Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
- Status
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
I think the point is Michael had an history with propofol
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
History with severe insomina that he went to desperate measures to treat and resorted to propofol at counted times to overcome .
It's hard to say how any jury would react in a scenario. I never take guesses at that. From personal perspective I agree with you. Walgren had set up that lawsuit well and only requirement was Murray to be a substantial factor - not the only factor or 100%. Which means - as Walgren said in his closing - jury might have believed Murray's defense that Michael self injected but still could find Murray as a substantial factor for leaving Michael alone with drugs and not calling 911 earlier. So that trial was very smart in the way it was set up.
Now that one only determined Murray is a substantial factor but did not determine how much that substantial is. Substantial can differ from person to person. In this case jurors will give percentages for every party involved. and AEG's tactic here is to get the jury to give as much as possible responsibility to Michael. Therefore if they lose , the less responsibility on AEG's part would mean less damages.
If you ask my personal opinion, I would have filed a lawsuit against both Murray and AEG, I would have brought in all the factors from Murray's case to this one and make a strong argument about - as you said - it wasn't the drugs but how they were given that killed Michael. that tactic would have reduced the damages 50% (between AEG and Murray ) but would have been a stronger argument for responsibility on Murray & AEG. That's my non lawyer opinion.
He said Michael's business manager told him it was Demerol, and they have seen him loopy after Klein visits. Actually guess what? You are on the right track about why AEG keep differentiating between Demerol and Propofol. Yes they obviously knew 93 Demerol addiction, they might have suspected Klein was shooting Michael with Demerol in 2009 but their argument is they have no way of knowing Murray was giving Michael nightly Propofol at his bedroom.
I got it and my point was for example I don't see a $3000 fine and 8 hours of education to be a significant punishment and most likely no one would be losing their license over their past treatment of Michael. But that does not mean that the doctors would come forward admitting to unconventional medical practices.
Well Klein had blamed Hoefflin for introducing Michael to it. Who knows.
Wait a little to see the testimony reports.
The secrecy is the patient is expected to disclose medical information, especially the relevant medical information. You don't expect a patient to go into surgery, stop breathing, the nurse going "what's going on ?" and then a doctor telling "o yeah he has an implant".
edited to add: if you ever had surgery in USA, the anesthesiologist holds an consulting with the patient - either a few days before or just before the surgery. They ask several questions, they consider weight etc and make a plan about how much anesthesia you would get etc.
crillon
Proud Member
You said it all so well and I totally agree. Katherine et al had to know from the start the likely fallout of filing a $40 billion lawsuit against AEG and how that would impact Michael's memory and his children. That unless AEG settled--and who really seriously thought AEG would negotiate down from $40 BILLION--AEG was not going to roll over and would defend themselves vigorously. The lawyers knew no one would have control over what information the court would or would not allow. Who would sellout and expose a son's private life and put his restored reputation, dignity and legacy at risk for any price?
Michael's medical records should have been under a court seal in this trial so they were not part of the public record. At least the Estate cared enough about Michael Jackson the man and the father to try to stop it. So sad and pathetic that his own family cared only about a big payday. Shameful.
Last edited:
crillon
Proud Member
I think Debbie Rowe would be that person. Isn't she scheduled to testify next week? And, why isn't Klein on the witness stand?
I also wonder what her testifying for the defense will do to her relationship with Katherine re/Paris. I hope everyone stays in "mature adult mode" for Paris' sake.
Last edited:
serendipity
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,451
- Points
- 48
It seems Fournier is still testifying according to ABCs last tweet, so I guess it was only Klein's comments that were not allowed.
Nurse details anesthetic treatments for Jackson
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Jackson had a high tolerance for certain drugs and wasn't always forthcoming with his medical history, a nurse anesthetist who treated the singer testified Thursday.
Witness David Fournier told jurors he had worked with Jackson for a decade until the relationship ended in 2003, when Fournier refused to participate in a medical procedure.
Jackson was acting "goofy" and was slow to respond to standard questions before a scheduled cosmetic surgery that was canceled after Fournier refused to administer an anesthetic, he said.
The incident came a few months after Fournier said he had to help Jackson breath while undergoing another procedure and later determined that Jackson had not disclosed a new medical condition.
