opined.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Meglen: I don't believe it is yes or no answer. I believe if people are communicating in a personal level is different from being in public.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish asked if Meglen thought it was appropriate for your lawyers to refer as freaks or creepy?
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish asked if it's appropriate for AEG to call artist a freak. Meglen said no.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
"People will use terms about an artist that people have used before," Meglen answered.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish asked if Meglen respects artists. He answered yes. He then asked if it is ok for AEG to refer to an artist as freak or creepy.

 

[MIST]

I think Michael's sleep problems since childhood had a lot to do with the showbiz lifestyle/family problems. Katherine maybe knew this deep down and maybe that's why she did not take Michael to the doctor about it. She was afraid the doctor would say the showbiz lifestyle needs to stop or that the whole family needs to go into therapy. Michael was the breadwinner - that aspect of him was always more important to them than his health.

Didn´t Joe woke him up and scare him sometimes? and brought giggly girls to the room Michael was sleeping in as a young boy?
I imagine that can give you difficulties to sleep

 

[serendipity]

Fans have a choice and it is their responsibility to make a choice that does not support or encourage demand for this doctor’s fabrications out of respect for Michael. It may seem easier to blame Katherine and anyone is free to do that. However, I refuse to have any part in the financial success of that doctor and I will not help to create a demand for his story.

I think it's really weird how you think this is a responsibility of the fans but not his family. Really now?

Which contradictions negate her son supporting her financially? Which contradictions state AEG did not negligently hire the doctor? As for her saying she did not feel her son was responsible for his own passing, so what? It is expected she would say that and it does not change what was said in the opening statements by Panish.

How about her being completely clueless about her son's issues and not really doing anything when she was told about it, but yet expecting others to have? How do you think the jury will accept this and sn't it exactly what AEG are claiming?

Serendipity, I have repeated it because it is fact. AEG and the expert did NOT figure Michael’s insomnia into their projections because these projections assumed good health. It was not my choice for AEG or the expert to exclude insomnia, that was their choice and I do not see the problem with that as Michael passed in good health. The jury may not see a problem with that either.

Well IMO you are trying too hard to support the plaintiffs' arguments here even if they are quite ridiculous as this one IMO. I don't see how anyone would seriously think that the jury will simply ignore this huge "elephant in the room" which actually prevented him from doing even one concert let alone hundreds of shows and multiple tours. It's not about either side's projections (and especially the plaintiffs) it is about what MJ would have realistically agreed to do. I guess we should just agree to disagree at this point.

I could be reading those court tweets wrong, but i thought he was just referring to the initial residency that they eventually decided to hold in london, same with his comments about asia. I can't believe he was talking about the holding of concerts in the us as not an option, just a long residency. It would be just ridiculous to suggest mj couldn't sell out concerts in the us - his 01 msg was sold out immediately and the tv perf got the highest viewing figures for a partic channel i think.

Yea I think he was talking about the start of the tour which they chose to be London. They were obviously planning on doing shows later in both the US and Asia.

 

[ivy]

is it me or did their latest witness say that AEG exes called him freak because that's what he was called by people before ? yes that what he meant exactly reminding the jury that the public think he's a freak , the one who called him creepy was more careful when answering the question but this one seemed a complete hater on a mission to downplay everything Michael Jackson

he started with saying it private - which is basically to say "who hasn't called someone a bad name behind their back?" and then said it wasn't a term that this person has started - meaning he might have been repeating something he heard before.

Not prosecuted, that's true, but what would the medical boards think of that ?

exactly... they could've definitely been disciplined by the medical board for unethical behavior

Nothing

Nothing as soundmind says. This is what you don't get. Assume Dr. Ratner gave Michael Propofol for sleep. Michael was aware of it and wanted it or consented to it. Ratner gave it in a safe fashion, Michael woke up with no injury or harm and he did not die. There's nothing to do about it. It might be improper or unconventional or whatever to give Michael Propofol for sleep in a hotel room but the fact is Propofol is not controlled substance, you have a willing patient and you have no harm caused to the patient. Nothing would happen.

