Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Soundmind]

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.

Exactly , it was far different from the portrait of him in the opening statement .

 

[Bubs]

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 .

As far as I can see, noone here wrote anything about MJ getting injection from doctor?
When I wrote my thoughts about the incident, the bolded part in your post was exactly what I meant by writing doc might have given something to him, like pill. Bodyguard says he didn't see any drugs around, he said that no doc travelled with them that time, but earlier testified about MJ told him to find hotel doctors if they travelled without MJ's own doc. My conclusion was that it could have been that hotel doctor gave him something that he reacted badly or it could be he had something with him and he took it and got bad reaction to it. I said nothing about injection, and I don't know where did you get it?

I was wondering if there is more to come about this fainting episode?
If this is important testimony to either side, I would have thought that they get those emt's to testify, or at least subpoena their notes from that episode.

 

[Bubs]

Can somebody do me a favour and post this article in the news thread
Michael Jackson's survivors vs. AEG: a gold mine for witnesses
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jackson-witnesses-20130804,0,6127172.story

LA Times has this funny policy that you get free online access to their articles for limited time, and once you are over that limited access, you need to subscribe La Times. I have gone over my limited access and cannot read the article:-(

 

[Tygger]

Touring was not going to bring in the big money….. 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)…. I believe the world-wide tour envisioned after TII was minimal in terms of the # of shows (a few in a few cities, max)…. 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.

Jamba, the opposite has been shown in court via testimonies and evidence. Touring has been very profitable as shown with the top tours for artists. Panish most recently questioned Briggs on Gongaware’s assessment that History broke even. It is impossible for History to had broke even if Michael donated his History tour monies to charity which he did. AEG’s projection was 186 shows which may be on par with other successful and sought after performers.

I understand that the figures Erk and AEG calculated were speculative. However this will play a part in how damages will be determined. This is why Briggs’ presenting NO calculations for $700K is just utterly bizarre!

BTW Jacksons tried to exclude Briggs. This was the decision from court.

Annita, thank you, I did not remember that. I am quite glad Briggs testified actually.

Plus if Michael fainted every time he had stood up to fast, I would have expected him to faint after every time he did a multiple 360 spin.

Ivy, I am not well versed on medical issues. I believe if Michael’s adrenaline rose, his blood pressure did as well so, he would not faint when performing.

That someone on facebook is someone who knew Michael and was around, I don´t know anything else. Don´t get mad me, sorry I shouldn´t forward things like that though, sorry again.

it's not a pink football. It's a small round pink bag that Michael traveled with and the bodyguards referred as "the football". The implication in the partial transcript is that there was a drug bag that Michael traveled with. As this bodyguard did not know the contents of it per his deposition it might not come up.

Virre, I personally do not have an issue with your post. It matched the security chief’s deposition regarding low blood pressure as per Ivy's summary. I do not remember the security chief stating what time of day Michael fainted. I believe Disney World is humid and/or has very hot temperatures. Could it be Michael succumbed to a full day of heat exposure, fatigue, and/or dehydration? Did Michael eat at all that day? I do not know and I do not believe it has value for this case. It has nothing to do with the actions of AEG in 2009.

Ivy, the implication is dangerous. AEG does not care how the jurors fill in the blanks of this story from 2001/2002 so long as it has the most negative conclusion possible and that it benefits AEG. No details before Michael fainted were mentioned. The jurors are left to figure out the beginning and assign meaning. I hope the jurors will not bother with the exercise as it is only a deflection from AEG’s culpability which should remain the focus in my view.

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?

Last Tear, I believe all damage done to Michael, he personally experienced during his lifetime.

Last Tear, please let me say I am not being rude in my response as I appreciated yours. I do not understand your response in that if the defense is liable, it does not mean they mistreated Michael and that damage payout will go to financially stable people. If AEG is liable, it means they were negligent towards Michael, it lead to his wrongful death, and they have to be penalized monetarily as the law allows. The plaintiffs’ wealthy status did not make them immune to suffering a fatal lost and they are eligible and deserving of the damages if they are successful.

Elapentela, I find it confusing that some fans continually blame the Jacksons for everything that happens in this trial (among other things). Soundmind posted that some felt Michael was subhuman or superhuman and I feel it extended to all the Jacksons as well. The Jacksons are human and have no control whatsoever over others' actions that lead to the trial, reactions to the trial, and reactions after the trial. We are all fully and completely responsible for our own actions and reactions.

