Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[LastTear]

.

Fournier testified MJ never dictated anything , never chose anything , never asked for anything especially concerning sedation . Fournier said he did have medical conditions that needed treatment . He testified during ten years he gave MJ propofol 25 times . Murray said he done that in less than one month .

Yes, and I think most of us agree that was a plus to the Jacksons.

 

[ivy]

Yes, and I think most of us agree that was a plus to the Jacksons.

I think we already agreed to that last night that it was a good cross for Jacksons

 

[Soundmind]

If you read motions in limine I posted months ago Fournier have always been about Michael not disclosing the implant to a medical professional during a surgery and how AEG wanted to portray that as being secretive and lying.

They said he willingly lied to him because he knew if Fournier knew he had it he would not have given him the propofol he asked for . Pure exaggeration .

No one claimed MJ did not ask Murray for propofol to sleep , certainly not me , the same way no one claimed he did not ask Lee . AEG's lawyers are saying he was not telling his own doctors what he was doing when in fact the more testimonies we hear the more evidence to contradict that . How many people so far knew about his so called secret ? at least AT LEAST ten .

 

[ivy]

How many people so far knew about his so called secret ? at least AT LEAST ten .

10? Did I miss anything? Dr. Farshian, Katherine, Metzger and Klein?

 

[Soundmind]

all the names you listed ? Debbie and everyone else ? count how many so far ? that's a secret ? well , I forgot to mention his Korean ex manager who told the media in 2001 ? Add him to the list .

By the way I'm not saying AEG knew about propofol or should have known . They obviously did not . That's not the point , the point they are lying , twisting the facts, trashing him to get themselves out of this case , he did nothing to them , he was a victim , a man they made millions off trashed him in life and continue to trash him in death . Instead of going after his greedy family especially since all the documents are with them , they continue to go after him , killing his character , his achievemnets , his legact . They did lie to him , they did give him falsehopes based on their own witnesses . Their own witnesses testified the numbers were exaggerated . He only agreed to do the concerts , agreed to take the risk for financial reasons as Putman said in his testimony , but everything was a complete lie . He ended up dead because of murray's actions but Murray would not have entered the picutre if AEG did not lie to MJ about everything .

 

[LastTear]

They said he willingly lied to him because he knew if Fournier knew he had it he would not have given him the propofol he asked for . Pure exaggeration .

No one claimed MJ did not ask Murray for propofol to sleep , certainly not me , the same way no one claimed he did not ask Lee . AEG's lawyers are saying he was not telling his own doctors what he was doing when in fact the more testimonies we hear the more evidence to contradict that . How many people so far knew about his so called secret ? at least AT LEAST ten .

Sorry, where did they say the bolded?

 

[ivy]

They said he willingly lied to him because he knew if Fournier knew he had it he would not have given him the propofol he asked for . Pure exaggeration .

Sorry, where did they say the bolded?

actually it comes from the motion to exclude filed by Jackson lawyers. So it was Jackson lawyers who claimed and exaggerated that - not AEG.


edited to add : actually Jackson lawyers say it was Fournier who said that - again not AEG. The only claim from AEG about Fournier is as I said.

Exclude testimony from David Fournier that Michael tried to deceive him during surgery

Fournier is a nurse anesthetist that provided medical treatment to Michael in 1990s and 2000s. Fournier believes on one or two occasions Michael deceived him by not telling him about a “narcan implant” Michael inserted in his body before surgical procedure Fournier was helping with. Fournier states he believes Michael did not intentionally tell him about the “narcan implant” because he knew Fournier wouldn’t have administered him anesthesia if he knew.

Katherine’s lawyers state they expect AEG to introduce this at trial to show that Michael is a liar and tried to deceive a health professional. They want it to be excluded as it is speculative and irrelevant.

 

[LastTear]

all the names you listed ? Debbie and everyone else ? count how many so far ? that's a secret ? well , I forgot to mention his Korean ex manager who told the media in 2001 ? Add him to the list .

By the way I'm not saying AEG knew about propofol or should have known . They obviously did not . That's not the point , the point they are lying , twisting the facts, trashing him to get themselves out of this case , he did nothing to them , he was a victim , a man they made millions off trashed him in life and continue to trash him in death . Instead of going after his greedy family especially since all the documents are with them , they continue to go after him , killing his character , his achievemnets , his legact . They did lie to him , they did give him falsehopes based on their own witnesses . Their own witnesses testified the numbers were exaggerated . He only agreed to do the concerts , agreed to take the risk for financial reasons as Putman said in his testimony , but everything was a complete lie . He ended up dead because of murray's actions but Murray would not have entered the picutre if AEG did not lie to MJ about everything .