 

[Soundmind]

he started with saying it private - which is basically to say "who hasn't called someone a bad name behind their back?" and then said it wasn't a term that this person has started - meaning he might have been repeating something he heard before.

Which means he was called a freak before and AEG exes said nothing new , get over it . That's his point

 

[marebear]

Why doesn't she want to know bad things or people not tell her bad things or problems?

 

[Soundmind]

seriously did you believe her when she said that ?

 

[jaydom7]

Why doesn't she want to know bad things or people not tell her bad things or problems?

good question.. A mother should want to know when their child is suffering so that they can help them. She just didn't want to deal or be bothered about it... she was too wrapped up in her crazy, philandering husband.

 

[ivy]

Which means he was called a freak before and AEG exes said nothing new , get over it . That's his point

well his initial point was there is a difference between what is said in private and what is said in public and/or to a persons face. Which to me sounded like an argument of "who hasn't called someone a bad name behind their back?". Jury might find that a reasonable explanation because indeed probably all of us (and all of the jury) have called someone a bad name behind their back and probably the jury won't approach to Michael was we all do - like a fan.

 

[LastTear]

Which means he was called a freak before and AEG exes said nothing new , get over it . That's his point

Maybe, but not necessarily, it could also mean that person has been called that before - from anywhere.

 

[Soundmind]

well his initial point was there is a difference between what is said in private and what is said in public and/or to a persons face. Which to me sounded like an argument of "who hasn't called someone a bad name behind their back?".

in public we cared so much about him , we wanted to help him pay his debts , get a home for his kids , restore his career , behind his back lie to him till him the concerts would generate enough money to pay his debts , buy him a home , when in fact the freak wont get more than 30 million a max . Two faced bastards

 

[marebear]

seriously did you believe her when she said that ?

Honestly, no I don't. I have hard time understanding that as an explanation for anything.

 

[LastTear]

in public we cared so much about him , we wanted to help him pay his debts , get a home for his kids , restore his career , behind his back lie to him till him the concerts would generate enough money to pay his debts , buy him a home , when in fact the freak wont get more than 30 million a max . Two faced bastards

I doubt Michael thought that those concerts alone would clear his debts.

 

[Soundmind]

Maybe, but not necessarily, it could also mean that person has been called that before - from anywhere.

So? he was called a freak before and AEG are only repeating what others said before about him ? that's considered an excuse ? that justifies calling someone you are about to make hundred of millions of a freak ? you dont call someone you admire or respect a freak , period , Nor you justify that by claiming he was called freak by others

 

[marebear]

Michael should not be called a freak privately or publically.

 

[Soundmind]

I doubt Michael thought that those concerts alone would clear his debts.

$ 100 millions would have helped alot , the world tour would have done great for him . He did not agree to do the concerts because he believed he would make only 20 to 30 millions , that for sure , and for sure AEG knew they had to lie to him and exxagerate to get his signature .

 

[LastTear]

So? he was called a freak before and AEG are only repeating what others said before about him ? that's considered an excuse ? that justifies calling someone you are about to make hundred of millions of a freak ? you dont call someone you admire or respect a freak , period , Nor you justify that by claiming he was called freak by others

I'm not justifying anything. Remind me the person who used that word had never met Michael before, right? There are many people in this world who know nothing about Michael who think he was that awful word. No they shouldn't have used it, it will be interesting to see the jury's viewpoint on informal emails.

 

[LastTear]

$ 100 millions would have helped alot , the world tour would have done great for him . He did not agree to do the concerts because he believed he would make only 20 to 30 millions , that for sure , and for sure AEG knew they had to lie to him and exxagerate to get his signature .

I must have zoned out on the mathematical testimony, can you quote it please so I can see it for myself. Thanks

 

[bouee]

Nothing as soundmind says. This is what you don't get. Assume Dr. Ratner gave Michael Propofol for sleep. Michael was aware of it and wanted it or consented to it. Ratner gave it in a safe fashion, Michael woke up with no injury or harm and he did not die. There's nothing to do about it. It might be improper or unconventional or whatever to give Michael Propofol for sleep in a hotel room but the fact is Propofol is not controlled substance, you have a willing patient and you have no harm caused to the patient. Nothing would happen.