The Jacksons did not control AEG in placing the doctor in the pre-production budget. The Jacksons did not control TMZ in posting photos of the room Michael passed in. The Jacksons did not control Robson in filing a false claim against Michael’s estate at an opportune moment. The Jacksons did not controll CNN pursuing the doctor for an interview or how that interview was received by the general public. The Jacksons did not control any fans’ feelings about this trial. The point has been made I believe.

I cannot blame the Jackson for anything as they did not control Michael’s passing. I am most sure they would prevent his passing if they could control that.

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.

or that the jury thinks AEG could have done something about Murray- not necessarily knowing the "treatments" but knowing all those weird symptoms. AEG retained Murray's services in spite of that.

Agreed Last Tear and Bouee. Recent posts have grown in suspicion of Michael because posters are more aware of Michael’s past addiction/dependency issues. Does it now stand to reason why this trial exists?

If AEG knew Michael had addiction/dependency issues (and they did indeed know because the general public knew after Michael's public announcements) and Gongaware had knowledge that doctors treated Michael on a tour that ended in Michael going to rehab (not the actual treatement or why, just that they treated Michael) and Phillips was frightened of Klein's treatments because of how Michael was after those treatments, why would AEG allegedly hire a doctor for Michael without a background check and maintain his implicit employment despite Michael’s visible decline?

AEG simply says: “Michael wanted him” and this alone should amend their each and every reaction to that. I often feel AEG dampened their own suspicions on purpose so that TII would succeed by any means over LiveNation.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

Last Tear, I believe all damage done to Michael, he personally experienced during his lifetime.

Last Tear, please let me say I am not being rude in my response as I appreciated yours. I do not understand your response in that if the defense is liable, it does not mean they mistreated Michael and that damage payout will go to financially stable people. If AEG is liable, it means they were negligent towards Michael, it lead to his wrongful death, and they have to be penalized monetarily as the law allows. The plaintiffs’ wealthy status did not make them immune to suffering a fatal lost and they are eligible and deserving of the damages if they are successful.

You believe that because Michael is no longer here - all this can't hurt him? Maybe so, but it hurts his memory. What do we all fight to protect when say the likes of Gene Simmons has his say? Love, compassion, protectiveness & respect shouldn't end in someone's death, we can leave that for the likes of Lester.

Your response is not at all rude, I meant that the mistreating of Michael goes so far as hiring Murray and possibly not supervising, it wouldn't mean that they have been found guilty of signing up for 50 shows without Michael knowledge, for example.

I understand about how the system works and it makes no difference how wealthy the Plantiffs are. IMO KJ should have accepted restitution from Murray and also sued AEG for the possible negligent hiring of Murray. (But let's not get into that again. Lol)

 

[LastTear]

@Bubs, I put the article in day 61 to keep in order.

 

[Bubs]

Thanks Lasttear. It was an interesting article. I wonder what is going to be the total for expert witnesses if they are already over million?

"Jurors, Armour said, often suspect that one side or the other is buying an expert to provide the testimony it wants. Brown's contribution, Armour said, boosts his credibility to the jury."

I agree with this. I remember CM trial, and I think Shafer spending many days in stand and not taking a penny from his testimony made him more credible to eyes of jurors,whereas everytime when Dr White opened his mouth, he billed Flanny & Co.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ True. It's very clear between Erks and Briggs that each is saying what the person paying them wants them to say. Although I do agree that it is difficult and speculative to estimate Michaels future earnings. If I was on the jury I would probably go for something inbetween.

Probably a question for Ivy, I was wondering what would happen with Panish's no win no fee situation if AEG were found liable and a monetary figure is awarded then most likely AEG will appeal. So would Panish's firm only receive their fee if the awarded money has actually been paid?

 

[Petrarose]

^^I think lawyers take on these types of cases, if they think they will really win the case. I think Panish's firm thought there would be a definite settlement. They even use the fact that they get many settlements in their write up about their firm. I am thinking that both sides are really hoping that the expert testimonies win the case for them, & after the amount of money that each side put out to win this case, those experts really have to come through for their clients to make their testimony work. Unfortunately, some of the experts forgot that their testimonies have to be believable as well.

The money that Michael would have to pay if Panish looses is unbelievably. Panish paid experts and those who were paid for the depositions. Then we have their lawyers hours in court, travel, research, meals. The firm usually pay the experts, etc., out of their own money until the case is won, so if Panish loses this case the firm will lose a lot of money.

I thought after Panish rested, they would ask the defense for a third settlement. Maybe they did and we did not hear about it? Just before the trial began we saw that Katherine's side added an attorney that deals with appeals to her list. We know that they are prepared to appeal if they lose. This money might not be seen for years, so I hope Randy, Rebbie, and those waiting for this money have a backup plan.

