Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[bouee]

I explained the reasoning for this a million times. I posted close to 30 examples of how knowing one thing in the past doesn't mean it's reasonable to know something else. So AEG as they said in their defense is arguing that even though they knew Demerol issues, there was no way for them to be able to foresee Propofol at home. We don't know if this argument will be successful or not but that's it looks like they will be going with. I get it you don't agree with it but at least I would think you know "why" part.

I know the "why" part, it was a rhethorical question - I posted my explanation. I know and I remenber the examples you gave- I understand but don't think the "foreseeable" risk is propofol. Apprently the Jacksons' lawyers and the judge don't think that the foreseeable risk was propofol either.

Frankly, blaming the doctor (and maybe Michael) would be the easiest thing to do, and closer to the truth. But it doesn't look like that's what they are doing.

I don't get this logic sorry. Let's say they suspected Klein - and looks like they did with that "he's scaring us" email, why would they also suspect Murray? What's the logic behind that? why can't they suspect Klein and think Murray had nothing to do with it? Didn't even Karen suspected Klein and asked how often Michael went to Klein but did not ask questions about murray? why did Kai Chase who saw Murray spending the night and the oxygen tanks did not suspect something improper going on? and if they suspected murray why would Dileo call him and say "do a blood test"?

I know you say it's impossible to not suspect Murray but there are a lot of people who testified that they did not suspect Murray and there are several non - AEG people who testified the only time they saw Michael off was after Klein and that's what made then suspect Klein.

re the logic about suspecting Klein : it's suspecting drug abuse/ misuse. "Wrong" doctor - in a way- , but right reason. Michael's health declined under Murray's care, not Klein's. Or said in other words, things got worse when Murray got into the picture. So there was no reason to suspect one and not the other since Phillips was supsecting drugs. Again, as per Phillips e mail to Ortega "Murray's a fine doctor", Phillips knew about concerns about Murray- He was not reassuring Ortgea about Klein , he was reassuring Ortega about Murray, not Michael.

Still about Klein : as I said, i'm curious to know WHEN they saw Michael being out of it, and how often. We know now that the highest dose of demerol was given in april, I think I remember it was 375 mg- the other times I think (not sure) it was around 200mg. It was significantly higher that one time in april.

Travis & Ortega had suspicions about Murray. The others didn't have as much info as Phillips had on 20th. Kai Chase was not at rehearsals, had no way to know what was going on there. Frank dDiLeo is a mystery, I have no idea what he was doing : was he at rehearsals, what info did he get, when. What was his state of mind ? We just have no idea.

After Michael died, Phillips continued to defend Murray.

And if Phillips really had no supsicion- which i really don't believe-, why not use all those arguments and put the blame on Murray ? We've got to wait and see what they do when they present their case-but so far it doesn't look like it. We talked about that before, I think - that's only my opinion- it just makes things more difficult for them to go that way, it's not really credible.

 

[ivy]

the judge don't think that the foreseeable risk was propofol either.

not quite true. a judge only needs to think that it's a question to the jury. I wrote this before too, a jury might look to that argument and can differentiate between propofol or demerol or approach it as all drugs the same type doesn't matter. So that's what a judge needs, just to think that there's a question there. and as I pointed out previously too, we will have to wait and see if the jury makes such a distinction and if AEG's argument will be successful or not.

Frankly, blaming the doctor (and maybe Michael) would be the easiest thing to do, and closer to the truth. But it doesn't look like that's what they are doing.

and again with the "put the blame on murray" and again I provided you the reasoning for it. they do face a possibility that they could be held responsible for Murray's actions, why would they put the blame on Murray and shoot themselves in the foot? does that even make a little bit sense to you? As I mentioned when you are in a case, you operate within the boundaries of the case. yes putting the blame on Murray could be more realistic but you wouldn't want to do that when you are operating in an environment that is "murray's fault = AEG's fault". simple logic would show you that if that's the limitation of this case you need to remove the responsibility from Murray to protect yourself (meaning AEG).

re the logic about suspecting Klein : it's suspecting drug abuse/ misuse. "Wrong" doctor - in a way- , but right reason. Michael's health declined under Murray's care, not Klein's. Or said in other words, things got worse when Murray got into the picture.

this is hindsight in my opinion.

Let me tell you what I see, they sign a contract with Michael, he is fine, exited, involved in meetings. He goes to a physical and he passes it with flying colors. As far as they know he's clean (Gongaware telling it to Finkelstein), he's focused, he's on top of his game. At one meeting they see Michael loopy, out of it and they curious, they ask his bodyguards and hear that he's coming from Klein, (ortega has similar experiences after Klein too), at this point in this paps are following Michael around and every few days he's being pictured coming out of Klein's office. Perhaps at this time they are starting to realize some problems in the way Michael act, what's the first thing comes to mind? Klein? Michael's manager asks Phillips for money and in the process he sees a bill with all those shots. He doesn't know what they are for certain but it scares him as now he can add "Klein multiple shots = Michael acting loopy". Phillips admitted that he pulled Murray aside and told him "are you aware Michael is seeing Klein" and Dileo calls Murray telling him to do a blood test to find out what Michael is taking.

and that brings us back to demerol versus Propofol. It's hard to deny knowledge of Demerol, Finkelstein told he told Gongaware, he said Michael acted weird after Klien and Hoeeflin visited Michael during dangerous tour, Michael made an announcement and went to rehab. in 2009 the see Michael loopy after Klein , paps report Michael going to Klein regularly, Phillips see an invoice with all these shots. So they suspect and get scared of Klein and they express thesr concerns to the other doctor / the second opinion doctor Murray. He's told to be aware and told to make tests. So Murray is actually the second independent opinion doctor against Klein as the suspected Klein.

so that ends it with the argument that "yes we knew Michaels issues with painkillers in 1993, in 2009 we suspected and scared that Klein might be shooting him up with pain medicines as well but there's no way that we knew , should have known or suspected that Murray was hooking Michael up to anesthesia every night in his bedroom".

 

[LastTear]

Painted Desert Ranch ?@DJRJPDR5 h
I guess I should get some rest before the donkey court on twitter starts tomorrow if the judge doesn't take her meds it should be early


2005 all over again.

No this is to do with some lunatic Debbie had interaction with on twitter, apparently this person is going to destroy her today and Lester is going to testify. Nothing to do with AEG as far as I can tell.

 

[Soundmind]

I explained the reasoning for this a million times. I posted close to 30 examples of how knowing one thing in the past doesn't mean it's reasonable to know something else. So AEG as they said in their defense is arguing that even though they knew Demerol issues, there was no way for them to be able to foresee Propofol at home. We don't know if this argument will be successful or not but that's it looks like they will be going with. I get it you don't agree with it but at least I would think you know "why" part.



I don't get this logic sorry. Let's say they suspected Klein - and looks like they did with that "he's scaring us" email, why would they also suspect Murray? What's the logic behind that? why can't they suspect Klein and think Murray had nothing to do with it? Didn't even Karen suspected Klein and asked how often Michael went to Klein but did not ask questions about murray? why did Kai Chase who saw Murray spending the night and the oxygen tanks did not suspect something improper going on? and if they suspected murray why would Dileo call him and say "do a blood test"?

I know you say it's impossible to not suspect Murray but there are a lot of people who testified that they did not suspect Murray and there are several non - AEG people who testified the only time they saw Michael off was after Klein and that's what made then suspect Klein.

Going by your reasoning even if AEG saw Murray injecting MJ with ptopofol that would not prove anything because they could just say we thought it was painkillers . Makes no sense . This is a civil trial not a criminal trial the defendants don't need to prove they knew the specific name of the drug used . If he was taking heroine and they suspected he was taking it However , he overdosed on cockaine , would that make any difference ?

Did Randy phillips write Arnie was shooting him with demerol ?No, he wrote he was shooting him with something that something was drug to Randy , irrelevant if it was demeol o propofol .

 

[jaydom7]

The sad part is MJ was fine in April and everyone said he started acting different only a month later when Murray got in the picture. Why didn't Phillips ask the bodyguards about Murray visiting every night with oxygen tanks since he was asking the guards about MJ visiting Klein and appearing loopy? he could've asked about Murray and what his expertise was and why was he going over MJ's nightly everyday? wasn't AEG paying the bodyguards too? they were supposed to be protecting MJ instead they allowed him to run around loopy, freezing, emaciated and mumbling according to people who saw him. Karen Faye said she thought MJ was dying, so where were the guards or Michael Amir to take care of him?

 

[LastTear]

Yeah, Karen Faye thought her 'brother' was dying and did nothing but tell someone else.

I wonder with this testimony regarding Michael seeing two doctors at once and not telling the other doctor is also to make the jury consider whether it was just a matter of time before there was an overdose.

 

[bouee]

not quite true. a judge only needs to think that it's a question to the jury. I wrote this before too, a jury might look to that argument and can differentiate between propofol or demerol or approach it as all drugs the same type doesn't matter. So that's what a judge needs, just to think that there's a question there. and as I pointed out previously too, we will have to wait and see if the jury makes such a distinction and if AEG's argument will be successful or not.