Re the secret, Doctors, wife and mother. Even with a secret some people have to know, right? Korean manager? Who was that?

As for the rest of your post, I feel your pain and frustration, but you have to understand that AEG have every right to defend themselves with whatever they can, there is a lot at stake here.

ETA ok Pennies dropped, the business adviser Michael sued.

 

[Soundmind]

Re the secret, Doctors, wife and mother. Even with a secret some people have to know, right? Korean manager? Who was that?

The people who needed to know knew , he told them . AEG portrayed him as someone who carried a shameful scheme someone who was adamant to deceieve everyone ( they did say he decieved everyone to get his drugs ) . "He did not tell Karen Faye " like he needed to tell her , he did not tell his kids , like anyone tell kids everything especially MJ, "he did not tell his bodyguards " seriously ?

He should not have told anyone but his medical advisors and he told them , if one of them told him it was not appropriate , others said it was .

They saw his health deteriorating , they did nothing but increase the pressure on him , he was not a kid for sure , but they were everything but responsible or compassionate . Katherine's one hell of a greedy woman , does not mean they should not be held responsible for what they created from day one .

The more they attack the victim the more sympathy the jury would feel toward him and his kids . I will never defend or find excuses for anyone who contributed to his death . I was against this lawsuit , I'm still against it , for MJ's own sake , still AEG are guilty as hell based on their own words

 

[LastTear]

@ Soundmind

They did act, however, we know with hindsight that it wasn't enough. I doubt if they knew of the medical treatment given by Murray that they would just go along with it. But as for the secret, yeah it was a secret, you said so yourself 'if people needed to know, he told them' - I do believe he didn't think AEG bosses needed to know.

I don't know what the jury will decide and to a large part I don't care, all I know for sure is that this trial has divided the fan base further, caused untold distress for some fans and most importantly has invaded the one thing Michael tried to hold onto the most, his privacy. And this is made more painful by the fact that Michael cannot defend himself.

Maybe you are right and the jury will turn against AEG for blaming the victim, then putting Michael memory through all this was worth it for the Jacksons in that case.

 

[Petrarose]

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?

Bubs you made a good point I have not thought about. Muarry used his phone to tape Michael. Did he have more than one phone, and if he did, the police would know & examine them all. Now they looked at the phone for evidence. After a trial you get back your property. Now if there were more statements from Michel on the tape Walgren would have argued something like this man taped several conversation of Michael when he was in that state, and still he did not stop. The mere fact that Walgren did not make statements like that tells me Muarry has no other statements from Michael on his phone. Now, about them having to retrieve it, do you remember if Walgren said the conversation was deleted? I know it was said that the experts went through the phone, but I can't remember if Walgren said Muarry deleted the conversation. Sometimes we don't know if the reporters are padding a story.

You brought up a good issue for debate: If the experts found the deleted conversation, would they give Muarry back the phone with the retrieved conversation, or simply give him back his phone in the condition it was in?

I don't think Muarry has any more damaging physical evidence. All he has is what is in his mind, so he will be padding his stories to make money.

 

[Bubs]

Originally Posted by Soundmind
yes I'm sure , why do you think I'm repeatedly emphasizing that so far no medical professional testified there was not a medical justification for the drugs administered to him . Very different from the picture Putnum portrayed in his opening statement . I will get you the quote
Originally Posted by Soundmind
His opening statement
Putnam states that they did not see this coming. They had no idea. Putnam starts talking about what we learned after June 25th. He says in 1993 Michael announced the world he had a problem with painkillers and went to rehab. He says publicly people thought the rehab worked. He says that Michael was secretive about his painkiller addiction. Michael was getting drugs from doctors. Putnam says there was usually a plausible reason for drug use. For instance Michael would have a minor cosmetic procedure but would get the same painkiller he would get for surgery. Outsiders will think he got the painkillers because he was having a procedure. Second doctors were bound by doctor – patient confidentiality. Even when they were concerned that Michael was using too much painkillers, they couldn’t tell anybody. The most they can do is to refuse to treat Michael further and Michael always found someone else.

Actually isn't this exactly what Fournier has testified to?

Yes, it is what Dr F testified among what Soundmind posted, but it depends how jurors will view the testimony.