I wouldn't be so sure that people "don't get it" : it's not necessarily about revoking a licence. Tadrissi, he is a dentist I think, for example, had problems with the Nevada medical board for allowing anesthesia done by an anesthesiologist in his office, if I remember correctly.

i'm sure the medical board would have something to say about doctors using anesthesia as a sleep aid, it's not even an off label use, and even if done safely, leading the patient to believe it is a way to relieve insomnia.

I think we'll have to wait for their testimonies : Michael was not in such a bad health when they were treating him - except maybe during the HBO concert. There could be something else they did differently, other than the way it was given. I'm thinking maybe different doses , using other authorised medication for insomnia.. . personnally I would like to understand what went differently from a medical point of view- if they answer such questions - or answer clearly enough to understand.

 

[mjchris]

from the last week...

Katherine Jackson Deposition Part 1 (shown in court)
synchron and without stupid spanish subs
[youtube]da6ZyQBZ5mk[/youtube]

Paris Jackson Deposition Part 2
[youtube]3LDP1jU8Ixw[/youtube]

Inside Michael Jackson's Family Life
[youtube]dtldqR7lMNo[/youtube]

Katherine Jackson Deposition Part 2 (not shown in court, this footage is unreleased. exclusive footage, released by CNN.
[youtube]ACIL8uzBapU[/youtube]

AEG Trial - Paris Jackson deposition Part 2 (ABC World News, 2013.07.18)
AEG Trial - Katherine Jackson testimony (Legal briefs, CNN Newsroom, 2013.07.20)
AEG Trial - Katherine Jackson testimony, Panish (Today, NBC, 2013.07.20)
AEG Trial - Katherine Jackson testimony (The place for politics, MSNBC, 2013.07.21)
AEG Trial - Katherine Jackson testimony-Alan Duke (CNN Newsroom, 2013.07.22)

 

[Soundmind]

Blankito what a lovely baby

 

[crillon]

I still think that this trial could go either way, really depends on how the jury view certain things, but considering that so far - only the Jacksons have presented their case, its too early to tell.

I also have no doubt that AEG will use whatever they can to defend themselves with a view to win this case, we always knew this but don't forget the Jacksons knew it also.

At this stage, I agree with you--it's up in the air (so many emotional cards were played) and we haven't heard both sides. But, I also haven't seen the "smoking gun" in the plaintiff's case that says AEG hired Murray and did so negligently. Or that AEG knew about any drug issues. What we've seen from KJ's side is all they've got to present and it's not much imo.

I do wonder about jury burnout being a wild card in this case, tho. Jury nullification (like in the OJ Simpson case) is a possibility because they are so fed up with the "much ado about nothing" aspect of this civil case when the guy responsible for Michael's death is already behind bars.

 

[crillon]

good question.. A mother should want to know when their child is suffering so that they can help them. She just didn't want to deal or be bothered about it... she was too wrapped up in her crazy, philandering husband.

I think Katherine spent most of her life in denial because the truth was so painful. That's no excuse for her behavior, btw, but it may explain her reluctance to hear upsetting news.

 

[LastTear]

I think the only smoking gun was the 'remind him' email, which can be explained so its down to whether the jury understand or accept that explanation.

They have proven that AEG are very unprofessional on their email writing, again it depends on whether the jury can relate to that or not.

But really this shouldn't be down to whether or not AEG execs are nice people.

 

[ivy]

I wouldn't be so sure that people "don't get it" : it's not necessarily about revoking a licence. Tadrissi, he is a dentist I think, for example, had problems with the Nevada medical board for allowing anesthesia done by an anesthesiologist in his office, if I remember correctly.

i'm sure the medical board would have something to say about doctors using anesthesia as a sleep aid, it's not even an off label use, and even if done safely, leading the patient to believe it is a way to relieve insomnia.

Tadrissi was just fined and not because of giving Propofol or not because of his treatment , it was because his office did not have permit. His license was active (he wasn't suspended) , he paid $2750 in fees and ordered to go through 8 hours of education (4 hours ethics, 4 hours record keeping) and passing of jurisprudence exam on the statute/regulation he violated.