Yes, it's a question to the jury : form day one the Jacksons never had any proof AEG knew about propofol, because AEG did not know. The judge was aware of that when she sent this to trial, wasn't she ?

and again with the "put the blame on murray" and again I provided you the reasoning for it. they do face a possibility that they could be held responsible for Murray's actions, why would they put the blame on Murray and shoot themselves in the foot? does that even make a little bit sense to you? As I mentioned when you are in a case, you operate within the boundaries of the case. yes putting the blame on Murray could be more realistic but you wouldn't want to do that when you are operating in an environment that is "murray's fault = AEG's fault". simple logic would show you that if that's the limitation of this case you need to remove the responsibility from Murray to protect yourself (meaning AEG).

And again with the same answer : the judge already made it clear- AEG are not doctors, they can't supervise a doctor's treatment. Propofol and the way it was given is on Murray, not them.
Then we talked about certain forms of liability AEG could have- when we talked about certain risky jobs- that showed AEG could have aimed for negligence on Murray's part. Which is not so difficult to show , since Murray was convicted for that same reason.
It does make sense, but I also said , and still think, that sometimes too much legal talk or reasoning will throw common sense out of the window. Do you really think the jury is not going to wonder about what Murray did ? It's easy to figure out he lied , even if you haven't followed his trial. Then they're going to wonder why isn't AEG blaming him for that, and they only blame Michael. If that's what they're going to do.

It's the same reasoning as when I said it was stupid, and possibly dangerous for them, to use Paris deposition to impeach Kai Chase's irrelevant statements. I guess there are parents on the jury ? They had already impeached her on a number of subjects, that was one too much.

EDIT : my opinion as to why they don't seem to want to dwell too much on Murray's negligence & incompetence , is because THAT was foreseeable. Not propofol.

this is hindsight in my opinion.

Let me tell you what I see, they sign a contract with Michael, he is fine, exited, involved in meetings. He goes to a physical and he passes it with flying colors. As far as they know he's clean (Gongaware telling it to Finkelstein), he's focused, he's on top of his game. At one meeting they see Michael loopy, out of it and they curious, they ask his bodyguards and hear that he's coming from Klein, (ortega has similar experiences after Klein too), at this point in this paps are following Michael around and every few days he's being pictured coming out of Klein's office. Perhaps at this time they are starting to realize some problems in the way Michael act, what's the first thing comes to mind? Klein? Michael's manager asks Phillips for money and in the process he sees a bill with all those shots. He doesn't know what they are for certain but it scares him as now he can add "Klein multiple shots = Michael acting loopy". Phillips admitted that he pulled Murray aside and told him "are you aware Michael is seeing Klein" and Dileo calls Murray telling him to do a blood test to find out what Michael is taking.

and that brings us back to demerol versus Propofol. It's hard to deny knowledge of Demerol, Finkelstein told he told Gongaware, he said Michael acted weird after Klien and Hoeeflin visited Michael during dangerous tour, Michael made an announcement and went to rehab. in 2009 the see Michael loopy after Klein , paps report Michael going to Klein regularly, Phillips see an invoice with all these shots. So they suspect and get scared of Klein and they express thesr concerns to the other doctor / the second opinion doctor Murray. He's told to be aware and told to make tests. So Murray is actually the second independent opinion doctor against Klein as the suspected Klein.

so that ends it with the argument that "yes we knew Michaels issues with painkillers in 1993, in 2009 we suspected and scared that Klein might be shooting him up with pain medicines as well but there's no way that we knew , should have known or suspected that Murray was hooking Michael up to anesthesia every night in his bedroom".

IMO, there's no hindight at all, that was Travis and Ortega's state of mind too at the time. With less info than Phillips. Travis for example, did not witness Murray saying Michael was fine, when he obviously was not.

By the way, I already asked a while ago , but I got no answer :
do you remember whose depo is this from ?

I took it from this post :

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tory-Summary?p=3802439&viewfull=1#post3802439

 

[bouee]

Yeah, Karen Faye thought her 'brother' was dying and did nothing but tell someone else.

I wonder with this testimony regarding Michael seeing two doctors at once and not telling the other doctor is also to make the jury consider whether it was just a matter of time before there was an overdose.

That's true about Karen, but she was not in a position to fire Murray or impose anything on Michael, such as a second medical opinion.

 

[ivy]

Going by your reasoning even if AEG saw Murray injecting MJ with ptopofol that would not prove anything because they could just say we thought it was painkillers . Makes no sense . This is a civil trial not a criminal trial the defendants don't need to prove they knew the specific name of the drug used . If he was taking heroine and they suspected he was taking it However , he overdosed on cockaine , would that make any difference ?

first of all it's not "my reasoning". It's AEG's reasoning and clearly expressed in their opening statement about how they can't know about Propofol. so please stop acting like this is something I created. I'm just explaining what AEG stated.

