Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Victory22]

That is how I see it and anything else would not make sense to me. But yet, I have read that several people said they have to prove that they new about the propofol... well we will see I guess.



Well, this is true. But all these people were not responsible for Michael's death, at least not directly. It is Murray that killed him and AEG hired Murray (at least I think so). And I think that, not only did AEG know exactly why Murray was hired, but they also pressured him and pressured Michael into performing instead of considering Michael's personal well-being. I know Murray is really not at all trustworthy, but something makes me believe the story he told about the conversation he had with Randy Philipps. "he does not have a ****ing cent..." AEG is a company and thus they are all about money, they do everything to get the big bucks. But this time Michael was lost in the process and I believe they have to be held responsible. But all that are just assumption and it is totally different to prove it in court.



I really seriously get why people dislike the Jackson, but to me that does not justify approving of everything that AEG did and wanting them to win the trial. Michael's children are also part of the lawsuit and if nothing else, I think we should at least support them so they do not have to go through everything for nothing!

I will always support Michael’s kids and this lawsuit won’t alter that at all. It’s unfortunate that the Jackson family members they trust have them mixed up in this mess to trash their fathers name but it will be over soon. I hope after this the Jackson’s will sit down and stop trying to destroy everything Michael worked to build. Maybe we can move on to building Michael’s legacy to the level it should be which is at the top. Dealing with the Jackson's this may be too much to as however.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I was talking about the March 2009 event. Nobody can critized RP for the way he reacted to a very unprofessional behavior.

The totality of that lawsuit, except for one claim, has been rejected by the judge, if they won it will be on a technicality, not their main claims.

You don't think that "shouting so loud at him the walls are shaking" is unprofessional too?

If they won it would be because the jury have found that the claim of negligent hiring has merit. Whatever happens, I just hope that people respect the jury's decision. It was right for Michael and it was right for CM so I think we have to respect whatever decision they come to in this case.

 

[StellaJackson]

I will always support Michael’s kids and this lawsuit won’t alter that at all. It’s unfortunate that the Jackson family members they trust have them mixed up in this mess to trash their fathers name but it will be over soon. I hope after this the Jackson’s will sit down and stop trying to destroy everything Michael worked to build. Maybe we can move on to building Michael’s legacy to the level it should be which is at the top. Dealing with the Jackson's this may be too much to as however.

Michael's legacy was set in stone the day he died. Nothing is ever going to change that.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

If Michael was so passionate about drugs, how his family expected him to do 200 shows with them? How could they rely on him? That family can drive anyone to commit suicide.

Where is the contract he signed to say he was doing 200 shows with them?

 

[Victory22]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Michael's legacy was set in stone the day he died. Nothing is ever going to change that.

That depends on what legacy you are talking about. Sure he will always be known as the greatest entertainer in the world but thanks to his family they have helped the media feed the lie that he was a weak, pathetic, stung out junkie who needed to be handled by business associates, friends and family like he was younger than Blanket.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

That depends on what legacy you are talking about. Sure he will always be known as the greatest entertainer in the world but thanks to his family they have helped the media feed the lie that he was a weak, pathetic, stung out junkie who needed to be handled by business associates, friends and family like he was younger than Blanket.

People believed that long before he died. Most people outside the fan community don't really care.

 

[Victory22]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

You don't think that "shouting so loud at him the walls are shaking" is unprofessional too?

If they won it would be because the jury have found that the claim of negligent hiring has merit. Whatever happens, I just hope that people respect the jury's decision. It was right for Michael and it was right for CM so I think we have to respect whatever decision they come to in this case.

Although shouting at a person loud enough to make the walls shake is very rude and unprofessional it does not merrit 1 billion in damages IMO. Joe did the same thing to Michael and the brothers all of their lives and fans stick up for him and make excuses for his abusive bullying and actual physical abuse.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Although shouting at a person loud enough to make the walls shake is very rude and unprofessional it does not merrit 1 billion in damages IMO. Joe did the same thing to Michael and the brothers all of their lives and fans stick up for him and make excuses for his abusive bullying and actual physical abuse.