PS: From that article from the LA Times: One of the consultants who worked with him, Briggs testified, was a year out of college. Briggs said he had done "general research," such as finding out the capacities of arenas where Erk said Jackson might perform during his world tour.

The recently graduated consultant charged $350 an hour.

How could a new graduate get $350 an hour? What is happening is that firm is overcharging AEG, and I doubt that graduate will see all the 350. Out of that he may get $75 an hour, but on the billing it shows up 350.00 an hour.

 

[ivy]

Elapentela, I find it confusing that some fans continually blame the Jacksons for everything that happens in this trial

you don't see that anything happens in this trial is because of Jacksons suing? for example can't you see that AEG is saying Michael wouldn't earn a dime because Jacksons sued them? Don't you see AEG is trying to portray Michael as a secretive addict because Jacksons sued them? Anything and everything AEG had done in this trial is because Jacksons sued them and they are defending themselves. So yeah that's on Jacksons. If anyone expected AEG to just write a check to Jacksons or act all nice and kind in their defense or spare Michael, I feel they are being unrealistic to assume that. This is something that Jacksons started. How can you blame AEG for defending themselves anyway they see fit when they were sued by Jacksons?

Probably a question for Ivy, I was wondering what would happen with Panish's no win no fee situation if AEG were found liable and a monetary figure is awarded then most likely AEG will appeal. So would Panish's firm only receive their fee if the awarded money has actually been paid?

I don't think Panish would be paid until the appeal is completed. and this will probably go to up to supreme court in appeals.

 

[Tygger]

You believe that because Michael is no longer here - all this can't hurt him? Maybe so, but it hurts his memory. What do we all fight to protect when say the likes of Gene Simmons has his say? Love, compassion, protectiveness & respect shouldn't end in someone's death, we can leave that for the likes of Lester.

Last Tear, everything that is testified to Michael has already experienced be it positive or negative. Let us take the fainting at Disney World. Michael fainted in front of his children and they felt helpless. When he was conscious, he may have felt embarrassed and he may have also felt irresponsible because two young children were left to care for him. I do not know. I do know the experience was already felt by Michael.

The jurors and anyone following the trial have now been told this story many years after the fact and now have our own feelings and judgment about the situation but, it is very similar to how we have always felt about situations regarding Michael throughout his life. This means, if a person, like Simmons, was suspicious of Michael when he was here, they continued to be suspicious of him when he passed. Simmons is an absolute coward for expressing all of this venom after Michael's passing. It is not a fair argument when one cannot argue back. I do not believe any person became suspicious of Michael only after he passed if they were aware of him before he passed.

you don't see that anything happens in this trial is because of Jacksons suing? for example can't you see that AEG is saying Michael wouldn't earn a dime because Jacksons sued them? Don't you see AEG is trying to portray Michael as a secretive addict because Jacksons sued them? Anything and everything AEG had done in this trial is because Jacksons sued them and they are defending themselves. So yeah that's on Jacksons. If anyone expected AEG to just write a check to Jacksons or act all nice and kind in their defense or spare Michael, I feel they are being unrealistic to assume that This is something that Jacksons started. How can you blame AEG for defending themselves anyway they see fit when they were sued by Jacksons?

Can we rationally blame the fans that brought tickets for TII for Michael’s passing? They brought tickets in record numbers which caused AEG to increase shows to 50. Michael felt pressured and sought the doctor to help him sleep.

Everyone is responsible for their OWN actions and reactions otherwise it is passing personal accountability in my view. In this case, Michael cannot be blamed for the way AEG decided to form a relationship with his doctor. I, in turn, cannot blame the Jacksons for AEG’s weak defense methods; that is THEIR choice to defend themselves as they see fit. AEG could have said they could not hire the doctor because Michael hired him but, there is absolutely no real proof that Michael did or they would have presented that pre-trial as the plaintiffs’ lawyers presented all of those damaging emails (among other items) that lead to this case.

Thus, AEG blames Michael for their own actions and reactions to the doctor before he passed and continues to blame him afterwards. Some fans in turn then blame the Jacksons because the Jacksons lost their father/son and are using this legal avenue to get clarity on the AEG/Michael/the doctor relationship I discussed before. I simply do not agree with that type of reasoning and I do not accept passing personal accountability to others.

I don't think Panish would be paid until the appeal is completed. and this will probably go to up to supreme court in appeals.

An appeal on either side is speculation.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger, Yes the experience was felt by Michael but it wasn't told to the world. It still effects Michaels memory. It's not Michael who is hurt but his memory and also his image.

Re Appeal, Ivy simply replied to my question where I asked about Panish getting paid in the event of an appeal. I was the one speculating on a possible appeal.

