I will maintain that Saunders testimony, like Fournier’s before him, held no value and they have been used to confuse the jury. AEG’s defense to their alleged hiring of the doctor is Michael was secretive about his addiction issues. Just because this is their defense, I see no need to try and re-interpret Michael’s history to fit AEG’s defense.
It’s obvious that they won’t be able to establish the full drug history and they don’t have to. It is all about what the jury believes and this is a civil trial, all that is needed for AEG’s strategy to work that the jury think Michael is more likely to be doctor shopping and /or had addiction problems.
What Ivy said is true. This is a civil trial and AEG only has to present what is most likely, not what can be proven; the same for the plaintiffs.
Any other person seeing TWO doctors for an ailment would have been considered to have gotten a second opinion. Because it is Michael Jackson and an extreme, negative Michael Jackson spin is more acceptable to some in the general public, seeing TWO doctors is equated to doctor shopping.
AEG IS specifically staying in one period (about 2001-2003 as Soundmind said) when Michael may have had his most difficulties with Demerol as their defense. Is that logical to anyone? It does not matter that these events were legitimate (Michael did NOT create injuries to get medication as Soundmind said), were spaced out (did not happen daily as Bouee detailed below), and Michael himself, sought help to rid himself of a dependency on an addictive substance when his dependency on it was legitimate as well (Soundmind said this as well).
The implant has no value in this case. It does matter how many implants Michael had. Each one was a sign he was successfully helping himself. The implants of 2003 were not the cause of his 2009 passing and it did not cause AEG to allegedly hire the doctor. It is only being discussed because AEG rather talk about the implant than talk about their interactions with the doctor they allegedly hired.
Every word in that courtroom about Michael’s past is one word NOT about AEG’s culpability.
AEG just needs to confuse a few jurors with the useless testimony of these doctors (and Rowe and a few others on their witness list) and just maybe these few jurors will be more focused with this deflection than AEG’s alleged hiring of the doctor that killed Michael negligently with propofol NOT Demerol. It is the exact same defense that did NOT work during the criminal trial. It should not be a successful defense just because this is a civil trial and the plaintiffs’ last name is Jackson.
We have Dr Schnoll I think (Jacksons side) , who said that Michael was demerol free for 13 1/2 years after 1993. It means that he used demerol for another 2 1/2 years , probably on and off. So the Jacskons are not disputing that. 2 1/2 years are 30 months.
We have 2 different instances from dr Saunders, 10 months apart. Then Farschian says he was addicted in 02 when Blanket was born and asked for help in late october 02.
So altogether so far we have : 3 days in february 01, due to a foot injury. 14th december 01- february 02 (Blanket's date of birth) to late october 02. Visits to Klein april-june 09 (but he was not addicted at that time) : that's bewteen 11 - 14 months so far, roughly.
It can be interpreted differently : Michael trying to do something about addiction, but not succeeding right away. So the bracelet, telling doctors he didn't want demerol, but relapsing- or having to - every now and then, until finally succeeding. It sounds like a plausible scenario to me.
Another thing that is very weird to me , this time about Saunders testimony is that no one seems surprised by the demerol doses - 200 mg each time , with another medication. Fournier said the starting dose would be 12 to 25 mg. So there's a big difference. Michael might not have known or thought about talking about tolerance, but a doctor would have noticed. Saunders was at the hopsital with Michael the first time. I'm surprised the records that were shown don't mention tolerance. I guess it was edited out, but the "copious amount" was left...
I can understand those arguments as it relates to life expectancy, but I really don't see the link with the whole Murray situation, and him being visibly incompetent from a layman's point of view.
Yes it's good that a nurse is on the jury, he/she will have a better understanding and can explain some stuff to the others. Also from my personnal experience, patient blaming is not really popular among nurses.
Bouee, I truly wish you were on that jury! I really hope there is someone like you to lay the facts out for the jurors to make clear decisions.
Lastly, “once an addict, always an addict” MEANS a relapse is always possible. It does
NOT mean the person’s ADDICTION IS ALWAYS ACTIVE!
uke: