Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[bouee]

in USA what paramedics can do with a conscious person is very very limited. Conscious people can refuse treatment even if it is against the medical advice and the paramedics cannot force treatment on such people.

They talked about low pressure, and seeing a doctor. They did not say he needed to be monitored or refuse to go to the hopsital, or tried to take him against his wish, di they ?

Saying that they suspected OD and Michael refused to be taken to a hospital is 100% speculation. Did he refuse to go to the hospital with Dr Saunders in dec 01 ?

That's what AEG is trying to show that there were other instances and an overdose was likely - again it is about responsibility.

I don't see any problem with being realistic. Farshian testified that Michael wanted to get clean after Blanket was born, Michael had 5 implants put in his body. That shows that he had a problem before. This bodyguard talked about Michael being incoherent, nodding at meetings, we all learned about MSG incident. Those all show problems. A person that just faints most of the time usually wakes up on their own, this instance includes a lot more than a simple fainting in my opinion. Then comes a weird assumption that "if there was no pills in the room it wasn't drug related", how can you say that when it has been established that Michael did not take pills but made doctors give him injections.

I understand the desire to approach to this as "nah he just fainted" or "it wasn't drug related" or such, but you know that he seriously asked for help after this time period so it show that there must be an issue before he asked for help. If he was just fainting or unable to sleep he wouldn't go an insert an opiate blocker to his body 5 times. You can call it what you want, I call it being realistic.

and if it's not clear no he wasn't seeking a high, he had medical issues - such as his back pain- that he needed legit medicine for but at times he got dependent on them and might have required high doses.

I think we all understand what AEG is trying to show. But it seems anything goes when it's about explaining what AEG is doing.

No, it's not being realistic IMO, it's speculation again.

Yes, Michael thought he had a problem, had narcan implants for several months. I did not ignore that, look at my post , I said it must have happened in the same time period as the double dose incident. The thing is, how big was the problem at the time ? Do we know that ?
Actually the most serious incident so far would be the double dose incident, but that's one incident in december 01, and we don't know why Michael had those injections. And if you believe her, Karen's description of the MSG concert (the bagel thing) where she actually saw a doctor. Again, we don't know why, and coming from Karen, we don't know if it's exagerated.

We talked about that some time ago with other posters, about painkillers addictions, and I was saying it's tricky for a doctor, because you have to take care of pain, and strong pain meds are opiates. It's equally as tricky for a patient, for the same reason.

How can you say that it's logical it was drugs ? You gave example of people recovering very quickly after a blood pressure drop. Well it's true, but it can also last for a certain period of time, as long as the blood pressure remains too low for the person. My personal record was 1 and a half hours, fainting several times. I was on my own, could not call a doctor, and knew what I had to do to get my blood pressure rising, as it sometimes happens to me.
It's not necessarily "permanent", it can happen if you are tired for ex. So the 360° spins example is not really good : you can have a low blood pressure and have no problem, and then, for some reason (tired, stressed, other condition) , your blood pressure can get too low for you, and you start to feel dizzy/ faint.

My point was : how quick do you recover from an overdose ? Didn't AEG say they witnessed Michael being out of it or loopy after a visit to Klein ? So, how soon after did Michael ask to leave the hotel ?

Soon after paramedics leave Michael says it's time to go and they check out the hotel.

So, so far, merely speculation, AEG has not proven their point. All they have proven is that Michael thought he had a problem in 01/02 , told a lot of people about it, and took steps to solve the problem, (and apparently succeeded).
Where is the irresponsible lying addict ?

 

[ivy]

They talked about low pressure, and seeing a doctor. They did not say he needed to be monitored or refuse to go to the hopsital, or tried to take him against his wish, di they ?

the bodyguard says he did not hear what they talked as he wasn't in the room.

Saying that they suspected OD and Michael refused to be taken to a hospital is 100% speculation.

where did I say they suspected an OD? I did not. I don't think paramedics suspected anything well because they can't. and even they suspect an OD they can't take the person to a hospital unless the person is unconscious or totally out of it. They get a call about a unconscious man who happens to be conscious by the time they arrive. They would check the vitals and assuming those are normal and the person is able to talk to them coherently they would leave. I don't know how paramedics work in France but what they do in USA is quite limited.

I never claimed this was an OD simply because it doesn't fit an OD, but a drug related interaction yes a possibility.

The thing is, how big was the problem at the time ? Do we know that ?

don't you think that seeking a doctor, an implant and repeating it 5 times shows a big enough problem? to me it is simple : if it wasn't a big enough problem he wouldn't have seek help for it.

You gave example of people recovering very quickly after a blood pressure drop. Well it's true, but it can also last for a certain period of time, as long as the blood pressure remains too low for the person. My personal record was 1 and a half hours, fainting several times. I was on my own, could not call a doctor, and knew what I had to do to get my blood pressure rising, as it sometimes happens to me.

and by your own description you were alert to the point of knowing what you need to do and that's my point. You did not need anyone to shake you and call your name and breath for you to be able to wake up. I have seen people faint due to low blood pressure or dehydration. In my experience they were alert and they weren't groggy. "conscious but not alert" or "really groggy" doesn't fit with my experience of just fainting.

only groggy I have experienced was because of drugs. there's a reason why some drugs come with the warning of "don't drive or don't operate machinery" because they tend to make people groggy.

 

[LastTear]

I believe and have always suspected that at certain points in Michaels life prescription medication became a problem, however it doesn't mean that someone is a high seeking drug addict, Michael had genuine pain and sought relief from genuine problems, i maybe wouldn't be surprised to find that He may have also found relief from emotional pain as well. It's a shame that there isn't another word to use other than drug addict.

Paramedics work the same way here in the UK, if you are conscious and refuse to go to hospital they can't force you. We don't know if they even wanted him to go and equally we don't know if Michael refused.

 

[elapentela]

@Tygger

You make it sound like battle lines have been drawn. lol

It's a tricky one because it's the whole trial I am against, so really I don't actually care who wins or loses, so probably wont spend much time considering where either side went wrong.

You know where I stand on this, if the plantiffs win then people who are already well provided for will get richer and AEG will have been told that they shouldn't have hired Murray, it doesn't even prove that they mistreated Michael. Justice? No. And I had best not start on restitution again.

Let me ask a similar question. If the plantiffs win - will you look back and think that the damage done to Michael was all worth it?

ETA: Spent a bit longer thinking about your question. I may just think that the jury feel that Murray was hired and that AEG should have known he could pose a threat, and that perhaps the jury believe that AEG should have actively supervised the doctor by knowing all treatments given to Michael.

There is no way AEG will ever give up and agree to pay any damage if they will loose in the first round. There is no way AEG would be able to know about Murray treating Michael with Propofol in Michael's private quarters. I don't believe they would continue with the contract if they would discover the secret. They are not the doctors but they are not stupid. They would know that one person would not be able to handle that kind of proseede for a long time. They would know that Murray needed the assistant to do it.

If AEG will loose the appeal process will last forever. This trial totally took Michael's dignity away and his image was very distorted. Mostly by Jackson's lawyers and witnesses so far. MJ's children will deal with the consequencess for a long time. And it's not only on the emotional level. I don't believe they will ever get any money from AEG even if they will win the case in the first round. And if they will loose the cost of the trial right now is above many millions. The children will have to pay their parts even if they were not even asked if they agree to be the plaintiffs. The litigation between Jacksons and their lawyers will cost them fortune.

And what about the precious time of all witnesses. The experts are being paid but regular witnesses not. I would be really very upset for being forced to being part of this circus. The only way for the jurors and some witnesses to recover from this would be to write a books about their experience. We can always say there was never dull moment in MJ's life but we need some dull moments to let him RIP. Buy the way I wonder how many books will be released about the trial and who's will be the first one? I suspect that Diane Dimond or Stacy Braun (or whatever his name is). Stacy's latest sponsor NYPost will help him to promote *****'s staff for sure-thank you Jackson family so much.

 

[bouee]

the bodyguard says he did not hear what they talked as he wasn't in the room.



where did I say they suspected an OD? I did not. I don't think paramedics suspected anything well because they can't. and even they suspect an OD they can't take the person to a hospital unless the person is unconscious or totally out of it. They get a call about a unconscious man who happens to be conscious by the time they arrive. They would check the vitals and assuming those are normal and the person is able to talk to them coherently they would leave. I don't know how paramedics work in France but what they do in USA is quite limited.

I never claimed this was an OD simply because it doesn't fit an OD, but a drug related interaction yes a possibility.




don't you think that seeking a doctor, an implant and repeating it 5 times shows a big enough problem? to me it is simple : if it wasn't a big enough problem he wouldn't have seek help for it.



and by your own description you were alert to the point of knowing what you need to do and that's my point. You did not need anyone to shake you and call your name and breath for you to be able to wake up. I have seen people faint due to low blood pressure or dehydration. In my experience they were alert and they weren't groggy. "conscious but not alert" or "really groggy" doesn't fit with my experience of just fainting.

only groggy I have experienced was because of drugs. there's a reason why some drugs come with the warning of "don't drive or don't operate machinery" because they tend to make people groggy.

Frankly, sometimes, it's funny. You give a great example of objectivity.

In the example I gave about myself, I was what you call groggy and sometimes fainted. So you can be groggy with low pressure, depending on how long it lasts. I felt extra tired personnally, not able to sit up, but i was able to talk, and must have sounded groggy I guess.

A drug "reaction" is what I call an OD : too much drug, or miscombination of drugs. Overdose, a dose that's too big, not necessarily lethal.

Ok so you're telling me an american paramedic who suspects an OD, or drug reaction as you say, or sees someone groggy and doesn't know why would not mention anything to the people around, would not do anything, because the person is conscious and able to talk, even if they suspect danger ? Like "pay attention to what he's doing" "he should be checked in a hopsital", but the same paramedic will mention low blood pressure to the people around. OK.


So Michael has a "bad reaction" to the drug (opiates, as AEG would like us to believe that he has a high tolerence to , so an overdose is likely) and "soon after the paramedics leave" the drug has left his sytem , he feels better, decides to leave the hotel. OK.

It reminds me of the bagel therapy. A lot of people thought that was funny at the time, and now believe this ?

I'm not denying Michael had a problem. All I'm saying is that from what is said, we- that includes you and me- can not know how bad the problem was.

The examples they gave, that all focus on a very short time period, are not convincing.

So let me ask again : where is the irresponsible addict ? Please explain to me how AEG is showing us an irresposible lying addict with those testimonies, since you seem to understand them, and I don't.

 

[elapentela]

Frankly, sometimes, it's funny. You give a great example of objectivity.

In the example I gave about myself, I was what you call groggy and sometimes fainted. So you can be groggy with low pressure, depending on how long it lasts. I felt extra tired personnally, not able to sit up, but i was able to talk, and must have sounded groggy I guess.

A drug "reaction" is what I call an OD : too much drug, or miscombination of drugs. Overdose, a dose that's too big, not necessarily lethal.

Ok so you're telling me an american paramedic who suspects an OD, or drug reaction as you say, or sees someone groggy and doesn't know why would not mention anything to the people around, would not do anything, because the person is conscious and able to talk, even if they suspect danger ? Like "pay attention to what he's doing" "he should be checked in a hopsital", but the same paramedic will mention low blood pressure to the people around. OK.


So Michael has a "bad reaction" to the drug (opiates, as AEG would like us to believe that he has a high tolerence to , so an overdose is likely) and "soon after the paramedics leave" the drug has left his sytem , he feels better, decides to leave the hotel. OK.

It reminds me of the bagel therapy. A lot of people thought that was funny at the time, and now believe this ?

I'm not denying Michael had a problem. All I'm saying is that from what is said, we- that includes you and me- can not know how bad the problem was.

The examples they gave, that all focus on a very short time period, are not convincing.

So let me ask again : where is the irresponsible addict ? Please explain to me how AEG is showing us an irresposible lying addict with those testimonies, since you seem to understand them, and I don't.

Sure some jurors can feel the same but all 12 of them. No way. Not in an appeal process.

 

[bouee]

Sure some jurors can feel the same but all 12 of them. No way. Not in an appeal process.

You are entitled to your opinion. As far as it concerns portraying an "addict", I don't like this word, the Jacksons unfortunately did a better job describing Michael in 93.

 

[ivy]

Frankly, sometimes, it's funny. You give a great example of objectivity.

In the example I gave about myself, I was what you call groggy and sometimes fainted. So you can be groggy with low pressure, depending on how long it lasts. I felt extra tired personnally, not able to sit up, but i was able to talk, and must have sounded groggy I guess.

A drug "reaction" is what I call an OD : too much drug, or miscombination of drugs. Overdose, a dose that's too big, not necessarily lethal.

Ok so you're telling me an american paramedic who suspects an OD, or drug reaction as you say, or sees someone groggy and doesn't know why would not mention anything to the people around, would not do anything, because the person is conscious and able to talk, even if they suspect danger ? Like "pay attention to what he's doing" "he should be checked in a hopsital", but the same paramedic will mention low blood pressure to the people around. OK.


So Michael has a "bad reaction" to the drug (opiates, as AEG would like us to believe that he has a high tolerence to , so an overdose is likely) and "soon after the paramedics leave" the drug has left his sytem , he feels better, decides to leave the hotel. OK.

It reminds me of the bagel therapy. A lot of people thought that was funny at the time, and now believe this ?

I'm not denying Michael had a problem. All I'm saying is that from what is said, we- that includes you and me- can not know how bad the problem was.

The examples they gave, that all focus on a very short time period, are not convincing.

So let me ask again : where is the irresponsible addict ? Please explain to me how AEG is showing us an irresposible lying addict with those testimonies, since you seem to understand them, and I don't.

drug reaction and overdose are two different things in my mind. I see overdose as almost toxic while reaction to be something less than that.