 

[jamba]

Jamba, the opposite has been shown in court via testimonies and evidence. Touring has been very profitable as shown with the top tours for artists. Panish most recently questioned Briggs on Gongaware’s assessment that History broke even. It is impossible for History to had broke even if Michael donated his History tour monies to charity which he did. AEG’s projection was 186 shows which may be on par with other successful and sought after performers.

So if Panish questions something it is automatically no longer credible? Wow--I didn't realize Panish had so much influence--he certainly does not in my book. I trust Gongaware's assessment since he was involved in the tour and had access to the relevant info--unless new info comes out. Why is it "impossible" that HIStory broke even? It seems you are showing a huge bias here in forming opinions without presenting any true evidence--just saying something can't be so in your opinion does not make it true--this is a logical fallacy, namely argument by assertion.

Bringing in other artists is not helpful--focus on MJ and HIS tours--b/c MJ was a unique artist.

 

[ivy]

I simply do not agree with that type of reasoning and I do not accept passing personal accountability to others.

interesting. do you put any personal accountability to Michael then? Or is he not responsible for anything and everything is someone else's fault?

that aside what you are ignoring is the "cause and effect" relationship. It's like it rains (cause) and the roads get slippery (effect), it's like a banana peel (cause) falls to the ground and someone slips and falls (effect). This cause and effect is mentioned in regards to AEG's relationship with Michael too such as pressure (cause) and drug use (effect). I would think that most people will admit that there is a cause and effect relationship here. Jacksons filed a lawsuit (cause) and AEG is defending themselves anyway they see fit even in a manner that's not nice to Michael (effect). Even though you choose not to "blame" Jacksons for AEG's defense tactics, the only reason AEG is in a position to defend themselves is due to the lawsuit by Jacksons.

An appeal on either side is speculation.

appeal on AEG side is not speculation. Not only before trial they told Radaronline that they would appeal the verdict if they lose on emotional basis but there have been multiple mentions of an appeal during the court proceedings. So if AEG loses , they will be appealing. Given that Jackson side also appealed judge's decision to remove AEG Inc, it's also likely that Jacksons to pursue an appeal.

 

[jaydom7]

This med talk doesn't seem all that bad to me either.. MJ admitted he had a past problem with pain meds so that doctors treating him were well aware of it because MJ told the world. If anything it makes me feel even more sympathy for MJ because to me and many others it appears the doctors took advantage of a man they knew had a problem and they did it for money and greed. If MJ told the world in 1993 why in the world in 2009 was Klein still giving MJ demerol knowing his past addiction issues. I blame Klein and the many other corrupt doctors that let MJ down and took advantage of him.

 

[Tygger]

@Tygger, Yes the experience was felt by Michael but it wasn't told to the world. It still effects Michaels memory. It's not Michael who is hurt but his memory and also his image.

Last Tear, why is the story being told to world by AEG except for their perceived benefit? It has nothing to do with their culpability for their own 2009 actions. Michael did not force AEG into a relationship with the doctor. That story has no effect on MY memory of Michael because I am choosing that it has no effect on my memory of Michael. If another person’s perception of Michael has now changed because of this story or any other story AEG decides to present, then that is their choice. I am not going to now blame the Jacksons because AEG had a witness tell this story in the hopes their perception of Michael will now be as negative as possible because that is how they chose to portray him. Not one of these stories presented have background information, only incomplete details of an isolated event and jurors are left to fill in the blanks in hopefully, the most negative manner that they can if it will benefit AEG.

So if Panish questions something it is automatically no longer credible? Wow--I didn't realize Panish had so much influence--he certainly does not in my book. I trust Gongaware's assessment since he was involved in the tour and had access to the relevant info--unless new info comes out. Why is it "impossible" that HIStory broke even? It seems you are showing a huge bias here in forming oopinions without presenting any true evidence--just saying something can't be so in your opinion does not make it true--this is a logical fallacy, namely argument by assertion.

Jamba, if the tour broke even, it would mean amount of monies coming in would equal the amount of monies going out. Michael would not have proceeds from the History tour to donate to charities if the tour broke even and he DID donate proceeds from the tour to charities.

Even though you choose not to "blame" Jacksons for AEG's defense tactics, the only reason AEG is in a position to defend themselves is due to the lawsuit by Jacksons.

Ivy, a couple of things before responding to the above quote:

I still feel an appeal on either side is speculation. If the plaintiffs win, they can legally thwart a lengthy appeal by AEG who will try to stall damage payout. If the defense wins, the financials and length of time for an appeal may be unattractive to the plaintiffs.