"He wasn't honest with me," Fournier said without detailing the change in Jackson.
At the time, Jackson had an implant in his abdomen to block the effects of Demerol and other opiate drugs.
Fournier testified that he had given the singer a relatively large dose of a powerful anesthetic and needed to know how Jackson was going to react.
A judge ruled that Fournier couldn't testify about the implant because he learned about it from Jackson's dermatologist, and it was a hearsay statement.
Jurors, however, had heard about the device through videotaped testimony of another Jackson doctor on Wednesday.
Fournier said his incomplete medical records show he administered propofol to Jackson at least 14 times between 2000 and 2003. He estimated he gave the singer the drug numerous other times over the years for a variety of cosmetic and dental procedures.
He noted in his records that Jackson had a high tolerance for certain drugs, which Fournier said could be attributed to a variety of factors, including genetics.
During cross-examination, Fournier said Jackson never requested any specific drugs, including propofol, during procedures or asked to be sedated for longer than was necessary. He said the singer didn't exhibit any drug-seeking behavior or signs that he was doctor-shopping.
Fournier said he knew that Jackson had received an above-average number of anesthetic treatments over his lifetime, and many were related to procedures needed after Jackson was badly burned in a shoot for a Pepsi commercial in 1984.
Fournier said it was not common to administer an anesthetic during cosmetic procedures, but the ones done on Jackson were complex and involved dozens of injections. Some of the procedures were near Jackson's eye and sedation was necessary to keep him still, Fournier said.
Fournier also said he never had any indication that the singer was using propofol as a treatment for insomnia.
Jackson's physician Conrad Murray had been giving the singer nightly doses of propofol as Jackson prepared for his ill-fated "This Is It" shows.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Jackson had a high tolerance for certain drugs and wasn't always forthcoming with his medical history, a nurse anesthetist who treated the singer testified Thursday.
Witness David Fournier told jurors he had worked with Jackson for a decade until the relationship ended in 2003, when Fournier refused to participate in a medical procedure.
Jackson was acting "goofy" and was slow to respond to standard questions before a scheduled cosmetic surgery that was canceled after Fournier refused to administer an anesthetic, he said.
The incident came a few months after Fournier said he had to help Jackson breath while undergoing another procedure and later determined that Jackson had not disclosed a new medical condition.
"He wasn't honest with me," Fournier said without detailing the change in Jackson.
At the time, Jackson had an implant in his abdomen to block the effects of Demerol and other opiate drugs.
Fournier testified that he had given the singer a relatively large dose of a powerful anesthetic and needed to know how Jackson was going to react.
A judge ruled that Fournier couldn't testify about the implant because he learned about it from Jackson's dermatologist, and it was a hearsay statement.
Jurors, however, had heard about the device through videotaped testimony of another Jackson doctor on Wednesday.
Fournier said his incomplete medical records show he administered propofol to Jackson at least 14 times between 2000 and 2003. He estimated he gave the singer the drug numerous other times over the years for a variety of cosmetic and dental procedures.
He noted in his records that Jackson had a high tolerance for certain drugs, which Fournier said could be attributed to a variety of factors, including genetics.
During cross-examination, Fournier said Jackson never requested any specific drugs, including propofol, during procedures or asked to be sedated for longer than was necessary. He said the singer didn't exhibit any drug-seeking behavior or signs that he was doctor-shopping.
Fournier said he knew that Jackson had received an above-average number of anesthetic treatments over his lifetime, and many were related to procedures needed after Jackson was badly burned in a shoot for a Pepsi commercial in 1984.
Fournier said it was not common to administer an anesthetic during cosmetic procedures, but the ones done on Jackson were complex and involved dozens of injections. Some of the procedures were near Jackson's eye and sedation was necessary to keep him still, Fournier said.
Fournier also said he never had any indication that the singer was using propofol as a treatment for insomnia.
Jackson's physician Conrad Murray had been giving the singer nightly doses of propofol as Jackson prepared for his ill-fated "This Is It" shows.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
That is not has bad as I thought it would be
good counter from Jacksons side.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
Yeah it was
Snow White luvs Peter Pan
Proud Member
^The burns he had in that commercial and lupus screwed him for life, I wouldn't blame him if he needed reconstructive surgeries from time to time.