That being said I checked the paramedic handbook

very high drug amount : Muscles become relaxed, Speech is slowed/slurred ,Sleepy looking ,Responsive to stimuli (such as shaking, yelling, sternal rub, etc.) ,Normal heart beat/pulse ,Normal skin tone

overdose : Pale, clammy skin , Very infrequent or no breathing, Deep snoring or gurgling (death rattle) ,Not responsive to stimuli (such as shaking, yelling, sternal rub, etc.) , Slow heart beat/pulse , Blue lips and/or fingertips


paramedic handbook suggests if you find people unconscious and suspect drugs : to try stimuli such as shaking and yelling their name, if they don't respond to stimuli call 911, perform rescue breathing, and give Narcan if available

paramedics and emergency room can give narcan to reverse the effects of opiates but as I said there are serious limitations. It's not the duty of paramedics or emergency doctors to treat anyone for any drug addiction /dependency. The most will be a narcan shot and then allow those people to leave, they would not admit them to hospital to treat addiction / dependency . You can find many stories of heroin addicts for example that are found unconscious taken to hospital given narcan shot and released shortly thereafter and keep experiencing OD's and keep brought back to the hospital or being treated by paramedics.

given that Michael was conscious by the time paramedics came and he was responsive to stimuli, I don't think they considered it as an overdose or did anything more than checking his vitals. their recommendation of monitor him and go to his own doctor for check up is in par in regular practices. If they suspected an overdose they might have given a dose of narcan which might have reversed the effects. There's no way to know it

anyway I don't think this was an overdose or treated as an overdose by paramedics. I don't see it as a near death experience however at the same time to me the bodyguard saying Michael did not respond to shouting his name and shaking and needed breaths is significant. To me that demonstrates more than just fainting - and it is backed up by the paramedic handbook. As for MSG it seems in that instance Michael was responsive to stimuli as Cascio was able to wake him.

As far as I'm concerned I never said Michael was an addict or he was seeking a high, No not at all. He had legitimate issues such as the burn that required legitimate medicines to handle the pain but unfortunately at times he became dependent on such medicines and at times he had formed high tolerance and high use. I think several doctors can be blamed for this dependency. There have been times he asked for help acknowledging his issues and tried to get clean and I respect him tremendously for that. Unfortunately there have been again questionable doctors and other relapses. This is in my book is the realistic approach.

as for the "irresponsible addict ", I don't think there is a claim of "irresponsible" as this witness does acknowledge the following efforts to get clean. In this case Jacksons argue that what happened is AEG's responsibility and it wouldn't have happened if they did not hire Murray. As I mentioned before they argue that if Murray wasn't hired or fired, Michael would be healthy and continue to live to be 80 - 90 years old and tour & work until 66. AEG's tactic here to show that this was more than Murray. the past events of showing Michael under the influence such as Bangkok, doubledose at Neverland, unconscious at Disneyland and what else the next witnesses will testify is to show that there was a history of drug dependency at times and it might have repeated and resulted in an overdose whether or not Murray was employed, whether or not AEG TII concerts were happening. It is the personal responsibility angle that Putnam mentioned in the opening. IF this was one single incident involving Murray, it would have been easy to put the fault on Murray / AEG, however multiple incidents helps AEG argue that this was Michael's choice and eventually his responsibility. You will also see that these will tie with the life expectancy expert who would argue that life expectancy was low.

Don't get me wrong, all of this what makes this lawsuit a terrible thing.

 

[bouee]

given that Michael was conscious by the time paramedics came and he was responsive to stimuli, I don't think they considered it as an overdose or did anything more than checking his vitals. their recommendation of monitor him and go to his own doctor for check up is in par in regular practices. If they suspected an overdose they might have given a dose of narcan which might have reversed the effects. There's no way to know it

anyway I don't think this was an overdose or treated as an overdose by paramedics. I don't see it as a near death experience however at the same time to me the bodyguard saying Michael did not respond to shouting his name and shaking and needed breaths is significant. To me that demonstrates more than just fainting - and it is backed up by the paramedic handbook. As for MSG it seems in that instance Michael was responsive to stimuli as Cascio was able to wake him.

right, there's no way to know, that was my point.

Though paramadics only mentionning low blood pressure tell me they probably did not think they were dealing with a drug issue.

As for fainting, the logical thing would be that you remain incouscious as long as blood pressure is low. So I'm not sure you would want to scream or shake the person, even thoughn it's a human reaction that we've all seen in movies, in case of a blood pressure drop. I'm not sure it would work. In case it happens, I think you'd rather want to lift the legs up, while the person is lying somewhere, so you have the legs higher than the rest of the body, so that more blood comes to center of the body and increase blood pressure. If they're awake and can drink , give them water with salt in it (disgusting but works).

anyway I don't think this was an overdose or treated as an overdose by paramedics. I don't see it as a near death experience however at the same time to me the bodyguard saying Michael did not respond to shouting his name and shaking and needed breaths is significant. To me that demonstrates more than just fainting - and it is backed up by the paramedic handbook. As for MSG it seems in that instance Michael was responsive to stimuli as Cascio was able to wake him.
.

LaPerruque was able to wake him up also, he was understandably frightened.