After reading memefan's post when she posted that we are reading testimonies from fans perspective.
She is right, at least thats what I do. For example when I write about how I had 3 doctors in 1 year, so it is nothing uncommon. Someone else posted she/he had 7 doctors, but that means nothing in trial if there are jurors that have only 1 or 2 doctors and cannot understand why MJ had so many doctors, and why so many botox injections when normally it is about 20, and little more for men? What if there are jurors that have had botox and they only got 10 injections and then comes Dr F who says MJ had 100? Like memefan said, noone get propofol for botox, but we know why MJ had it, but again, jurors werern't told about the reason. Jurors weren't told by plaintiffs that MJ also got botox to his groin and armbits, they were led to believe that MJ got that amount of botox so he could get propofol.
A lot depends on jurors own experiences of these issues and what they think is normal amount of botox and how many doctors can you have. The worst thing is that there is more doctors coming to testify and I fearwhat they testify might support Dr F testimony.

We should not hurry to conclusions , he even said high tolerance could be caused by genetics , Metzeger testified oral drugs never worked for MJ since he started treating him that was way long before his problem in 1993 .

Dr M hasn't testified in this trial yet. We know what Dr M said, but jurors don't know it as it wasn't brought up.
The only thing that matters is what jurors see and hear, not what we know from previous trial.

any evidence would be given to his lawyers during his trial. so yeah he would have been given a copy


I disagree that Klein needed to tell about the implant based on real life experience. I have had 2 surgeries that included Propofol, I have also been to two surgeries (one dental) my boyfriend has. All of them included an "anesthesia consultation" with the anesthesiologist. Although the main doctor had most of the information, anesthesiologist would conduct their own examination and interview.

So there is possibility that CM still have that tape. Couldn't my dear David W issue some sort of warning to defence that the tape will never end up in CM's hands?

About that anesthesia consultation, didn't Shafer (or was it some other doc) that testified during the CM trial about that consultation as well?

 

[Bubs]

Bubs you made a good point I have not thought about. Muarry used his phone to tape Michael. Did he have more than one phone, and if he did, the police would know & examine them all. Now they looked at the phone for evidence. After a trial you get back your property. Now if there were more statements from Michel on the tape Walgren would have argued something like this man taped several conversation of Michael when he was in that state, and still he did not stop. The mere fact that Walgren did not make statements like that tells me Muarry has no other statements from Michael on his phone. Now, about them having to retrieve it, do you remember if Walgren said the conversation was deleted? I know it was said that the experts went through the phone, but I can't remember if Walgren said Muarry deleted the conversation. Sometimes we don't know if the reporters are padding a story.

You brought up a good issue for debate: If the experts found the deleted conversation, would they give Muarry back the phone with the retrieved conversation, or simply give him back his phone in the condition it was in?

I don't think Muarry has any more damaging physical evidence. All he has is what is in his mind, so he will be padding his stories to make money.

CM had 2 phones and he was playing with both of them when he was supposed to be watching MJ.
CM deleted that recording from his phone, but experts dug it out for trial.
I understand that you get your stuff back after the trial, but I for one cannot understand if the recording was given back to CM so he can start blackmail people after he is release.

I don't give a damn if he sings like canary what MJ said about his so called family, but I don't want to hear anything about MJ.
I know it is just a dream, as even if he doesn't have the recording, he can always make up stuff for media who pays the biggest amount of money for his first interview.

 

[Petrarose]

I still don't see that testimony from the nurse as devastating. Even the list of doctors is nothing. The public knows that stars have more doctors doing specific things. They know stars do more cosmetic surgeries than they admit. The jury knows Michael had work done before the trial. It is illogical for anyone to think a person is going to go and do evasive procedures to get prof which is not a drug like coke or crack that can make you as high as a kite. Then, the crazy person get's the procedures done with such big gaps in between, yet they want prof? Since prof makes you sleep, what type of junkie goes to get a drug so that immediately he goes to sleep. Wouldn't he want a drug that keeps him awake and feeling that "long, good, euphoric high." I refuse to be alarmed by this nurses testimony. To me it only shows that Michael did not tell, so it is quit likely that he did not tell AEG what is going on. Of course it was not AEG's business anyway what he was doing in the night in his house.

Something interesting I notice about this trial is that when Panish brings a witness that misrepresents information or does not put it in context, the defense during cross does that, which makes it good for Michael. When the defense misrepresent information, then the plaintiffs bring out the context or bring out points that is good for Michael. We saw this done with the nurse during the cross. We saw this done by Putnam when he made the witness admit that the behavior Michael had was due to medication for the procedure with the balloon under the scalp, to name a few.

Bubs I don't think he has more, because as I said Walgren would have mentioned that muarry took several tapes of his patient to prove his point. The question is if the retrieved information was left on the phone. I am still pondering that.