I seriously don't get those supporter, the more details we know, the more makes me despise the Jacksons for putting money as a priority over Michael's privacy and memory.
I seriously don't get those supporter, the more details we know, the more makes me despise the Jacksons for putting money as a priority over Michael's privacy and memory.
crillon
Proud Member
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 6h 'Oh, he has a Narcan implant,' Dr. Klein allegedly told Fournier, who then directs Fournier how to treat MJ.
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 6h
Bina said Fournier didn't know what to do, he asked the doctor and changed the treatment. She said MJ admitted he had an implant after.
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 6h Cahan: He's administered anesthesia, MJ stopped breathing for 5 minutes, Fournier had to breath for him
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 6h
Cahan: That continues until he realizes there's a reaction to Narcan implant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 57m Cahan: Did you have conversation with Mr. Jackson about Narcan implant? Fournier: Yes
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 56m
Fournier: Subsequent to the procedure, he said he have had one but it was out, that he was clean and didn't need one.
Last edited:
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
People have to remember that the plaintiffs and the defendants are not interested in Michael's feelings, legacy, privacy or the harm testimony will cause his children. They are using testimony they feel will help their cases. For one side the interest is to win billions and for the other, it is to keep their money, so they both will show Michael in a bad light. We already saw AEG tying to diminish Michel's fame, although unsuccessfully, because most jurors will not buy that.
Meglen, to me was an embarrassment.
I find that both sides have a lot in common in their strategy. At times I get the feeling they are focusing on drug use from 1993 & 2001-2003 to build their case. I am wondering why, then, Panish did not connect this drug use from 2003 to 09? If they want to imply that Michael's problems in 03 was continuous so that AEG should have seen as a red flag a doc who had debt would more likely compromise his oath and give Michel drugs, why not show a drug pattern from 03 to 09?
I have come to the conclusion that Michael's prof use with Muarry had nothing to do with addiction, and that in reality this case has nothing to do with addiction. However, due to the way a case can be won, and the way people in society thinks, I feel both the defense and plaintiffs decided that using this theory of addiction can help them win this case.
I feel that what we have here is that a man with severe insomnia was told prof could make him sleep. He, therefore, used it for sleep, which had nothing to do with demerol from Klien, nothing to do with a patch, nothing to do with 93 rehab, nothing to do with surgery to remove some part of the nose, nothing to do with a bagel, nothing to do with hiding personal/medical information from paps/media/public, nothing to do with eyelashes. I feel even if Michael did not have the 93 and 01-03 situation, he would still take prof to sleep if his insomnia was in the same state and he met a doc who told him it could induce sleep, because he would have the same head and same way of thinking.
I think in trying to win this money Katherine's side put forth all the allegations and decided to use the addiction theory to show that a known addict is again using another drug--prof, and that AEG should have known this would happen because Michel is an addict. Then they came up with their red flags. AEG then fights back with addiction too, claiming that Michael took his drugs in secret and therefore prof was taken in secret and they did not know. In doing this everyone throws away the fact that Michael took prof not because he was an addict, but because he wanted to "sleep."
Thus, because the way cases are won, all Michael's medical and personal business has to be entertainment to the public. Don't forget that Panish made the judge have the coroner give them those slides which they were supposed to test. I have not heard anything about that yet, so like the Frank's e-mails does that mean Panish' pathologists did not find anything exciting for them to use to sully Michael further so they could win this case?
Meglen, to me was an embarrassment.
I find that both sides have a lot in common in their strategy. At times I get the feeling they are focusing on drug use from 1993 & 2001-2003 to build their case. I am wondering why, then, Panish did not connect this drug use from 2003 to 09? If they want to imply that Michael's problems in 03 was continuous so that AEG should have seen as a red flag a doc who had debt would more likely compromise his oath and give Michel drugs, why not show a drug pattern from 03 to 09?
I have come to the conclusion that Michael's prof use with Muarry had nothing to do with addiction, and that in reality this case has nothing to do with addiction. However, due to the way a case can be won, and the way people in society thinks, I feel both the defense and plaintiffs decided that using this theory of addiction can help them win this case.