I also provided tens of examples about how the jury have differentiated between actions and stated that we don't know which way the jury will approach to this one - either make no difference between drugs or make a distinction between those two.

let me repeat some examples

a case example that states a person exposing their penis doesn't mean you can foresee they will sexually attack someone

an Ohio court refused to hold an employer liable for the sexual assault of a coworker committed by an employee who had a record of indecent exposure at a city park. The court noted that the exposure was not a “physical assault” and that even the police detective testified that “it would be quite a stretch” to predict the sexual assault based on the exposure that occurred six years earlier.

a case example that you cannot foresee a person that would steal a car and cause an accident even though they did not have a valid driver's license and 2 drink driving convictions. So even when a person with history of drunk driving caused an accident while drunk driving it was determined to be unforeseeable as he never stole a car and had never caused an accident

For example, a university was not liable when an intoxicated employee caused an accident while operating a university vehicle that he
accessed through his employment. Although the employee did not possess a valid driver’s license and had two DUI convictions, the court held that the accident was unforeseeable because his “employment history showed he had been a model employee, never had consumed alcohol at work or reported for work intoxicated, never had been in any motor vehicle accidents, never had taken any item from any employer without permission, and had no record of theft.” The court focused on the notion that the theft was unforeseeable, even though the use of alcohol while driving was consistent with past behavior and may have been more directly related to the accident than the theft.

a employer not being liable for a car accident even though the employee had a history of speeding because he wasn't speeding during the time of the accident

an employer in Montana was not liable for the harm caused by an employee in a motor vehicle accident, even though the driver had a record of several speeding tickets. Since the driver was not speeding when the accident occurred, the employer was not liable for negligent retention despite its prior knowledge of those speeding tickets

(note: this case can be really close suitable example for AEG's point and argue even though Michael had an history of Demerol, he did not die of Demerol and therefore despite prior knowledge about Demerol they weren't liable)

 

[LastTear]

@bouee, I know, my personal opinion is that if Michael had been consistently 'off' and hadn't improved in that short space, they would have had no choice but to do something, but realistically all they could do was pull the plug on the tour.

 

[bouee]

@bouee, I know, my personal opinion is that if Michael had been consistently 'off' and hadn't improved in that short space, they would have had no choice but to do something, but realistically all they could do was pull the plug on the tour.

I would think put a hold on the tour and get a second opinion by a doctor of their choice immediately and postpone the first dates, or yes cancel the tour if that doctor said so.
Which is likely what would have happened on july 6th, when they were scheduling the second medical for insurance.

EDIT imediately for me would have been on june 20th, the info was alarming enough that day.

 

[Soundmind]

(note: this case can be really close suitable example for AEG's point and argue even though Michael had an history of Demerol, he did not die of Demerol and therefore despite prior knowledge about Demerol they weren't liable)

Did Phillips write in his email that he thought Klien was shooting him with demerol ?

How many times did MJ recieve propofol in Klien's office ? MANY MANY TIMES .

So the assumption that Klien = demerol is not true .

an employer in Montana was not liable for the harm caused by an employee in a motor vehicle accident, even though the driver had a record of several speeding tickets. Since the driver was not speeding when the accident occurred, the employer was not liable for negligent retention despite its prior knowledge of those speeding tickets

he had a history of abusing drugs ( not my words) , he died of DRUGS . How could we compare it to someone who has a history of speeding but was not speeding at the time of accident ?

 

[LastTear]

I would think put a hold on the tour and get a second opinion by a doctor of their choice immediately and postpone the first dates, or yes cancel the tour if that doctor said so.
Which is likely what would have happened on july 6th, when they were scheduling the second medical for insurance.

EDIT imediately for me would have been on june 20th, the info was alarming enough that day.

Trouble is that you can be given information but to act in such a dramatic way, you would need to see it for yourself.


Ok, well supposing they brought a doctor along to that meeting and insisted that he check Michael over, I'm not convinced that either Michael or Murray would tell this other doctor about propofol. And Michael seemed fine that day, so what would the doctor see? He was thin, sure, but would they have cancelled based on that.

@Soundmind Thought wouldn't equal knowing. Phillips was not privy to the medical records.

 

[crillon]

and again with the "put the blame on murray" and again I provided you the reasoning for it. they do face a possibility that they could be held responsible for Murray's actions, why would they put the blame on Murray and shoot themselves in the foot? does that even make a little bit sense to you? As I mentioned when you are in a case, you operate within the boundaries of the case. yes putting the blame on Murray could be more realistic but you wouldn't want to do that when you are operating in an environment that is "murray's fault = AEG's fault". simple logic would show you that if that's the limitation of this case you need to remove the responsibility from Murray to protect yourself (meaning AEG).