Since when is anyone claiming a billion in damages because of what Randy Phillips said?

 

[Victory22]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

People believed that long before he died. Most people outside the fan community don't really care.

My point is that if the family had genuine love and compassion for Michael the way they portrayed him after his death would have gone a long way in changing negative perceptions of him but all they cared about was pushing their agenda and trying to make themselves look good.

 

[ivy]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Opening statements are like a road map to what to expect during the trial. The following testimony is like a puzzle that creates the full picture.

As for AEg not being harsh on opening statements, it makes sense. Katherine is an old grieving mother who is looking after the orphaned kids of Michael and suing AEG for wrongful death. She's sympathetic. AEG would not win anything by attacking her and Michael's kids. AEG even at their opening statements said stuff like they don't want to badly portray Michael but they have to do it to defend themselves. Opening statements are also the first impressions on jury. Both sides would want to be seen as likable to jury.

At first I didn't understand what purpose Paramedic Senneff served but I'm guessing it is to show that Michael being not in good shape should have been obvious to everyone as Senneff within seconds could form an opinion that he looked bad. Important to point out that Senneff did see Michael naked or semi naked - seeing his chest, rib cage etc. While clothed other people might not been aware that Michael was getting thinner or "skeletal".

Detective Martinez was helpful to the Jacksons in regards that after a background & credit check he came to the conclusion that Murray had significant debts and money could have been a motive for him. Martinez provided support for Jackson's claims that it's a logical assumption that Murray could be willing to cut corners for money.

Now Martinez has also said you can't run a credit check without authorization. So that part will become a point for dueling experts in human resources. When does employers do credit checks? What is an acceptable practice? Does AEG do any credit checks? so the question becomes - is credit checks optional or requires? is credit checks done regularly or not for AEG employees?

Demerol versus Propofol looks like will be another important factor in this lawsuit. AEG will argue that painkiller addiction and Propofol are two different things and show that even Jackson's weren't aware about Propofol. Jackson side will argue that Propofol or Demerol or whatever doesn't make a difference and known past addiction should have made them pay more attention. It'll be interesting to see if the jury will differentiate between drugs or will approach to it as "addiction is addiction".

I know we are mainly following the trial from media but I'm curious if AEG actually focused on Murray's lies or not. Media reports make it sound like Murray's lies were only mentioned briefly. Murray has lied to cops during an investigation (which could be a criminal offense) and has lied to paramedics during an emergency situation. These provide a strong evidence that Murray probably lied to AEG as well when asked about Michael's health.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

My point is that if the family had genuine love and compassion for Michael the way they portrayed him after his death would have gone a long way in changing negative perceptions of him but all they cared about was pushing their agenda and trying to make themselves look good.

I haven't seen them say anything particularly negative. Jermaine's book for example is very defensive of Michael. Where specifically have they said anything against him?

 

[ivy]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

If Michael was so passionate about drugs, how his family expected him to do 200 shows with them? How could they rely on him? That family can drive anyone to commit suicide.

Where is the contract he signed to say he was doing 200 shows with them?

Stella - that's the part of Jackson's claims. a world tour of total 260 shows + 4 more tours. (if I'm not mistaken about the numbers). There's no contract but there were talks about a world tour with AEG. Also this is a two edged sword. If you claim Michael only signed up to do 10 or 50 shows, you limit the possible economic damages to that. If you claim - just as the Jacksons- Michael would have done a 260 show world tour + more world tours the possible economic damages increase significantly.

Aquarius - interesting isn't it? I don't get that point either. So according to Jacksons Michael at times had issues with dependency and this especially got worse during tours and/or he's under stress. So wouldn't he be under stress , need for drugs, risk for forming a dependency during those 4-5 world tours?

I guess the assumption is if no doctors were allowed near him, he couldn't get the drugs and would do the tours clean but as stressed as he can be. This one would require a "Control" of which doctor Michael could see or not see - something they accused AEG of doing - but could not substantiate.

For example perhaps if AEG didn't hire Murray , Michael would not be getting Propofol but he would be still stressed and nervous. So perhaps Phillips could have made him perform by shouting to him every night at a strength that would "shake the walls" - just as how he made Michael show up to the announcement.

Or he would suddenly get over his known dependency and stress issues and would do multiple tours with no problems.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Stella - that's the part of Jackson's claims. a world tour of total 260 shows + 4 more tours. (if I'm not mistaken about the numbers). There's no contract but there were talks about a world tour with AEG. Also this is a two edged sword. If you claim Michael only signed up to do 10 or 50 shows, you limit the possible economic damages to that. If you claim - just as the Jacksons- Michael would have done a 260 show world tour + more world tours the possible economic damages increase significantly.

Aquarius - interesting isn't it? I don't get that point either. So according to Jacksons Michael at times had issues with dependency and this especially got worse during tours and/or he's under stress. So wouldn't he be under stress , need for drugs, risk for forming a dependency during those 4-5 world tours?

I guess the assumption is if no doctors were allowed near him, he couldn't get the drugs and would do the tours clean but as stressed as he can be. This one would require a "Control" of which doctor Michael could see or not see - something they accused AEG of doing - but could not substantiate.

Or he would suddenly get over his known dependency and stress issues and would do multiple tours with no problems.

260 shows and 4 tours with who? Solo with AEG or with Jacksons? Necause Aquarius said that that was what the Jacksons were expecting him to do.

 

[AngieJ]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

My point is that if the family had genuine love and compassion for Michael the way they portrayed him after his death would have gone a long way in changing negative perceptions of him but all they cared about was pushing their agenda and trying to make themselves look good.

And because of this, this is the reason why they don't have the respect other famous families have. Some try to downplay what they do to MJ, but the fact this family is relegated to just dealing with tabloids and other 2nd tier media and just sketchy ass people, tells us they've really handled MJ's tragedy terribly. Even Pat Houston has dealt with some respectable folks since Whitney's passing, but not the Jacksons.

 

[ivy]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

260 shows and 4 tours with who? Solo with AEG or with Jacksons?

AEG was discussing a - ONE- world tour with Michael. There was a possibility that This is it could be taken to 3-4 other cities around the world as a residency. That's probably where the 260 or so number comes from. There was no contract and probably would depend on how the London residency turned out. Nevertheless there were talks.

Tour with Jacksons and 3-4 other tours were first mentioned in Jermaine's book and now made the lawsuit. I don't know what the source for that or whether it was with AEG or not.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

AEG was discussing a - ONE- world tour with Michael. There was a possibility that This is it could be taken to 3-4 other cities around the world as a residency. That's probably where the 260 or so number comes from. There was no contract and probably would depend on how the London residency turned out. Nevertheless there were talks.

Tour with Jacksons and 3-4 other tours were first mentioned in Jermaine's book and now made the lawsuit. I don't know what the source for that or whether it was with AEG or not.

Aquarius was talking about the Jacksons expecting Mj to do 200 shows with them. But like I was saying, no such thing was ever set in stone and he never would have done that.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

And because of this, this is the reason why they don't have the respect other famous families have. Some try to downplay what they do to MJ, but the fact this family is relegated to just dealing with tabloids and other 2nd tier media and just sketchy ass people, tells us they've really handled MJ's tragedy terribly. Even Pat Houston has dealt with some respectable folks since Whitney's passing, but not the Jacksons.

Their perception in the industry was negative before MJ died, but they had a chance when he died to try and show people who they were.

Unfortunately for them, they did.

 

[myosotis]

Just a quick note....it doesn't really 'fit' anywhere in these threads but I just thought I'd mention it...the court artist who illustrated the first few days of this trial is the same artist who covered much of Michael's trial in 2005 (Bill Robles). I wonder how he feels , after drawing Michael for so many months..........I imagine that it can't be easy for him to cover this trial too.

Here's what he wrote about the trial in 2005:

Michael Jackson, a worldwide figure, seems very gentle and humble. At one point he approached me in court during jury selection to ask for one of my business cards, which has his image on it, by the way. It was incredible; when I showed him a drawing of himself with his attorneys, he lit up like a Christmas tree; usually it’s the lawyers who ask.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0504/dis_robles.html

 

[Aquarius]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Where is the contract he signed to say he was doing 200 shows with them?

As far as I know there's no signed contract. My statement is based on what they said in an interview, don't remember the name of the show. The four brothers were there & one of them said they were going to do 200 shows with Michael. I presume that was a lie as many others the Jackson have said. But my point was the contradictions in their words, how could they rely on Michael if, as the family is saying, he had drug problems?

 

[Chamife]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

My point is that if the family had genuine love and compassion for Michael the way they portrayed him after his death would have gone a long way in changing negative perceptions of him but all they cared about was pushing their agenda and trying to make themselves look good.

Compassion and love....: Where is it from fans? No one in this whole forum ever (as far as I know) talks about how hard life must have been for Michael living with an addiction. How he had to try his best, living with that. I don't think addiction is a dirty word and I don't think people who suffer under it are less people. They have to be stronger than people who don't suffer from it. Life is harder for them, because it effects everything in a negative way. There was always something expected from Michael and he was always in the public eye. Try and live with that perfect image, suffering from an addiction.

And "the drug that takes you to the valley of death and then brings you back" (Michael's words to Deepak Choprah a few years before 2009) doesn't sound very safe to me.

That depends on what legacy you are talking about. Sure he will always be known as the greatest entertainer in the world but thanks to his family they have helped the media feed the lie that he was a weak, pathetic, stung out junkie who needed to be handled by business associates, friends and family like he was younger than Blanket.

And what if he was? He needed compassion and help. Not expectations he couldn't live up to, because of addiction problems.

And he would still be a respectable person.

 

[Victory22]

Compassion and love....: Where is it from fans? No one in this whole forum ever (as far as I know) talks about how hard life must have been for Michael living with an addiction. How he had to try his best, living with that. I don't think addiction is a dirty word and I don't think people who suffer under it are less people. They have to be stronger than people who don't suffer from it. Life is harder for them, because it effects everything in a negative way. There was always something expected from Michael and he was always in the public eye. Try and live with that perfect image, suffering from an addiction.

And "the drug that takes you to the valley of death and then brings you back" (Michael's words to Deepak Choprah a few years before 2009) doesn't sound very safe to me.


And what if he was? He needed compassion and help. Not expectations he couldn't live up to, because of addiction problems.

And he would still be a respectable person.

How did you come up with the notion that no one on this forum has compassion for Michael's struggles with addiction or that we/I want him to be perfect? As a longtime fan I am well aware of Michael’s stent in rehab as well as the fact he was a flawed human being just like the rest of us. All I’m saying is that if you care about a family member or even a friend you don't point out the flaws to strangers or people you know are waiting to hear dirt. You don't give the media ammunition and hold them up to ridicule. All of us know about Michael’s problems but there is no need to harp on them discussing them at nausea here on a forum that was set up to honor him.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Here is some info on background checks, including credit-checks.

https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

As far as I know there's no signed contract. My statement is based on what they said in an interview, don't remember the name of the show. The four brothers were there & one of them said they were going to do 200 shows with Michael. I presume that was a lie as many others the Jackson have said. But my point was the contradictions in their words, how could they rely on Michael if, as the family is saying, he had drug problems?

I think that was the interview they did in a foreign country while they were on tour. It is somewhere in the 2300 section.

 

[bouee]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

And what if he was? He needed compassion and help. Not expectations he couldn't live up to, because of addiction problems.

And he would still be a respectable person.

It's not denying it, from my point of view anyway. I agree that it is very common and not shameful at all. My problem with all this addiction talk in this thread is that I don't think it was the case in 2009, at least before Murray came into the picture. I think he had overcome it, and not to mention it is denying the efforts he had to make to deal with that, and showing addiction as a problem that can never be dealt with. He spent 3 months with nurse Lee trying to find a solution without medication, that's an effort for example. And more importantly, I don't think it's the truth.