I feel that what we have here is that a man with severe insomnia was told prof could make him sleep. He, therefore, used it for sleep, which had nothing to do with demerol from Klien, nothing to do with a patch, nothing to do with 93 rehab, nothing to do with surgery to remove some part of the nose, nothing to do with a bagel, nothing to do with hiding personal/medical information from paps/media/public, nothing to do with eyelashes. I feel even if Michael did not have the 93 and 01-03 situation, he would still take prof to sleep if his insomnia was in the same state and he met a doc who told him it could induce sleep, because he would have the same head and same way of thinking.
I think in trying to win this money Katherine's side put forth all the allegations and decided to use the addiction theory to show that a known addict is again using another drug--prof, and that AEG should have known this would happen because Michel is an addict. Then they came up with their red flags. AEG then fights back with addiction too, claiming that Michael took his drugs in secret and therefore prof was taken in secret and they did not know. In doing this everyone throws away the fact that Michael took prof not because he was an addict, but because he wanted to "sleep."
Thus, because the way cases are won, all Michael's medical and personal business has to be entertainment to the public. Don't forget that Panish made the judge have the coroner give them those slides which they were supposed to test. I have not heard anything about that yet, so like the Frank's e-mails does that mean Panish' pathologists did not find anything exciting for them to use to sully Michael further so they could win this case?
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
Marebare Michael did have an implant for a while and it was removed by a doc who did not know what it was. He then went back and had it replaced. This was some years ago and has nothing to do with prof, but the testimony is being used to show Michel is secretive.
8701 don't forget they don't care about Michael. This case is more about money, it is just that Michael is the person that helps one side get it or lose it; and that is why neither side cares about showing Michel in a good light. Have you seen Michel's family consistently speaking out against those who trash him? Michael's reputation & legacy is not of concern to any party to this case, only money.
8701 don't forget they don't care about Michael. This case is more about money, it is just that Michael is the person that helps one side get it or lose it; and that is why neither side cares about showing Michel in a good light. Have you seen Michel's family consistently speaking out against those who trash him? Michael's reputation & legacy is not of concern to any party to this case, only money.
crillon
Proud Member
ABC7 Court News ? Dr. Farshchian said MJ's main concern was his kids, always his kids, I'd do for my kids, and to spend more time with his kids.
THIS is what's true and what's important about Michael Jackson--not his medical history. Glad to hear both Farschian and Fournier interject the personal side and reinforce Michael's commitment and devotion to his kids. Wish the same could be said of his mother sadly.
I agree. He made himself & AEG look bad--really bad. And, by comparison, both Gongaware and Phillips look like softies
THIS is what's true and what's important about Michael Jackson--not his medical history. Glad to hear both Farschian and Fournier interject the personal side and reinforce Michael's commitment and devotion to his kids. Wish the same could be said of his mother sadly.
I agree. He made himself & AEG look bad--really bad. And, by comparison, both Gongaware and Phillips look like softies
Last edited:
qbee
Proud Member
Yes it was a good thing he had it, It was to help him get off from demoral. The only thing is he didn't inform his dr. about it when he should have. I don't know how that relates but they are bringing out anything negative they can ... BOTH sides are throwing MJ under the bus for the sake of winning this case. I'm so upset.
crillon
Proud Member
Yes it was a good thing he had it, It was to help him get off from demoral. The only thing is he didn't inform his dr. about it when he should have. I don't know how that relates but they are bringing out anything negative they can ... BOTH sides are throwing MJ under the bus for the sake of winning this case. I'm so upset.
I think they're trying to show that Michael was secretive. If he didn't tell his doctors about the implant=wouldn't tell AEG about taking any drugs.
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
Be happy that it was not damaging to Michael at least. All the testimony that both sides claimed would be bomb shells, were duds. These lawyers are using a lot of sensationalized words because they know the media is involved. However, when you examine the evidence in a logical way you see there is no smoking gun. All you see is a lot of contradictions where witnesses contradict themselves, or witnesses on the same side contradict each other. If this case did not involve Michael, I would be laughing at the foolishness of all.
posted the last section of tweets
Jackson lawyers did a good job of debunking doctor shopping / drug seeking but AEG was able to get secretive behavior / lying they wanted.