Need to remember this point. Without considering the legal "boundaries of the case," all the logic applied to get at the TRUTH is not working and I have to wonder how the jury will deal with that same challenge.

I know, my personal opinion is that if Michael had been consistently 'off' and hadn't improved in that short space, they would have had no choice but to do something, but realistically all they could do was pull the plug on the tour.

Exactly. This was a contractual business deal and Michael knew very well what was expected of him and surely didn't expect AEG to hand-hold him if he couldn't perform. That may sound harsh to some, but AEG was not his parent or friend or fan--they were a business partner with multi-millions on the line. If Michael was not up to doing TII, the only recourse for AEG was to pull the plug , and I have to say, when you consider Kenny Ortega's heartfelt email to Phillips about his concerns about Michael his plea was to "not pull the plug" because of what that would do to Michael. I thought they (KO, AEG) were considerate and even compassionate (as much as a corporation can be) toward Michael, wanted to find out what was going on and give him a chance. I think most corporations would NOT have advanced him the $35 million and then when serious performance/medical issues came up, would not have spent a whole lot of time trying to make it all work out. Corporations are in it primarily for one reason--to make money--that's what they do.

 

[Bubs]

The sad part is MJ was fine in April and everyone said he started acting different only a month later when Murray got in the picture. Why didn't Phillips ask the bodyguards about Murray visiting every night with oxygen tanks since he was asking the guards about MJ visiting Klein and appearing loopy? he could've asked about Murray and what his expertise was and why was he going over MJ's nightly everyday? wasn't AEG paying the bodyguards too? they were supposed to be protecting MJ instead they allowed him to run around loopy, freezing, emaciated and mumbling according to people who saw him. Karen Faye said she thought MJ was dying, so where were the guards or Michael Amir to take care of him?

So many things wrong in your post.
CM was already in the picture in April, and he was giving MJ propofol BEFORE MJ introduced him to AEG.
To RP ask bodyguards about CM visiting everynight would require his knowledge of CM was visiting MJ everynight, which he wasn't aware of. I don't know whether he saw oxygen tanks or not, but it would be quite a stretch to link tanks and drugs together. Kai Chase never saw nor suspected anything even though she saw oxygen tanks daily.
Why would he ask CM's expertise if MJ introduced him saying he wants CM to be his personal doctor, and why would he ask why CM going over there nightly if he didn't have a clue about it? He didn't have crystalball.
Bodyguards were hired by MJ to keep him safe from people, but not from himself.
As for Karen fake. She also said MJ have tendency self-sabotaging if he feels not doing something.

 

[ivy]

he had a history of abusing drugs ( not my words) , he died of DRUGS .

here alternative version

he had a history of abusing pain medicines ( not my words) , he died of anesthesia .

How could we compare it to someone who has a history of speeding but was not speeding at the time of accident ?

why can't we compare it to someone who has a history of opioids but having not opioids but anesthesia at the time of death?


---

Anyway as I mentioned it a million times (and got bored by it now), regardless of you agree with it or not, this is AEG's distinction and we will have to wait and see what the jury will think. As I already pointed out and you repeated the jury might approach to it as "drugs are drugs, it doesn't make a difference if it's demerol or propofol or whatever" or they might approach to it as "pain medicines and anesthesia are distinct enough and just because someone knew the history of painkillers they will not be able to foresee use of anesthesia". It makes no sense to go about this in circles, both are a possibility and we will need to wait and see what the jury thinks.

 

[bouee]

Trouble is that you can be given information but to act in such a dramatic way, you would need to see it for yourself.


Ok, well supposing they brought a doctor along to that meeting and insisted that he check Michael over, I'm not convinced that either Michael or Murray would tell this other doctor about propofol. And Michael seemed fine that day, so what would the doctor see? He was thin, sure, but would they have cancelled based on that.

@Soundmind Thought wouldn't equal knowing. Phillips was not privy to the medical records.

Phillips had a very strong argument, that according to Panish he used : he could have pulled the plug on Murray, or pulled the plug on the tour. That doesn't mean he would have brought a doctor with him on 20th, he would have asked Michael to see another one , and he was in a position to impose that.
Now we would have a different story : it might not have changed the outcome and prevented what happened on june 25th, but we would not have this trial now, or AEG would have an easier line of defense : we said we suspected the doctor, but Michael would not listen.
That's really not what they did, they went the other way, turned a blind eye and supported Murray, at least Phillips did.
He was not privy to medical records, but he was suspecting Klein, and he was aware of concerns about Murray.