 

[Soundmind]

in the late 70th MJ fainted , he was swimming I believe , it was a very well known incident .Jermaine mentioned it in his book though he exaggerated his role in rescuing him . At the time his lungs were the cause , he was out of breath . In 1995 he also fainted .However , that was much more serious , the doctor in charge did release a statement after MJ's death he made it very clear they found no drugs at all in his system at that time. Still , the "objective" approach is to always understand AEG's side and blame it on drugs .

So, so far, merely speculation, AEG has not proven their point. All they have proven is that Michael thought he had a problem in 01/02 , told a lot of people about it, and took steps to solve the problem, (and apparently succeeded).
Where is the irresponsible lying addict ?

Everyone who would listen was told by him . Where is the top secrecy ? where is the manipulation ? where is no one knew what he was doing ? Still where did any witness testify he was not suffering from legitimate medical reasons ? AEG like Sneddon want the jury to ignore the details; half truths are complete lies , they presented half truths in their opening statement .

Biggs lied through his teeth , when confronted hid behind confidentiality , eventually he was forced to admit he lied . "However, Panish should watch out the jury don't like such attitude " yea ,Panish should have applauded him for his very apparent lies . The jury don't like people who charge $ 700000 to deceive them , it was reported there was a long pause after he admitted MJ's share was worth 100 t0 300 hundred more than his debt .

 

[ivy]

LaPerruque was able to wake him up also, he was understandably frightened.

according to him Michael did not wake up by shaking him or shouting his name - hence not responsive to stimuli. He woke up after breathing for him - hence reviving him. As I posted the paramedic handbook a person that wakes up by shaking / shouting their names versus a person doesn't respond to such are classified differently.

 

[Soundmind]

Putnam: Did you have to do mouth-to-mouth?
LaPerruque: I did
P: Did you see any drugs?
LP: No
P: Alcohol?
LP: Not that I recall
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 7h
LaPerruque: I had to check for pulse, turned him over, shook him, ultimately was breathing. I was able to wake him up, took him to his room.
Expand

He told the jury that Jackson had collapsed on the floor but was still breathing. La Perruque said he helped Jackson get to bed, where he came to. AEG defense attorney Marvin Putnam asked if he later discussed the incident with Jackson.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 7h
LaPerruque: I had to check for pulse, turned him over, shook him, ultimately was breathing. I was able to wake him up, took him to his room.
Expand

Where did he ever say MJ was out of breath , when he asked did you HAVE to do mouth to mouth, he said I did , not I had to do .

For how long was he on the floor when the kids found him ?how long did he remain on the floor before the kids decided to call 911 because he did not wake up ? how long did it take for the bodyguard to arrive ? He was out of breath all that time but eventually no damage whatsoever? seriously ?

He had many anxiety insomnia pill bottles prescribed by many doctor , although he was not taking them regularly based on the amount found ,that does not mean he did not try them at all. Why exclude the possibility that he might have taken a pill that day ? why being objective means we have to assume he got an injection from a doctor ? a doctor who was missing that day ; according to the security himself . Wait a minute , I know someone will come to say but AEG said he might have gotten an injection at night that's would explain it , "that's the objective explanation" . ASSUME AEG's scenario is the probable one , justify it , find explanation to any contradiction , that's what objectivity means .
AEG are the objective ones , we are in denial. You know after all being objective meant MJ did not have any asset that was worth than 200 millions , God forbid anyone call the expert who got $ 700000 to say that a liar or idiot , he had the right to express his opinion .

 

[marebear]

Wasn't this the time he was having problems with Sony?

 

[Justthefacts]

If Michael was not breathing and had been on the floor for a while there would have been some brain damage. So for Michael not be breathing and had no lasting problems would mean everything had to happen at once

 

[MIST]

Where did he ever say MJ was out of breath , when he asked did you HAVE to do mouth to mouth, he said I did , not I had to do .

You don´t do mouth to mouth on a person who is breathing.
You always do it because you have to, the person isn´t breathing or you think he/she isn´t breathing.
It can be drugs that make heartbeats and breaths go down that can make you believe the person doesn´t breathe at all.

 

[LastTear]

So the body guard did mouth to mouth because he wanted to not cos he had to? Well I certainly wouldn't need a reason either. Tell me, are cops in the USA trained in first aid?

I'm lost where anyone said that the only explanation is that a doctor had visited and given him an injection.

 

[Soundmind]

I'm lost where anyone said that the only explanation is that a doctor had visited and given him an injection.

This is the so called objective explanation

 

[LastTear]

With all due respect I think you should re read, there are a few possible explanations given.

 

[ivy]

Tell me, are cops in the USA trained in first aid?

yes they are, all policeman are trained in basic first aid and CPR.

the handout book I checked said if you find someone unconscious try to wake them by stimuli (shaking them, shouting their name), call 911 if they don't wake up and give mouth to mouth. The bodyguard followed the basic guidelines.

I'm lost where anyone said that the only explanation is that a doctor had visited and given him an injection.