After Murray accepted to give propofol, it's hard to talk about Michael's repsonsability, because we don't even know what Murray was doing exactly (was it only propofol ? I doubt that), we don't know why Michael specifically asked for propofol (it could have been because he thought he would avoid physical addiction and other side effects from benzos for example, in that case he would have been trying to avoid getting addicted ), we don't know what Murray told him, and we do know that Murray has a lot of imagination. So it's hard to know what Michael was thinking about this "treatment". We just know he couldn't sleep and could not find a solution.

Murray , and maybe other doctors, lied to him and betrayed their patient. This can't be taken out of the picture, it's essential, and that is one of the important issue of this trial, not really Michael's past addiction and how he dealt with it. Murray is the doctor and he lied to everybody, probably including Michael and AEG.

Back in 2008, I don't think AEG would have made a deal with Michael if they had suspected anything. I think the point is how they reacted when they saw something was wrong, and when they should have suspected that something was wrong IMO.

 

[Tygger]

why not join to the Estate and ask for sealing of the information and even closing the courtroom then?

If I remember correctly, the plaintiffs did ask for the medical records to be sealed along with the estate. The defendants fought for their emails.

As for AEg not being harsh on opening statements, it makes sense. Katherine is an old grieving mother who is looking after the orphaned kids of Michael and suing AEG for wrongful death. She's sympathetic. AEG would not win anything by attacking her and Michael's kids. AEG even at their opening statements said stuff like they don't want to badly portray Michael but they have to do it to defend themselves. Opening statements are also the first impressions on jury. Both sides would want to be seen as likable to jury.

At first I didn't understand what purpose Paramedic Senneff served but I'm guessing it is to show that Michael being not in good shape should have been obvious to everyone as Senneff within seconds could form an opinion that he looked bad. Important to point out that Senneff did see Michael naked or semi naked - seeing his chest, rib cage etc. While clothed other people might not been aware that Michael was getting thinner or "skeletal".

Detective Martinez was helpful to the Jacksons in regards that after a background & credit check he came to the conclusion that Murray had significant debts and money could have been a motive for him. Martinez provided support for Jackson's claims that it's a logical assumption that Murray could be willing to cut corners for money.

Now Martinez has also said you can't run a credit check without authorization. So that part will become a point for dueling experts in human resources. When does employers do credit checks? What is an acceptable practice? Does AEG do any credit checks? so the question becomes - is credit checks optional or requires? is credit checks done regularly or not for AEG employees?

Demerol versus Propofol looks like will be another important factor in this lawsuit. AEG will argue that painkiller addiction and Propofol are two different things and show that even Jackson's weren't aware about Propofol. Jackson side will argue that Propofol or Demerol or whatever doesn't make a difference and known past addiction should have made them pay more attention. It'll be interesting to see if the jury will differentiate between drugs or will approach to it as "addiction is addiction".

I know we are mainly following the trial from media but I'm curious if AEG actually focused on Murray's lies or not. Media reports make it sound like Murray's lies were only mentioned briefly. Murray has lied to cops during an investigation (which could be a criminal offense) and has lied to paramedics during an emergency situation. These provide a strong evidence that Murray probably lied to AEG as well when asked about Michael's health.

The defendants have Michael and his mother blameworthy for his death on the verdict forms (they may have not been finalized). If they were not harsh, it could be they have realized blaming Katherine is a bit foolish and have decided on another defense.

I believe Paramedic Senneff’s testimony was in line with the plaintiffs lawyer's opening statements that mentioned an AEG email.

Another email is from when AEG was putting together This is it movie. Email says make sure we take out shots of MJ in red jacket... He looks too thin, skeletal (ABC7)

Background and credit checks are done as a condition of employment by many employers. I would be surprised a company the size of AEG did not perform these types of checks on their potential employees and independent contractors.

Ivy, I am interested in what you find was omitted from the summaries done by the news sources and the court transcripts of the opening statements. Maybe one news outlet is more reliable than another.