 

[crillon]

^^^^Again, why should any corporation in a business deal with a performer be responsible in ANY way for that performer's medical issues and ability to perform? The only recourse AEG had was to pull the plug on the tour--that is all they controlled.

AEG is not in the "medical referral" business and had no right (or expertise) to tell Michael what doctor he should have treating him. NONE. AEG was not Michael Jackson's guardian--they were his business partner.

 

[Soundmind]

Need to remember this point. Without considering the legal "boundaries of the case," all the logic applied to get at the TRUTH is not working and I have to wonder how the jury will deal with that same challenge.



Exactly. This was a contractual business deal and Michael knew very well what was expected of him and surely didn't expect AEG to hand-hold him if he couldn't perform. That may sound harsh to some, but AEG was not his parent or friend or fan--they were a business partner with multi-millions on the line. If Michael was not up to doing TII, the only recourse for AEG was to pull the plug , and I have to say, when you consider Kenny Ortega's heartfelt email to Phillips about his concerns about Michael his plea was to "not pull the plug" because of what that would do to Michael. I thought they (KO, AEG) were considerate and even compassionate (as much as a corporation can be) toward Michael, wanted to find out what was going on and give him a chance. I think most corporations would NOT have advanced him the $35 million and then when serious performance/medical issues came up, would not have spent a whole lot of time trying to make it all work out. Corporations are in it primarily for one reason--to make money--that's what they do.

Thanks to this trial that's no longer my impression . They brought people to testify they estimated he would have made 20 to 30 millions max of the 50 shows while they were telling him he was going to make 100 + millions . They were hardly compassionate. The attorney who was with MJ at the time did commit suicide I wonder whether guilt was the reason ?

Would MJ have agreed to do the concerts if he was told the truth ? AEG knew he would not ,that's why they were advising each other on how to exaggerate the numbers to get him to sign . He agreed to do it , based on their testimonies for financial reasons. If the financial benefits were so little compared to the hardships he had to endure would have he agreed . If he knew it was only 20 to 30 millions would have he agreed to go to that extreme measure to hire a doctor and pay him that kind of money to get some sleep ?

Murray was in MJ's life for three years when he signed the contract. But never did he ask him for propofol or to stay at his home until AEG came with what he was led to believe the big plan . Their responsibility toward him started the minute they lied to him . Don't tell me he was an adult , they could legally get away with this argument . Morally and ethically they failed big time .

Don't please tell us how much they loved him , Ortega loved him but he was not an AEG employee . If they were concerned about him , because they knew he would not generate the money they told him he would , they would have tried their best to limit the advances not to increase them ,they were not paying anything , the more expenses the less profits he made . what was he going to end up with ? Hardly anything if not even more debts .

They had the full picture but did everything in their best interest eventhough it meant his financial ruin . Who to say their attitude when it came to his health was not the same . They did not care about his financial situation , why should we assume they cared about his health ?

 

[LastTear]

Phillips had a very strong argument, that according to Panish he used : he could have pulled the plug on Murray, or pulled the plug on the tour. That doesn't mean he would have brought a doctor with him on 20th, he would have asked Michael to see another one , and he was in a position to impose that.
Now we would have a different story : it might not have changed the outcome and prevented what happened on june 25th, but we would not have this trial now, or AEG would have an easier line of defense : we said we suspected the doctor, but Michael would not listen.
That's really not what they did, they went the other way, turned a blind eye and supported Murray, at least Phillips did.
He was not privy to medical records, but he was suspecting Klein, and he was aware of concerns about Murray.

I'm not sure he was in a position to impose another doctor on Michael, I guess he could have threatened Michael with cancelling the tour if he didn't.

I think we still would have this trial, because if they introduced another doctor then they are supervising Michael's medical needs, plus with your scenario they would have to draw up a legal document that they and Michael sign that they are not responsible or in court it would be just their word.

And again for AEG to enforce any other doctor or take any other action, I believe they would need to see Michael 'off' for themselves.

 

[bouee]

^^^^Again, why should any corporation in a business deal with a performer be responsible in ANY way for that performer's medical issues and ability to perform? The only recourse AEG had was to pull the plug on the tour--that is all they controlled.

AEG is not in the "medical referral" business and had no right (or expertise) to tell Michael what doctor he should have treating him. NONE. AEG was not Michael Jackson's guardian--they were his business partner.