This is the so called objective explanation

you are twisting it. in the partial deposition transcript he was asked if it was possible a doctor might have come to see Michael and he could be unaware of it.

if you are talking about my opinion it is simply based on my belief and personal experience not responsive to stimuli (shaking, calling his name) and needed mouth to mouth being more than just simple fainting.

 

[bouee]

drug reaction and overdose are two different things in my mind. I see overdose as almost toxic while reaction to be something less than that.

That being said I checked the paramedic handbook

very high drug amount : Muscles become relaxed, Speech is slowed/slurred ,Sleepy looking ,Responsive to stimuli (such as shaking, yelling, sternal rub, etc.) ,Normal heart beat/pulse ,Normal skin tone

overdose : Pale, clammy skin , Very infrequent or no breathing, Deep snoring or gurgling (death rattle) ,Not responsive to stimuli (such as shaking, yelling, sternal rub, etc.) , Slow heart beat/pulse , Blue lips and/or fingertips


paramedic handbook suggests if you find people unconscious and suspect drugs : to try stimuli such as shaking and yelling their name, if they don't respond to stimuli call 911, perform rescue breathing, and give Narcan if available

paramedics and emergency room can give narcan to reverse the effects of opiates but as I said there are serious limitations. It's not the duty of paramedics or emergency doctors to treat anyone for any drug addiction /dependency. The most will be a narcan shot and then allow those people to leave, they would not admit them to hospital to treat addiction / dependency . You can find many stories of heroin addicts for example that are found unconscious taken to hospital given narcan shot and released shortly thereafter and keep experiencing OD's and keep brought back to the hospital or being treated by paramedics.

given that Michael was conscious by the time paramedics came and he was responsive to stimuli, I don't think they considered it as an overdose or did anything more than checking his vitals. their recommendation of monitor him and go to his own doctor for check up is in par in regular practices. If they suspected an overdose they might have given a dose of narcan which might have reversed the effects. There's no way to know it

anyway I don't think this was an overdose or treated as an overdose by paramedics. I don't see it as a near death experience however at the same time to me the bodyguard saying Michael did not respond to shouting his name and shaking and needed breaths is significant. To me that demonstrates more than just fainting - and it is backed up by the paramedic handbook. As for MSG it seems in that instance Michael was responsive to stimuli as Cascio was able to wake him.

As far as I'm concerned I never said Michael was an addict or he was seeking a high, No not at all. He had legitimate issues such as the burn that required legitimate medicines to handle the pain but unfortunately at times he became dependent on such medicines and at times he had formed high tolerance and high use. I think several doctors can be blamed for this dependency. There have been times he asked for help acknowledging his issues and tried to get clean and I respect him tremendously for that. Unfortunately there have been again questionable doctors and other relapses. This is in my book is the realistic approach.

as for the "irresponsible addict ", I don't think there is a claim of "irresponsible" as this witness does acknowledge the following efforts to get clean. In this case Jacksons argue that what happened is AEG's responsibility and it wouldn't have happened if they did not hire Murray. As I mentioned before they argue that if Murray wasn't hired or fired, Michael would be healthy and continue to live to be 80 - 90 years old and tour & work until 66. AEG's tactic here to show that this was more than Murray. the past events of showing Michael under the influence such as Bangkok, doubledose at Neverland, unconscious at Disneyland and what else the next witnesses will testify is to show that there was a history of drug dependency at times and it might have repeated and resulted in an overdose whether or not Murray was employed, whether or not AEG TII concerts were happening. It is the personal responsibility angle that Putnam mentioned in the opening. IF this was one single incident involving Murray, it would have been easy to put the fault on Murray / AEG, however multiple incidents helps AEG argue that this was Michael's choice and eventually his responsibility. You will also see that these will tie with the life expectancy expert who would argue that life expectancy was low.

Don't get me wrong, all of this what makes this lawsuit a terrible thing.

I re read that. I'm not sure I understand everything : do you mean Michael had a super fast overdose, as he was not breathing according to La Perruque, and suddenly, "soon after the paramedics left" the drugs had left his system, he felt better and decided to leave the hotel ?

The point is , something happened that day, and we have no idea what it was, Mr LaPerruque doesn't know either , and the AEG lawyers are trying to say it was drug related. Maybe it was, maybe it was not, they have no idea either, they're just trying... and failed.

 

[MIST]

It didn´t have to be drugrelated everytime when Michael fainted.
AEG might have another thought with it too ,could Michael who might faint under pressure be able to do more tours after This is it.
It seems he wanted to do a world tour with this is it but we never know if he could do it.

 

[elapentela]

I re read that. I'm not sure I understand everything : do you mean Michael had a super fast overdose, as he was not breathing according to La Perruque, and suddenly, "soon after the paramedics left" the drugs had left his system, he felt better and decided to leave the hotel ?

