We know that Michael had an addiction to painkillers AT TIMES in his life. That is a fact.
He also had a dependency on Propofol when he died (if you consider Dr. Shaefer a competent source). I am all for not discussing this all the time, but then please stop downplaying it. Addiction is a serious illness. Of course that does not mean that he was a junkie that was high every day of his life and i do not think the Jacksons (unlike AEG) ever suggested that in this trial.
MJJC: Can a person become dependent or addicted to propofol? If yes what kind of dependency is it physical or psychological?
Dr. Steve Shafer: There is not much data about this, because propofol must be given intravenously, and it really burns, which discourages abuse. However, there have been a number of deaths of anesthesiologists and other health care personal from propofol abuse. Based on this, I am reasonably confident that it is addictive.
gerryevans;3817870 said:It really is all a matter of opinion. Since this MJ mudslinging trial must be, if KJ did win, it’d only be justice to me if she gets nothing. That way both sides lose. Gongaware and Phillips continue to feel the heat for their insensitivity and no one profits off of tearing down MJ.
Jacksons aside, it’s especially disheartening when you think of what Panish and company will get if KJ DOES get an award. With their contingency and expenses, they’ll walk away with close to half of it. Millions and millions of dollars. All for the great job of reducing Michael to “an addicted man and his drug pusher” doctor. Bet their firm will have a big party and celebrate. They should invite Diane Dimond. She shares some of the same feelings about him.
And if AEG does lose, they might not even be hurt commercially. After all, what will they be found guilty of? Complying to the artist’s request for who or what they want?
Concert goers don’t care who is putting on the show. They just care about the artist. And if AEG is going to comply to an artist’s specific request, why wouldn’t the artist want to work with them.
One thing’s for sure, there will be no justice for Michael. NONE.
I'd like to know who were Friedman's sources.
samantha wasnt credible during the murray trial when she wrote info down in summaries and it got posted on the boards so id take what she says with a pinch of salt
But as his family why would they want those stories dredged up again?
I have never in my lifetime seen a family be so careless about a loved one's reputation.
It's the fact that no family would ever do this is what makes this whole thing so depressing.
Some of the Jacksons Im sure. I also believe Karen Faye, Taunya and Randy grouped together and spilled to RF. The articles he posted around 2007 were very hostile against Grace and Raymone and Karen blames these two women alot for keeping MJ away from her and his family.
Just a few months after MJ had passed someone asked Karen on her FB why she talked with RF and she actually gave an answer to why, meaning she admitted it. She now denies to have ever spoken to RF but several ppl, including me, saw her comment but noone thought of take a print screen.
Who said they want these stories dredging up? No one. It's an unfortunate by product of the case.
Friedmans sources are AEG, Howard Weitzemann and formerly Frank Dileo. He has nothing to do with the family.
why not join to the Estate and ask for sealing of the information and even closing the courtroom then?
are they are very anti Jackson. In fact, Friedman refused to cooperate with JJ during that call.
Yes his articles are anti-jackson but it doesn't change the fact that Joe Jackson and Leonard Rowe did call him to provide info.
Also there's an email which have been public in the documents. Someone forwards a story of Friedman to Phillips - which is about Michael's health or perhaps Michael not performing (I forgot). Randy Phillips replies to that email with "F..k Friedman".
AEG wasn't always a source for Friedman, there were times he was annoying them with his news stories. On the other hand, Did AEG give him the heads up that they will file a motion about the leak of the emails? Absolutely.
Also you need to ask who was the person that said to Friedman that the family was meeting to "divide up the money". A fan on the Internet - who claims to be close with the family - confirm that a family meeting happened but it wasn't about dividing the money. So who would know about the family meeting? Probably not AEG but actually someone from the family and at the meeting.
Regardless "AEG talking to Friedman, TMZ or whomever" is meaningless IMO. X17 and Alan Duke is getting all their info from Jacksons.
So it's nothing more than pot meet kettle in my opinion.
I agree that at times Michael used substances to get through whatever it was he was dealing with at certain moments in his life.
The term addict is a difficult one because most people think of an addict as someone who is using substances continually. I think that's where the resentment from some fans to the term addict.
I don't think anyone here has claimed you are less of a fan.
The articles being written by Friedman now are obviously AEG sourced as they are very anti Jackson. In fact, Friedman refused to cooperate with JJ during that call.