Then why did they issue an indep contractor contract to Murray instead of making a personal advance. OK that was a mistake, maybe.
Why did they include Murray in meetings ?
Why did they pressure Murray (broken vase meeting + Murray storming out of the meeting saying he couldn't handle this ?)
Why did Phillips talk to Murray behind Michael's back (according to Prince, and according to Phillips himself)
Why did he make the decision to support Murray against Ortega before even seeing Michael, after all the info he got that day from Hougdahl, Branca, etc.. ?
Why did Phillips continue to defend Murray after Michael died ?

They got involved, they could have stayed out of this.

To me it doesn't show they cared, they just wanted him to perform, they did not care about him at all. They did the same thing the Jacksons did, the same thing a lot of people did. Try to profit off him, no matter what. Money was getting out of hand, that was their main problem at the time. If that had not been an issue, again, the story maybe would have been different, and they contributed to that situation. They let the costs fly and had no illness insurance at that point.

 

[bouee]

I'm not sure he was in a position to impose another doctor on Michael, I guess he could have threatened Michael with cancelling the tour if he didn't.

I think we still would have this trial, because if they introduced another doctor then they are supervising Michael's medical needs, plus with your scenario they would have to draw up a legal document that they and Michael sign that they are not responsible or in court it would be just their word.

And again for AEG to enforce any other doctor or take any other action, I believe they would need to see Michael 'off' for themselves.

I think had Michael lived, nothing would have happened, because given the circumstances, it was understandable.
Since Michael died, no question the Jacksons would have tried, I agree, but I think this could have been easily explained by the circumstances, and all those e mails,and actually an argument in favor of AEG.

 

[LastTear]

@Bouee, But would it have been easily explained? I don't actually think it would have been, they acknowledge there was a serious problem but carry on with the tour anyway?

 

[crillon]

Thanks to this trial that's no longer my impression . They brought people to testify they estimated he would have made 20 to 30 millions max of the 50 shows while they were telling him he was going to make 100 + millions . They were hardly compassionate. The attorney who was with MJ at the time did commit suicide I wonder whether guilt was the reason ?

My reference to being "compassionate" and that was qualified by "as much as a corporation can be" refers to the response Kenny Ortega had to Michael's physical state and his concerns. Kenny was rubbing Michael's feet to warm him up, feeding him, etc. and that is very compassionate in my book. That Phillips, representing AEG, did not "pull the plug" is a testament to their willingness to give Michael a chance. Lopez was Michael's lawyer, not AEG's lawyer, and if he committed suicide because he had guilt over a breach of ethics in negotiating the TII contract, well shame on him. That's not AEG's fault.

Would MJ have agreed to do the concerts if he was told the truth ? AEG knew he would not ,that's why they were advising each other on how to exaggerate the numbers to get him to sign . He agreed to do it , based on their testimonies for financial reasons. If the financial benefits were so little compared to the hardships he had to endure would have he agreed . If he knew it was only 20 to 30 millions would have he agreed to go to that extreme measure to hire a doctor and pay him that kind of money to get some sleep ?

I think, as Frank DiLeo said in an interview right after Michael's death, that Michael knew he had to work. Those people who knew him for a long time knew he wanted TII and NEEDED TII more than AEG needed him. The risks AEG was taking--signing a deal with a 50-year-old performer who had not been on tour for 10 years and had suffered major blows to his reputation--were significant. That's one of the reasons AEG was staging TII in London--because they were concerned about the US audience and whether or not they would support the concert and Michael, in particular. I think these are the cold, hard facts, as much as we (as fans) don't want to see it. I believe Michael had to do TII to survive and retain the Sony/ATV catalog at any cost, sadly.

Murray was in MJ's life for three years when he signed the contract. But never did he ask him for propofol or to stay at his home until AEG came with what he was led to believe the big plan . Their responsibility toward him started the minute they lied to him . Don't tell me he was an adult , they could legally get away with this argument . Morally and ethically they failed big time .

C'mon, the reason Murray was involved was to help Michael sleep so he could perform. AEG had NOTHING to do with that. Murray was Michael's idea. And, while I agree with you that AEG ethically and morally failed Michael in some aspects, Michael was a very savvy & smart businessman with lawyers and advisors representing him--and yes, he was also an adult.

Don't please tell us how much they loved him , Ortega loved him but he was not an AEG employee . If they were concerned about him , because they knew he would not generate the money they told him he would , they would have tried their best to limit the advances not to increase them ,they were not paying anything , the more expenses the less profits he made . what was he going to end up with ? Hardly anything if not even more debts .

They had the full picture but did everything in their best interest eventhough it meant his financial ruin . Who to say their attitude when it came to his health was not the same . They did not care about his financial situation , why should we assume they cared about his health ?