 

[ivy]

After reading memefan's post when she posted that we are reading testimonies from fans perspective.

there was an article a few days back written after Katherine said she did not think Michael was responsible in his death. The author had written Katherine blamed everyone but Michael and asked when do we start blaming Michael for his own action. He did refer to the pressure from AEG and was questioning the fact that Michael agreed to do do the concerts. In other words his point was "well he signed up for it and if he wasn't cut out to do it isn't it his responsibility"

I agree that we look to everything from a fan perspective and non fan perspective or sometimes ever reality is lost in the process. For example for us calling Michael a freak is an unbelievable mistake and if we could we would want to see those people in prison but who knows if the jury would look to it and say "well I call my co-worker a crazy bitch everyday behind her back so it is nothing".

Similarly as the author pointed out we as fans can be angry about AEG pressuring Michael but a jury might look to $6 Million in advances and $30 Million in costs and think it was more than okay to ask Michael to show up to rehearsals. After all these jury are probably people who have conditions in their employment that if they have several unexcused absences they can be fired (I have such clause in my contract).

So yeah we clearly omitting a non-fan perspective.

So there is possibility that CM still have that tape. Couldn't my dear David W issue some sort of warning to defence that the tape will never end up in CM's hands?

anything given to his defense he would have access to. like I said any discovery would be accessible to the both parties.

About that anesthesia consultation, didn't Shafer (or was it some other doc) that testified during the CM trial about that consultation as well?

shafer did mention that his patients ask him about Propofol and I would assume that's during anesthesia consultation. I'm just stating my personal experience. My feeling is that the main doctor is focused on their task when the anesthesia is the duty of the anesthesiologist. In both my surgeries I was called in for an anesthesia consultation and asked questions that were already in my medical record (such as weight), I was also asked questions about any previous surgeries, implants, pins / metals , and devices (such as a pacemaker). I was explained the procedure and asked to sign a consent form. I'm not sure how much medical records does the surgeon and the anesthesiologist shares among themselves. I don't know if this is a liability issue and therefore anesthesiologist collects the necessary information themselves and do not rely on other doctors records. My experiences is that just an anesthesia consultation is common and anesthesiologist doesn't only rely on the main doctors information sharing. In my family & friends circle I have never seen an instance that the person goes for an operation and anesthesiologist just hooks them to anesthesia without a consultation.

I understand that you get your stuff back after the trial, but I for one cannot understand if the recording was given back to CM so he can start blackmail people after he is release.

It's the discovery stage. he was given copies of all information the LAPD had including the security camera footage, coroner's and crime scene photos etc. If indeed technicians recovered recordings from his phone, his defense would have been given a copy of it. He can get access to those documents through his lawyers. A restitution would help against such profit / blackmail but unfortunately that was given up here.

 

[StellaJackson]

I am confused about this implant thing. Did Michael really have it and is it a good thing?

Yes he did. He wanted it so he could be clean for his kids. This was shown in the medical records that were shown.

 

[Bubs]

I still don't see that testimony from the nurse as devastating. Even the list of doctors is nothing. The public knows that stars have more doctors doing specific things. They know stars do more cosmetic surgeries than they admit. The jury knows Michael had work done before the trial. It is illogical for anyone to think a person is going to go and do evasive procedures to get prof which is not a drug like coke or crack that can make you as high as a kite. Then, the crazy person get's the procedures done with such big gaps in between, yet they want prof? Since prof makes you sleep, what type of junkie goes to get a drug so that immediately he goes to sleep. Wouldn't he want a drug that keeps him awake and feeling that "long, good, euphoric high." I refuse to be alarmed by this nurses testimony. To me it only shows that Michael did not tell, so it is quit likely that he did not tell AEG what is going on. Of course it was not AEG's business anyway what he was doing in the night in his house.

Something interesting I notice about this trial is that when Panish brings a witness that misrepresents information or does not put it in context, the defense during cross does that, which makes it good for Michael. When the defense misrepresent information, then the plaintiffs bring out the context or bring out points that is good for Michael. We saw this done with the nurse during the cross. We saw this done by Putnam when he made the witness admit that the behavior Michael had was due to medication for the procedure with the balloon under the scalp, to name a few.

Bubs I don't think he has more, because as I said Walgren would have mentioned that muarry took several tapes of his patient to prove his point. The question is if the retrieved information was left on the phone. I am still pondering that.

I'm not sure but if I remember correctly (I seem to repeat that quite often) there was one nurse in jury, so she has better understanding and can explain to others about procedures. Side note, I just realised that I write my posts like it is MJ in trial for his drug use, and not like: did AEG hired CM:no:

In a way ou are right, it is not believable that MJ went to see doctors only to get propofol. Who gets root canal treatment to get propofol so he can sleep. Who wants to be treated like needle pillow to get few hours sleep? The point they are trying to make is that not only MJ was after propofol but opiates too. This nurse testified that MJ refused Demerol, but he was administered other opiates.