The point is , something happened that day, and we have no idea what it was, Mr LaPerruque doesn't know either , and the AEG lawyers are trying to say it was drug related. Maybe it was, maybe it was not, they have no idea either, they're just trying... and failed.

We will see if they failed when the verdict will be available.

 

[ivy]

I re read that. I'm not sure I understand everything : do you mean Michael had a super fast overdose, as he was not breathing according to La Perruque, and suddenly, "soon after the paramedics left" the drugs had left his system, he felt better and decided to leave the hotel ?

I'm saying there can be different levels of a reaction. why do you claim like there's only black and white like no drugs to extreme drug toxicity? There could be a lot of medium ground.

For your information: if a heroin addict is found overdosed/ unconscious and revived / conscious and taken to hospital for a narcan shot , they can be discharged as early as in an hour if their vitals turn to good and if they can move / function properly.

even in the MSG event when Michael was given drugs and he was supposed to sleep for hours, he was able to be fed bagels and drinks and then walk the red carpet and even perform short time later..

I'm quite curious about if there's any difference in Europe and you expect the discharge to be somewhat long time and the medical treatment to be different.

they're just trying... and failed.

you won't know if they failed or succeeded until the verdict.

 

[jamba]

MJ "intended to work" after the 50 dates but NOT in touring.
Jamba, your own posts state the dilemma Michael had in regarding loans and the larger interest rates on those loans. How would he satisfy these loans without touring? Ortega, Gongaware, Phillips (if I remember correctly), and Michael’s two oldest children have all stated Michael was going to tour worldwide after the 50 dates. What proof is there he would not tour?

Touring was not going to bring in the big money. IMO touring was not going to solve MJ's financial issues, which were massive, including that he faced 15 lawsuits at the time of death. He definitely had to start bringing income into the positive column, which also meant restructuring the loans to a lower interest rate. To do that, he would have had to do what all of us have to do to get loans--improve our credit FICO score rating. This means improving the credit worthiness and the debt to income ratio. Touring did not appear to generate funds in the past. He basically had 3 solo tours and the last 2, it was testified, either lost $ (Dangerous, which makes sense since the tour was cancelled before it was scheduled to end), and HIStory (which broke even). The thing is MJ had huge production costs--the huge amt of equipment for the shows that would be flown around, etc etc.

So IMO he had to look at other revenue sources, such as releasing new singles and albums, making movies, and even selling some of his assets. Basically, he had to find a way to make himself a better credit risk as far as the banks, investors, sponsors, etc. were concerned. When the Forbes guy publishes his book on MJ's finances, it will be very interesting.

MJ told his friend who built the Carolwood house and who he spent Christmas 08 with (I think his name was Mohammed Hadib, but I need to verify that) that he wanted to do something similar to the Bucharest concert on HBO with the TII shows, later sold as DVDs. This idea was a good one that would have meant more $ coming in without having to do more shows or tour.

To do the tour TII and to save Neverland, MJ managed to hit it off with Anschutz, a billionaire with connections. He needed this type of person with clout to believe in him and to help him restructure his finances. The amt of debt MJ had to erase or re-finance was beyond the understanding of most people b/c being 400M in debt is something hard to fathom how the heck to get out of that situation.

I do not believe extended touring was the answer, esp. given his age and physical condition as well as his personal preferences, often stated, that he wanted to do FILM. IMO the main purpose of the TII tour was not to solve the debt issues entirely, but to reestablish himself as a musician, performer, artist after the bashing he took from the 05 trial, after which he had basically gone into seclusion in order to recuperate. Once his image and credibility as an artist had been restored by the success of TII (which ironically happened after the release of the film in 09), sales of his music would increase, his image would be repaired, and business ventures would be more attractive to investors. I believe the world-wide tour envisioned after TII was minimal in terms of the # of shows (a few in a few cities, max).

Finallly, when someone is dead and gone (RIP, MJ), it is highly speculative to talk about their future (what might have been, what would have been etc), as well as what happened before their death. What we get is little windows of what x or y saw while MJ was alive, and speculative projections of the future. IMO this is not a healthy excercise to keep debating what happened and what could have happened. It is best to focus on facts as much as possible rather than all these what might have been.

For example, Ivy wrote that MJ had 5 narcan implants and if that is factually established, we don't need to speculate about it. It is evident that he got them to reduce dependency on painkillers such as demerol. As far as the fainting, passing out, whatever it was, all we can factually verify is what the witness said as far as how long he was out. Otherwise we are entering into so many variables it is shifting the discussion into what I consider to be unprofitable wrangling. Maybe he had an allergy to the chemicals in the carpet in the hallway--I mean we can go on with speculations until the cow's come home. The main point is the probablity. We need to focus on that.

 

[bouee]

I'm saying there can be different levels of a reaction. why do you claim like there's only black and white like no drugs to extreme drug toxicity? There could be a lot of medium ground.