I just hate all these invasion of privacy of Michael.
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Agreed Justthefacts. This is a great example of using spite to one’s own detriment.
Crillon, 8701girl, not true. The estate and the plaintiffs fought to get Michael’s medical records sealed while the defense fought to get their emails sealed.
Jamba, are you sure? I do not have a pattern of attacking anyone unless provoked.
Bouee, I have seen countless mothers who refuse to admit their child has done something that the mother feels is wrong. I believe Katherine was conflicted in that whole portion of her testimony. I do not know her however; I felt she may have felt her testimony would somehow damage her son’s memory and she did not concern herself with what her lawyer already said.
An example is her testimony regarding the implant. I believe the doctor and Michael discussed it with her. She may not remember it or she may have felt saying she remembered would somehow make someone, anyone, feel less about her son because he had issues he was trying to get help with and she tried her best to prevent that.
Bouee, AEG is trying to minimize their damage payout and it is painfully obvious. It will be interesting to see how far they will get in their presentation before they EVER mention the doctor they allegedly hired. I do not feel Rowe will add value to the defense either.
I do not understand how Katherine could have a conversation with minors about the complexities of this suit and these minors make an informed decision about joining it as adults do not fully understand this suit. If we are being honest and the children were not on the suit, Katherine would be seen as greedy because the children did suffer the loss of their father. I believe they deserve to be on the suit.
Fournier is yet another AEG witness whose testimony proved nothing! Klein apologized that the nurse did not know about the implant. If Klein knew, it was not a secret. Michael may have forgotten and not willfully withheld information from this nurse that he readily told Klein. It is only the nurse's opinion the information was withheld. In a procedure following the procedure where Michael had a reaction, Michael indeed told the nurse he had an implant and it was removed. The procedure continued and was fine.
The nurse seemed upset Michael did not continue to call him for his birthday and follow his post operation instructions to the letter. Ridiculous!
It would have been good to see the nurse (and the defense) apologize to everyone as this testimony was an utter waste of time.
Last edited:
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
He is pumping up a hype for his book or his first exculsive interview (he'll get paid tons of money for it) when he gets out of jail. He says he has some damaging stuff of all of the parties, that includes Michael. He is like a person holding a carrot on stick, and we will see whether its going to be on book, or which media outlet paid to get his interview and all the dirty secrets he has.
I'm not that fool to believe that tabloids won't pay for more garbage of MJ, Jackson's and AEG (AEG not that much but defo about MJ and family).
About the the tape that he has.
"The explosive tape recording was made six weeks before Michael Jackson died. Dr. Murray recorded the conversation on his iPhone and forensic experts were later able to retrieve it."
If forensic exprerts were able to retrieve it later, it means he deleted it. I just cannot believe the recording was given back to him after it was retrieved?
Last edited:
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
Klien knew so MJ was not secretive , if a doctor did not feel it was necessary to tell the nurse he had an implant how MJ would have known ?
Mike did his part he informed the main doctor , it was Klien's responsibility to inform him MJ had an implant .
See , indeed MJ did not lie to him, nothing changed between 15/5/2013 and June /2013 , he had the implants since 2002 .
He accused him of lying , did not believe him when he told him in Septemeber he did not have the implants , still was angry at him for terminating all ties :blink:
Look at the damage control and twisting of the facts . Desperation .
He told his doctors about it , I thought he was so secretive , did not tell his regular doctors what he was getting ? -_-
Again , MJ did tell him he took meds to sleep but he believed he was taking RECREATION DRUGS someting no one has ever claimed . If he thought the worst of the guy , did not believe him , that does not mean MJ was lying or secretaive it just means in his mind MJ was not honest . No wonder MJ ended the relationship .
Absolutely not true , he blamed him for Klien's mistake ,falsely assumed he was taking recreational drugs . Nothing in the testimony proves MJ was not forthcoming with his doctors . If Klien failed to communicate appropriately with him it was not MJ's mistake nor his so called secretive behavior .
He also admitted some burn patients need hundreds of anesthesia and MJ was a burn patient , good reminder for the jury who might believe the operations were excessive .
Huge blow to AEG .
Last edited:
- Status