It is damn shame that judge didn't allow AEG to go deep end with plaintiffs, meaning Jackson's, now AEG had to take the route to make MJ look like he himself was guilty of everything:no:

I agree, my lovely Walgren D) would have brought it up during the trial if there was more than one, but I was wondering if that 1 recording was longer than the one we heard?

It really doesn't matter to CM whether he has the tape or not, he'll make up stuff and sell it to the highest bidder @ courtesy of Jackson's.

 

[#MJforever57]

Exactly , that's why AEG's lawyers are contradicting themselves the same way Jacksons lawyers contradicted themselves , this is what happens when your case is built on twisting the facts .

I agree with you 1oo% and above the same thing is happening to AEG and bringing up these Doctors to the stand one after another is a waste of time for what to tell us about Michael's drugs use we know this. Like one post said after both side are done the Judge will have to comeback and remind thr jury of the facts in this case.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

How come it went from how AEG didn't supervised Murray, were reckless and irresponsible to hire him to invade Michael's whole medical history to "prove" he had "addictions"! How is it relevant the surgeries no matter the kind he went through to this lawsuit?

 

[LastTear]

Any ideas what we might expect from Dr Scott Saunders today?

 

[#MJforever57]

I don't think any doctor would come and say they were giving Michael unnecessary drugs - and Putnam did not claim that. But he referred to Dr. Quinn (a dentist), Dr. Van Valin to testify that Michael asked them for Propofol for sleep in his hotel room & house and they refused. Also Debbie Rowe will testify that she saw Michael getting Propofol or another anesthesia at hotel during tour. So that's still to come

If you read motions in limine I posted months ago Fournier have always been about Michael not disclosing the implant to a medical professional during a surgery and how AEG wanted to portray that as being secretive and lying.

The last part of your post. Ivy why would AEG try to said that Michael was being secretive and lying. Was Michael doing only what the doctor told him to do by not mention this to a medical professional? or was it because Michael lying so he can get the Propofol? and that why AEG is saying he was begin secretive about it.


I agree with thIs in the bold.don't see that happen. That why IMO having these doctors come to the stand is a waste of time. It is no secret about Michael taking drugs.

 

[bouee]

I disagree that Klein needed to tell about the implant based on real life experience. I have had 2 surgeries that included Propofol, I have also been to two surgeries (one dental) my boyfriend has. All of them included an "anesthesia consultation" with the anesthesiologist. Although the main doctor had most of the information, anesthesiologist would conduct their own examination and interview. I don't know if it is because of doctor - patient privilege and one doctor cannot share with another or it is because anesthesia is the responsibility of the anesthesiologist and therefore they collect their own information and don't rely on others. All of those consultations ended with anesthesiologist explaining the risks and getting you to sign a consent form which not only says that the information you provided was accurate and you understand the risks.

So sorry but I don't agree with it was Klein's responsibility. Life experience in US shows it's patients responsibility to disclose the relevant information & answer questions during a anesthesia consultation. That being said Michael lied is the opinion of Fournier which may not be true. It's possible that Michael simply forgot or did not think it was important enough to mention to Fournier.

Yes, I should have said part of Klein's job. It seems he was there , so if he knew there could have been an impact on anesthesia, he should have made sure Fournier was aware. There is a reason why Fournier was more angry at Klein than at Michael, and a reason why Klein apologised.

I don't think there's doctor-patient privilege among doctors / healthcare professionals treating the same patient - that's common sense. We have seen letters among doctors about Michael , in which they informed each other of treatments , pathologies, etc.. Otherwise doctors would not be able to talk to nurses, etc.. a patient can not explain things the way a doctor would.

I would add, it's Fournier's job to be clear, because you are right in saying that that was his responsability to conduct the pre anesthesia consultation. But maybe that's me and my experience in hopsitals : you suppose the patient is not a medical professional , you need to be clear and make sure the patient has understood. You don't usually blame the patient, unless you have been very clear.
For example : I had anesthesia multiple times also, and I had those anesthesia appointments many times. I was always told not eat or drink before. I used to be a smoker (very proud I quit ! ) and I always told them, and how much I smoked. Then one day, my anesthesia went wrong, the anesthesiolgist came to see me the day after and told me it had been a nightmare.
It turned out I had low blood pressure and I had smoked before anesthesia. I shoudn't have , but no one ever told me, and I had multiple anesthesia by multiple anesthesiologists before, I smoked before, and never had a problem.
I had another anesthesia after that one, 2 years ago, I was still a smoker, the anesthesiologist- a different one- made sure I was aware that I should not smoke before.