For your information: if a heroin addict is found overdosed and revived and taken to hospital for a narcan shot , they are discharges after an hour if their vitals turn to good and if they can move



you won't know if they failed or succeeded until the verdict.

I'm precisely NOT saying this is black/white situation, actually I've been saying exactly the opposite. It's your "objective" explanation a few posts back that it had to be related to drugs that makes me wonder. There is zero proof of that, because AEG has not been able to prove it, and you have not been able to show it either.

I've just taken the example of a drop in blood pressure to show that it's an explanation that also works here, so it's also a possibility. It could be a number of things.

I don't really care for a verdict about that particular issue. It's not Michael who's on trial, it's AEG. They are blaming the victim here, or trying to. Good luck with that, I'm not going to support this, especially if they are trying to mislead the jury with incorrect information.

 

[Virre]

It's not like this person said he would faint all the time. But he's a "fainter" as they said. And would faint at times, like when being under pressure, taking medicine that can cause light head thing etc. His name is Marcus Savolainen.

 

[Petrarose]

About this fainting thing: If a dr came to the hotel, wouldn't the hotel staff call Michael's security and say there is a visitor for Mr. Jackson? I mean one of the reasons you have security, is that guests/visitors go through them. Since the hotel called the security after the 911 call, it shows they know that the security has these specific duties. Now, if a dr. gave him something to sleep that night, why did the fainting occur in the morning? Wouldn't the drug the dr. give him act on him right away, since it is assumed the dr gave him an injection? Unless, Michael woke up early morning and took something from the pink bag? Then, if the pink bag had his drugs, why would you forget to take such a vital object, that could cause a big story in the news if it was found. This situation brings more questions than answers. Michael traveled with a bag of money too, so I wonder why the security did not say there was another bag that he traveled with.

Anyway it is up to Panish during cross to bring out the circumstances of the incidents witnesses disclose, and if he is not doing it, I guess he feels clarifying Michael's situation is not helpful to his case.

I feel the points AEG is making with these witnesses except Briggs & Meglen, are helping their case. Now about the hiring I don't know. I guess AEG might say that knowledge of rehab in 93 does not mean they should automatically believe that Michael was taking drugs at night.

 

[ivy]

It's your "objective" explanation a few posts back that it had to be related to drugs that makes me wonder.

for the final time

paramedic handbook

very high drug amount : Muscles become relaxed, Speech is slowed/slurred ,Sleepy looking ,Responsive to stimuli (such as shaking, yelling, sternal rub, etc.) ,Normal heart beat/pulse ,Normal skin tone

overdose : Pale, clammy skin , Very infrequent or no breathing, Deep snoring or gurgling (death rattle) ,Not responsive to stimuli (such as shaking, yelling, sternal rub, etc.) , Slow heart beat/pulse , Blue lips and/or fingertips

my personal experience of people fainting due to to dehydration or blood pressure : easily regain consciousness and alert

therefore my opinion : as he wasn't responsive to calling his name and shaking him and as it required mouth to mouth, it was something more than just fainting

you are free to agree or disagree.

yes as I have reasons to think how I think and I explained why I think like that. As my opinion is not based on "AEG said so", I consider it to be an objective evaluation. You like to disagree with that? I'm fine with it too.

There is zero proof of that, because AEG has not been able to prove it, and you have not been able to show it either.

I don't care what AEG proved or not and I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. It is other people who are trying so hard to disagree with what other people think. I simply wrote my opinion based on my firsthand experiences and my knowledge - which had nothing to do with AEG btw-, as I pointed out you are free to agree or disagree. you might even question objectivity / subjectivity and I can wonder about denial and realistic approach.

I'm not going to repeat myself in regards to dependency and what I think about it.

I've just taken the example of a drop in blood pressure to show that it's an explanation that also works here, so it's also a possibility. It could be a number of things.

and I also said we can't know either way.that means you can't also prove or rule out that it wasn't drug related.So you have your opinion that it's not drug related. So everyone's own interpretation is as valid as other person's interpretation. Thinking it's not drug related is as valid as thinking it's drug related. I'm entitled to think it sounds more than just fainting and again you are free to agree and disagree. I fail to see the reason for this never ending circle in the discussion.

 

[Petrarose]

You know I don't know if it is because I have been reading this since May, but I don't find the drug information damaging to Michael anymore. I don't think his legacy will suffer due to it, either. The tabs may focus on this part only and run with it, but the new drug information from this trial is not that alarming. I now see it as having pain-get addictive drugs-become addicted-fight to become clean-maybe relapse. I think this is a situation that many people find themselves in, so many can relate to it. It is not that I like them bringing all Michael's business out, but I don't see this evidence as "oh so terrible & spoiling Michael's squeaky clean image." Now the effect of this on Michael's young children is a different matter.

 

[Victory22]

Michael's children are the ones who will be hurt the most for sure.