IMO The Jacksons had to go with this painkiller/Demerol addiction, because they couldn't say "MJ was addicted to Propofol and AEG should've known it". That's why they went with the painkillers addiction and will somehow try to link it to Propofol.
I agree his articles TODAY are anti-Jacksons but my post was abt the year 2007 when he posted stories abt MJs supposedly declining health and portrayed Grace and Raymone as evil witches.
Dont also forget that Roger Friedman have evidence as in phonerecords from Joe and Leonard Rowe from 2009. They called him and bragged that they were gonna take over the shows or something like that.
RF will just write what suits him to boost his daily agenda.
You are jumping on the conclusion that MJ was getting Demerol just to get high,
-----------------------
i thought this board was for those that support michael not those that want to ignore the facts because it doesnt suit the agenda of who they support.its funny cause you see the same agenda pushed by family supporters on the other boards aswell. asnyone would think there was an agenda going on the last four years lol
I agree! But I am wondering if it is really necessary to establish that AEG new about the type of drug that Murray provided or is it enough just to show that he was willing to shoot him up with whatever was necessary to make him perform?
On another note, were it really the Jacksons that started with all of it? I mean did they have a choice? They new that AEG was trying to make out Michael as this junkie and thus explained about his addiction problems. I know you all do not like to Jacksons and I get that, but when I read the information (in particular of Samantha) I do not see that they portrayed Michael negatively and that they have a choice of bringing ip addiction or not.
True & that is why I do not understand why AEG in their opening statement did not attack the family as they attacked Michael. Since these opening statements are usually a lot of hot air, why didn't AEG suggest that Katherine being influenced by children who were left out of the will, embarked on a suit to extract money from AEG for Michael's death to help her children financially. Then, they could show all the lies, contradictions, family's dependence on Michael's money, all the times Michael bailed them out, Randy stealing, family claiming there was no will, family summer letter about an estate that has nothing to do with them, and then show why they did not hire Muarry. Rather, they decided to attack Michael, who did not sue them in the first place.
^^On another note, it is good to see that we are not the only ones who know this case is to get money for the Jackson siblings.
I agree! But I am wondering if it is really necessary to establish that AEG new about the type of drug that Murray provided or is it enough just to show that he was willing to shoot him up with whatever was necessary to make him perform?
On another note, were it really the Jacksons that started with all of it? I mean did they have a choice? They new that AEG was trying to make out Michael as this junkie and thus explained about his addiction problems. I know you all do not like to Jacksons and I get that, but when I read the information (in particular of Samantha) I do not see that they portrayed Michael negatively and that they have a choice of bringing ip addiction or not.
I agree! But I am wondering if it is really necessary to establish that AEG new about the type of drug that Murray provided or is it enough just to show that he was willing to shoot him up with whatever was necessary to make him perform?
On another note, were it really the Jacksons that started with all of it? I mean did they have a choice? They new that AEG was trying to make out Michael as this junkie and thus explained about his addiction problems. I know you all do not like to Jacksons and I get that, but when I read the information (in particular of Samantha) I do not see that they portrayed Michael negatively and that they have a choice of bringing ip addiction or not.
I hope on Monday Rogers stays true to his profession & do not try to make his answers fit any specific agenda like White tried to do. I hope I can feel the same respect for him as I did Shaffer. He will be giving very important evidence, and maybe Panish might try to use that evidence to support their drug argument, so I am eager to see what happens on Monday/Tuesday.
I don't think they can establish that AEG knew what kind of drug Murray was using. My understanding is that they are saying , AEG should have been more careful, because they knew (Gongaware) Michael had problems in the 90s , and AEG supposedly know that some doctors are not always ethical around artists.
Now the problem in bringing that up is that there were also other people who probably knew, or realised that something was wrong , or should have known (including the Jacksons themselves). So why not Kai Chase, Kenny Ortega, Karen Faye, etc...if we follow that logic, the list can be long... anybody around Michael could have called 911, or brought him to a hospital when Nurse Lee said so. What is the limit, when do you act to protect someone, even against their will ? Especially when you are not a medical professional.
Above all, why not Murray ? (Katherine chose to give up the restitution, which is shocking IMO) That's why I think it can seem unfair, and only money motivated, and so for some of us, they are using Michael's death for cash and don't care if he's badly portrayed in the trial/media.
So they shouldn't seek justice because the media might say something bad?