So these miscommunications happen, though I can understand his frustration..

Another example of how sometimes doctors should and have to communicate : I already mentionned my step dad had cancer some 15 years ago. At one stage, he had to have an operation by a neurosurgeon. But he was in a very bad shape- though conscious and able to talk- but in such a bad shape that anesthesia for a long operation would have been dangerous. My stepdad would not have been able to explain it, so the anesthesiolgist and the neurosurgeon had to organise it among themselves. They eventually came to an unusual solution : do the operation in the neurosurgeon's clinic because he needed his staff and equipment, with the anesthesiologist from a different hospital, and an ICU team who tranferred him back to the original hospital right after the operation, because their ICU was more adequate. It was very stressful, but it worked.
That neurosurgeon was a bit special, he wouldn't talk to families, he said he had no time for that (which was true). So he gave all his information to the GP & hopsital doctors and would only answer the GP & hospital doctor's questions.

Other examples : some of Murray's "mistakes" were to lie to the parmadics and ER doctors : at that moment, there was no doctor-patient priviledge, he was supposed to give as much as info as necessary. That's also one of the reasons there are medical records : so that other healthcare professionals, such as nurses or doctors, can refer to it.

@ Bubs : is there a nurse on this jury ?

As for a jury's perspective , I am also interested in this trial because, whether we like it or not, it's happening, and it brings out facts. So jury perspective is one thing, it's interesting, but it's also interesting for me to put the info we're getting in perspective with the facts that we already know, even if theu jury doesn't have this info, it helps to find out what is true or not.
But from their perspective, i think they are going to wonder why AEG is not blaming Murray, and blame the victim instead, it's a dangerous path, IMO.
Same thing for rehearsals : it's understandable that Phillips wanted Michael to rehearse even though the contract did not mention it... but ... even if he was sick ?

I don't think Fournier's testimony did much harm to Michael, besides the obvious violation of privacy. He was not secretive and lying. The number of botox injections might be surprising, but I guess it will be explained at some point that some of them were to treat excessive perspiration, and the jury probably already knows about plastic surgery. The rest (burn, accidents..) were already explained.
As Petrarose said, it's extremely weird to do procedures just to ...sleep. It doesn't make sense.

As for asking propofol to sleep, I'm very curious to know why he did that. Was he trying to stay away from addictive medication ?

 

[Bonnie Blue]

As for the rest of your post, I feel your pain and frustration, but you have to understand that AEG have every right to defend themselves with whatever they can, there is a lot at stake here.

Your post was directed at soundmind's post criticising aeg which i agreed with. Why are you saying that 'you have to understand aeg have to defend themselves' when you're replying to posts like that. Some of the issues raised in it were to do with aeg's treatment of mj in the run up to tii, what's that got to do with their right to defend themselves? Some of us have big problems in how aeg treated mj - the way they exploited his financial weakness, their disparaging attitude towards him as shown in emails, the ignoring by phillips of the number of senior people raising really disturbing issues about mj just 3 weeks before opening night. [And in reply to all the posters who constantly bring up this meeting on the 20th, no i don't think calling a meeting where the main item on the agenda seemed not to be concern about mj but to be making sure ortega left his concerns at the door about mj and to leave it all to murray, was in any way showing concern.]

Similarly with the defence agenda that aeg has chosen to go down, I understand perfectly that aeg have to defend themselves, but why should that mean we have to accept it or even defend their point of view? Aeg go on about mj having personal responsibility, well so does aeg in how they choose to defend themselves. They have a good case with the unforeseeability and if as they say they have nothing to do with mj's wrongful death then they can argue on the strong narrative they claim to have. I believe that murray's quite spectacularly gross negligence killed mj on 25 june, a belief based on following murray's trial not based on being an emotional fangirl, so anything that they try and bring in to cloud that judgment i'm going to react negatively to. I don't give a toss if it's all part of aeg's cunning strategy, i don't agree with it.

 

[Bubs]

I agree with you 1oo% and above the same thing is happening to AEG and bringing up these Doctors to the stand one after another is a waste of time for what to tell us about Michael's drugs use we know this. Like one post said after both side are done the Judge will have to comeback and remind thr jury of the facts in this case.

Can I just remind you that they are not telling US anything, they are presenting their case to the jury.
Earlier there was a post from memefan and Ivy's post above about looking this case from fan perspective.
I admit I'm at least sometimes guilty of it, but we need to look this case how it is going to look for juros, and they are not fan of MJ like us. They don't automatically know why certain procedure or cosmetic thingys which fans knows in a heartbeat, but jurors don't.