I think Kenny Ortega absolutely loved Michael Jackson and I believe Gongaware & Phillips cared about him. But, their first allegiance was to the AEG shareholders and they were already in a hole for $35 million with a performer who was having significant difficulties threatening a big loss for them. Like I've said before--companies are not your guardian or your friend--they are in it for the money. That's the hard truth and to expect them to behave like parents or friends is foolish and naive. I think many of the AEG staff who testified were jerks and disrespectful, no doubt about that, and as a fan I find it appalling. But, as someone who knows that corporate world & the politics--not very surprising.

 

[#MJforever57]

Phillips had a very strong argument, that according to Panish he used : he could have pulled the plug on Murray, or pulled the plug on the tour. That doesn't mean he would have brought a doctor with him on 20th, he would have asked Michael to see another one , and he was in a position to impose that.
Now we would have a different story : it might not have changed the outcome and prevented what happened on june 25th, but we would not have this trial now, or AEG would have an easier line of defense : we said we suspected the doctor, but Michael would not listen.
That's really not what they did, they went the other way, turned a blind eye and supported Murray, at least Phillips did.
He was not privy to medical records, but he was suspecting Klein, and he was aware of concerns about Murray.

Let look at it this way what if Phillips would have ask Michael to see another doctor and if Michael did do you believe that Michael would still take the Propofol?

 

[bouee]

@Bouee, But would it have been easily explained? I don't actually think it would have been, they acknowledge there was a serious problem but carry on with the tour anyway?

explained : yes, those e mails are disturbing enough.

Carry on with the tour : I said at least postpone the first dates, then see what that other doctor would say. Phillips considered an "anticipatory breach" of contract. I think you are right that cancelling the whole tour would have been difficult, postponing was not.

Let look at it this way what if Phillips would have ask Michael to see another doctor and if Michael did do you believe that Michael would still take the Propofol?

I don't know, maybe not. But AEG would have done what they were supposed to do in such a situation.

 

[LastTear]

I am at a loss to understand how a fifty year old man who has been in this business all his life could be duped about the bottom line, especially one who is in financial difficulties. We only know how AEG presented the gross figure to Michael, we don't know that he didn't know the bottom line.

 

[LastTear]

explained : yes, those e mails are disturbing enough.

Carry on with the tour : I said at least postpone the first dates, then see what that other doctor would say. Phillips considered an "anticipatory breach" of contract. I think you are right that cancelling the whole tour would have been difficult, postponing was not.



I don't know, maybe not. But AEG would have done what they were supposed to do in such a situation.

And maybe they would have done if they had seen the Michael that Ortega had described.

 

[#MJforever57]

I think, as Frank DiLeo said in an interview right after Michael's death, that Michael knew he had to work. Those people who knew him for a long time knew he wanted TII and NEEDED TII more than AEG needed him. The risks AEG was taking--signing a deal with a 50-year-old performer who had not been on tour for 10 years and had suffered major blows to his reputation--were significant. That's one of the reasons AEG was staging TII in London--because they were concerned about the US audience and whether or not they would support the concert and Michael, in particular. I think these are the cold, hard facts, as much as we (as fans) don't want to see it. I believe Michael had to do TII to survive and retain the Sony/ATV catalog at any cost, sadly.


C'mon, the reason Murray was involved was to help Michael sleep so he could perform. AEG had NOTHING to do with that. Murray was Michael's idea. And, while I agree with you that AEG ethically and morally failed Michael in some aspects, Michael was a very savvy & smart businessman with lawyers and advisors representing him--and yes, he was also an adult.

I think Kenny Ortega absolutely loved Michael Jackson and I believe Gongaware & Phillips cared about him. But, their first allegiance was to the AEG shareholders and they were already in a hole for $35 million with a performer who was having significant difficulties threatening a big loss for them. Like I've said before--companies are not your guardian or your friend--they are in it for the money. That's the hard truth and to expect them to behave like parents or friends is foolish and naive. I think many of the AEG staff who testified were jerks and disrespectful, no doubt about that, and as a fan I find it appalling. But, as someone who knows that corporate world & the politics--not very surprising.

I agree with you 100% that was my concern too if US would support Michael.

True but propofol was not the answer as we see later.

Why could have AEG just cancel or postoned until Michael was ready. Michael has not been on the stage in 10yr and he was 50yr old. AEG was taking a risk.

 

[LastTear]

I agree with you 100% that was my concern too if US would support Michael.

True but propofol was not the answer as we see later.

Why could have AEG just cancel or postoned until Michael was ready. Michael has not been on the stage in 10yr and he was 50yr old. AEG was taking a risk.

It would have been a huge decision to even postpone, Phillips would have to have been 100% certain that the situation was that dire.