Call me crazy but I don't see the medical board's actions as significant enough.

 

[crillon]

I think the only smoking gun was the 'remind him' email, which can be explained so its down to whether the jury understand or accept that explanation.

They have proven that AEG are very unprofessional on their email writing, again it depends on whether the jury can relate to that or not.

But really this shouldn't be down to whether or not AEG execs are nice people.

YES! I agree--let's hope they can sift out all the emotion. Re/emails--they can be explained and there's no other corroboration, so to me, it seems weak. I think, at this point, the jury must be glazing over with all the crapola they have to listen to day-after-day.

 

[Tygger]

Which ones?

Last Tear the transcripts for all witnesses are on other sites.

Yes they did.

Last Tear, if you read or have read the transcripts of Phillips/Gongaware, you will see the memory lapses that happened when questioned by the defense lawyers were not quite as extensive as the memory lapses that happened when questioned by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. No need for me to fabricate that.

As for restitution, I hope you received you answer from Ivy’s post. I can almost feel Ivy’s joy when she believes she is correcting my posts! laughs

What seems to be missing however is the fact that the doctor had not made child support payments for his eight children with seven women for some time; something that would have shown up in a background check. It could be the doctor hid income through one of his three social security numbers, which could also have been found in a background check and make it more difficult to collect child support. This was before the doctor killed Michael.

Now, the doctor has lost his license due to conviction. His license allowed him to practice the skill which made him successful as Phillips characterized him. Again, I would not be surprised to find out Katherine did NOT know his license was revoked. How does anyone suggest this doctor create income directly to support these children that he did not support before killing Michael and eventually pay restitution to Michael’s mother, father, and three children?

Seems you have to have income FIRST for his children to receive support before restitution. Sometimes what is on paper, how things work, and what happens in reality are not the same.

All of those indirect payments to Alvarez who is hopefully using it for her child with the doctor does not satisfy the support of the other children the doctor has. Therefore, restitution would NOT help the Jacksons and the doctor's children are NOT going to get child support before restitution.

I see there are no source links or examples for preventing indirect profit! No worries, I will remain patient and see what is discovered. In the meantime, I will just click the TMZ link to the doctor’s new tabloid article conveniently posted here in the thread. Unfortunately, the article does not include information about the doctor’s appeal lawyer being a guest of the defense team at the civil trial on a number of trial dates. It also does not mention lawyers on the defense team who may be assisting with the doctor’s appeal. Interesting indeed.

Alvarez received the payment for that TMZ article (again, indirect profit) and it seems some fans are readily supporting it. Why? Any negative news about the family is a demand created by some fans. No matter that the negativity comes from the man who killed the man this board is named after.

Those with true basic common sense know it is not common at all.

I will respond to the rest later.

 

[bouee]

Tadrissi was just fined and not because of giving Propofol or not because of his treatment , it was because his office did not have permit. His license was active (he wasn't suspended) , he paid $2750 in fees and ordered to go through 8 hours of education (4 hours ethics, 4 hours record keeping) and passing of jurisprudence exam on the statute/regulation he violated.

Call me crazy but I don't see the medical board's actions as significant enough.

Tadrissi is "only" a dentist, he did not do anything himself, he only allowed an anesthesiologist to do it in his clinic.
I was suprised that he was fined, honestly, I would have thought it's the anesthesiogist's call to decide where to do it- or not. So if the place was improper, I would think they should have fined the anesthesiologist (Adams if I recall correctly), not the dentist.

Based on that, that seemed rather strict to me, I have no idea what they would say to an anesthesiologist admitting to giving anesthesia as a sleep aid, for no real medical reason, misleading their patient, instead of giving him proper care for insomnia. I guess it would be more than what Tadrissi got.
Unless it was done very very differently from what Murray did, and these doctors give other reasons on the stand, that could be true or not - such as relieving pain or something like that, and not full anesthesia or full nights- I don't know I'm not a doctor, so I'm only guessing how doctors could justify that.