@Ivy
"Similarly as the author pointed out we as fans can be angry about AEG pressuring Michael but a jury might look to $6 Million in advances and $30 Million in costs and think it was more than okay to ask Michael to show up to rehearsals. After all these jury are probably people who have conditions in their employment that if they have several unexcused absences they can be fired (I have such clause in my contract).
So yeah we clearly omitting a non-fan perspective."

I agree. I have kind of tipped the subject earlier but no response of what others thinks so I left it.

Any ideas what we might expect from Dr Scott Saunders today?

I thought he was Dr Addiction?
I'm not sure if this is the guy
http://www.homecuresthatwork.com/co...iew-with-dr-saunders-addictions/#.UfKnwxZDNRg

 

[LastTear]

Your post was directed at soundmind's post criticising aeg which i agreed with. Why are you saying that 'you have to understand aeg have to defend themselves' when you're replying to posts like that. Some of the issues raised in it were to do with aeg's treatment of mj in the run up to tii, what's that got to do with their right to defend themselves? Some of us have big problems in how aeg treated mj - the way they exploited his financial weakness, their disparaging attitude towards him as shown in emails, the ignoring by phillips of the number of senior people raising really disturbing issues about mj just 3 weeks before opening night. [And in reply to all the posters who constantly bring up this meeting on the 20th, no i don't think calling a meeting where the main item on the agenda seemed not to be concern about mj but to be making sure ortega left his concerns at the door about mj and to leave it all to murray, was in any way showing concern.]

Similarly with the defence agenda that aeg has chosen to go down, I understand perfectly that aeg have to defend themselves, but why should that mean we have to accept it or even defend their point of view? Aeg go on about mj having personal responsibility, well so does aeg in how they choose to defend themselves. They have a good case with the unforeseeability and if as they say they have nothing to do with mj's wrongful death then they can argue on the strong narrative they claim to have. I believe that murray's quite spectacularly gross negligence killed mj on 25 june, a belief based on following murray's trial not based on being an emotional fangirl, so anything that they try and bring in to cloud that judgment i'm going to react negatively to. I don't give a toss if it's all part of aeg's cunning strategy, i don't agree with it.

Whole quote from Soundmind

By the way I'm not saying AEG knew about propofol or should have known . They obviously did not . That's not the point , the point they are lying , twisting the facts, trashing him to get themselves out of this case , he did nothing to them , he was a victim , a man they made millions off trashed him in life and continue to trash him in death . Instead of going after his greedy family especially since all the documents are with them , they continue to go after him , killing his character , his achievemnets , his legact . They did lie to him , they did give him falsehopes based on their own witnesses . Their own witnesses testified the numbers were exaggerated . He only agreed to do the concerts , agreed to take the risk for financial reasons as Putman said in his testimony , but everything was a complete lie . He ended up dead because of murray's actions but Murray would not have entered the picutre if AEG did not lie to MJ about everything

Because soundmind is asking why they are trashing Michael instead of his greedy family. Yes some of the issues raised in Soundminds post was referring to AEG's treatment of MJ, I didn't comment on those, I had been communicating with Soundmind earlier, and I wanted to acknowledge his/her frustration and as a fellow fan and member of the same board I didn't want to brush away his/her heartfelt comment. Does that satisfy you?

*************

@Bubs, thanks for the info, just trying to brace myself.

 

[AliCat]

It's obvious from Dr. Alimorad Farshchian, that Michael Jackson had physical ailments, from his professional dancing. Between hurting his back and than getting a sprained ankle, Michael Jackson was in a lot of pain. This may explain the demerol usage, but, Michael Jackson did not want to continue the use of this medication and asked Dr. Alimorad Farshchian for his expertise, as a medical professional, to help him with his expertise to end the use of demerol for his, Michael Jackson's, usage, as it sounds like Michael's physical ailments, were healing and not causing as much pain to Michael. The sprained ankle, cause by Michael's profession, of dancing, to the back pain, caused by the fall in Michael's Show, in 1999, produced by Marcel Avram.

It's Michael Jackson's physical ailments, the sprained ankle, the hurt back, are not given as much attention as to Michael using demerol to help him cope with how much pain he was in, physically speaking. I understand Michael's pain, because as we age, it is harder to heal. I recently sprained my ankle and it took so long to heal, that I don't think it has completely healed as I type this. I am not a professional dancer and I feel for Michael for this was his livelihood and his body depended on him to be able to function 100% for the kind of performances that he gave, on the level of a Barnum and Bailey performance, the greatest Show on earth.