And because of this, this is the reason why they don't have the respect other famous families have. Some try to downplay what they do to MJ, but the fact this family is relegated to just dealing with tabloids and other 2nd tier media and just sketchy ass people, tells us they've really handled MJ's tragedy terribly. Even Pat Houston has dealt with some respectable folks since Whitney's passing, but not the Jacksons.

Some fans realize racism was one of the reasons Michael was disrespected by some in the public and many media outlets. A true review of the Jackson family’s public history will show racism was one of the reason they were disrespected as a whole for decades.

For the Houston family, there are many detractors who question their motives after Whitney Houston’s death. There is no protocol for how to behave after the death of a loved one.

Compassion and love....: Where is it from fans? No one in this whole forum ever (as far as I know) talks about how hard life must have been for Michael living with an addiction. How he had to try his best, living with that. I don't think addiction is a dirty word and I don't think people who suffer under it are less people. They have to be stronger than people who don't suffer from it. Life is harder for them, because it effects everything in a negative way. There was always something expected from Michael and he was always in the public eye. Try and live with that perfect image, suffering from an addiction.

And "the drug that takes you to the valley of death and then brings you back" (Michael's words to Deepak Choprah a few years before 2009) doesn't sound very safe to me.

And what if he was? He needed compassion and help. Not expectations he couldn't live up to, because of addiction problems.

And he would still be a respectable person.

Perfection.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

"If I remember correctly, the plaintiffs did ask for the medical records to be sealed along with the estate. The defendants fought for their emails."

I think you remember incorrectly. Plaintiffs didn't object the estate's request of medical records kept sealed.
They didn't ask or join to estate's motion, they just didn't object it - not the same thing.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

That depends on what legacy you are talking about. Sure he will always be known as the greatest entertainer in the world but thanks to his family they have helped the media feed the lie that he was a weak, pathetic, stung out junkie who needed to be handled by business associates, friends and family like he was younger than Blanket.

I absolutely agree with you.
I was thinking of Joan Crawford and her legacy. She will be always remembered as brilliant actress, but her adopted daughter wrote a book about her calling her "mommy dearest" among other things, which some of Joan's closest friends and family members denied. Those denials from her friends and family were not heard as the picture of Joan as "mommy dearest" is more juicy and it came from her daughter, and that picture of her will carries on with her legacy to the future.
What if her friends and family were right and she didn't do those things that her daughter accused her doing?
Doesn't matter, Joan Crawford is still Mommy Dearest" in the history books, whether it is true or not.

The same thing with Michael. His so called family is painting Michael as helpless addict that couldn't do anything to himself, using drugs since 90's etc. I can only imagine the future books written (re R Sullivan) about MJ, and this so called family happily provides ammunion to those books. It would be useless to fight these future's Sullivan's as they will say, "but family said it is true".
Yes sure he was great entertainer, or the greatest, but he was junkie.
I fear that is what we are going to read from history books.

 

[Virre]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I think that was the interview they did in a foreign country while they were on tour. It is somewhere in the 2300 section.

Skavlan, a show in Sweden.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Skavlan, a show in Sweden.

and in their interviews in UK. Funny that they are so stuck on past that they don't understand what they say in Sweden, Australia,Chine, Timbuktu or anywhere, will find its way to US and slap them on their faces.
Anyways, here is the link to the board where they say MJ touring with them:
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...d-thread-for-Jackson-brothers-interviews-2013

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

The Jacksons were the ones who filed this lawsuit accusing AEG of hiring an "addicted man" and they should've known about it. AEG are just responding to the family's accusations. So yes I do believe they brought it up first. Not to mention they started talking about interventions before this lawsuit was even filed..
--------------------------------------------
thank you.to try to denie the facts when they are staring you in the face about who filed this suit and who started this d.a talk is beyond me. not mention d.a stories sold to the press
in the 00's normally to friedman. everytime mj turned down reunions or biz deals or when he called randy out in that depo up popped those stories in the press.


the jacksons are taking info from murrays defence and using it to help themself. its well documented mj had insomnia for decades and before the burn incident.kj spoke about it herself about when mj lived at encino. of course the way his family acted towards him would never be a contributing factor