Too many bumps and bruises, I don't blame Michael Jackson for using something to help him live with the intense pain he was under. Back pain and a sprained ankle would be almost unbearable to live with, without going into shock from your body trying to handle that much stress and Michael is not young, as a professional athlete. Most professional athlete's are forced to retire, on account of all the injureis they suffer. In Michael's judgement, the demerol was his best medicine to help him cope and when he thought it was time to stop taking the medicine, Michael took appropriate measure's to discontinue the use.

 

[ivy]

I don't think there's doctor-patient privilege among doctors / healthcare professionals treating the same patient - that's common sense. We have seen letters among doctors about Michael , in which they informed each other of treatments , pathologies, etc.. Otherwise doctors would not be able to talk to nurses, etc.. a patient can not explain things the way a doctor would.

in some instances it might require an authorization actually. For example my general physician was not aware of my surgery - well because I did not tell her and I did not tell my surgeon who is my primary care doctor is. My general physician saw me with bandages one day when I was visiting her, she asked me what happened, I told her I had surgery, she asked for the surgeons name, she asked if I would authorize her to see the medical records (I did) and she asked me if there are other doctors I see that she's unaware of.

Obviously a surgeon and a anesthesiologist working on the same procedure is a little different. I would imagine the anesthesiologist given access to information related to the operation ahead but I'm not sure if they have access to everything. Or like I said perhaps it is just double checking. For example my weight is in my chart, my surgeons nurse measures all my vitals every time I show up - even for 5 minute check ups - yet the anesthesiologist always asked me what my weight was.

So these miscommunications happen, though I can understand his frustration..

same here. at the end of the day Michael stopped breathing twice, it's lucky that Fournier is a professional and was properly monitoring him and was able to revive him but anyone would be frustrated when they found out there was a piece of relevant information that wasn't given to them and that might have caused the issue in the first place.

@ Bubs : is there a nurse on this jury ?

yes there is

Similarly with the defence agenda that aeg has chosen to go down, I understand perfectly that aeg have to defend themselves, but why should that mean we have to accept it or even defend their point of view?

You surely don't need to accept it but I don't think it's realistic to expect them to come up with a defense that would please the fans. At the end of the day no matter how angry the fans are or how much we reject their claims, they are going to do the defense they want to do. I feel that's the issue here. For example I see many fans say "how dare AEG says this" well they dare because they are defending themselves in a billion dollar lawsuit and keeping MJ fans happy is not one of their motives.

For example I personally did not want this trial because as I read the court documents I saw very clearly what AEG's strategy will be - put the responsibility on Michael. I don't agree with it, I'm not happy about it. It really disturbs me when media tweets about Michael's medical history especially the last 2 days. But unfortunately this is the nature of the beast. This was to be expected the moment this trial went forward . It's not necessarily defending their approach but just realizing that this was to be expected and nothing can be done about it.

 

[LastTear]

Can I just remind you that they are not telling US anything, they are presenting their case to the jury.
Earlier there was a post from memefan and Ivy's post above about looking this case from fan perspective.
I admit I'm at least sometimes guilty of it, but we need to look this case how it is going to look for juros, and they are not fan of MJ like us. They don't automatically know why certain procedure or cosmetic thingys which fans knows in a heartbeat, but jurors don't.

@Ivy
"Similarly as the author pointed out we as fans can be angry about AEG pressuring Michael but a jury might look to $6 Million in advances and $30 Million in costs and think it was more than okay to ask Michael to show up to rehearsals. After all these jury are probably people who have conditions in their employment that if they have several unexcused absences they can be fired (I have such clause in my contract).
So yeah we clearly omitting a non-fan perspective."

I agree. I have kind of tipped the subject earlier but no response of what others thinks so I left it.

I often state in a post that I am trying to be objective, I don't think I always manage it. I am in life a realist though, so I know there are consequences to actions. Every action has a reaction, right?

For all our communications on here it will be interesting to hear what these jury members made of it all.

 

[bouee]

yes there is

That's good news.

 

[LastTear]

The last part of your post. Ivy why would AEG try to said that Michael was being secretive and lying. Was Michael doing only what the doctor told him to do by not mention this to a medical professional? or was it because Michael lying so he can get the Propofol? and that why AEG is saying he was begin secretive about it.


I agree with thIs in the bold.don't see that happen. That why IMO having these doctors come to the stand is a waste of time. It is no secret about Michael taking drugs.

The secretive part goes to the charge that AEG knew or should have known.

Why bring the doctors? The jury will only be able to base their decision on what they have heard in court and not rumours in a tabloid.

Hope that helps.