I just wanted to know why. Of course everyone expects AEG to defend themselves. The question is why this ridiculously, weak defense when the stronger defense would be to show Michael hired the doctor. The answer is there is no proof Michael hired the doctor and this is why they are using deflection; “blame Michael for all of their actions and reactions” even though Michael had no control over their actions and reactions. Again, the Jacksons are not to blame for AEG choosing that particular defense method; AEG’s defense team are completely responsible for that choice.

interesting. do you put any personal accountability to Michael then? Or is he not responsible for anything and everything is someone else's fault?

I didn't state that. I will repost what I originally said below.

Can we rationally blame the fans that brought tickets for TII for Michael’s passing? They brought tickets in record numbers which caused AEG to increase shows to 50. Michael felt pressured and sought the doctor to help him sleep.

Everyone is responsible for their OWN actions and reactions otherwise it is passing personal accountability in my view. In this case, Michael cannot be blamed for the way AEG decided to form a relationship with his doctor.

 

[sophie]

i googled about chronic pain and pain management and found some interesting information re drug seeking behavior in pain patients.

i don't know if "pseudo-addiction" was the problem with mj, but i think it's an interesting lead. here are some links:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pseudoaddiction

Pseudoaddiction

A drug-seeking behaviour that simulates true addiction, which occurs in patients with pain who are receiving inadequate pain medication

http://www2.massgeneral.org/painrelief/Pain Topics/What is Pseudoaddiction.pdf

What is Pseudoaddiction?

Thomas E. Quinn, MSN, RN, AOCN
January 2004

Pseudoaddiction is the term for an iatrogenic syndrome that appears to mimic behaviors that are commonly believed to be associated with addiction.

It may present in a patient with or without a history of or risk factors for drug abuse or true addiction.

It usually occurs with acute pain, including acute pain that is overlaid on a chronic pain condition.

It is characterized by a climate of distrust and conflict between the patient and the care team related to the use of opioids for pain.

Its etiology is pain that is inadequately treated, leading to patient demands for opioid analgesia that are interpreted by the care team as being excessive.

The result is a progressive cycle of patient complaints of inadequate pain relief, sometimes accompanied by exaggerated pain behaviors, and care team resistance to providing opioids, sometimes compounded by avoidance and isolation of the patient. [...]

http://addictionmanagement.org/Pseudoaddiction versus Addiction in a Pain Population.pdf

Pseudoaddiction versus Addiction in a Pain Population

by Ann T. Kline, MS

Abstract

While addiction is a disease that most in the healthcare profession are aware of, the same does not hold true for pseudoaddiction, a phenomenon which is commonly misconstrued as a form of drug-seeking behavior with the primary aim of abuse.

Many clinicians refuse to treat pain patients complaining of inadequate pain relief, for fear of addiction. Some substance abuse counselors misdiagnose their clients as addicts.

Current research in this area describes the lack of understanding related to this drug-seeking behavior and the negative outcomes for the patient/client as a consequence of both past and current misconceptions on the issue.

Further empirical research and healthcare professional education on the differences between addiction and pseudoaddiction are needed in an effort to elucidate this phenomenon.

http://www.addiction-free.com/blog/addiction-versus-pseudoaddiction/

Addiction versus Pseudoaddiction

Dr. Stephen F. Grinstead
posted January 29th, 2008

There are many questions to be addressed when treating someone who has chronic pain and coexisting substance use disorders. I start most of my Addiction-Free Pain Management™ trainings with three questions:

1. Are we managing pain but fueling the addiction?
2. Are we treating the addiction but sabotaging the pain management?
3. Is it addiction or pseudoaddiction?

The term pseudoaddiction is fairly new to the addiction treatment field but has been used in pain management for quite a while now.

[...]

the above article has an interesting case study of a woman in badly managed chronic pain who was forced to go through detox and follow one of these "12 steps" programs.

also note what "Kay" says in the comment section of the article; note how he writes he thinks he's an addict but his dr doesn't agree.


--
here's also some info about opioid induced hyperalgesia (hypersensitivity to pain), from wiki:

Opioid-induced hyperalgesia

Opioid-induced hyperalgesia[1] or opioid-induced abnormal pain sensitivity[2] is a phenomenon associated with the long term use of opioids such as morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, and methadone. Over time, individuals taking opioids can develop an increasing sensitivity to noxious stimuli, even evolving a painful response to previously non-noxious stimuli (allodynia). Some studies on animals have also demonstrated this effect occurring after only a single high dose of opioids.[3]

Although tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia both result in a similar need for dose escalation, they are nevertheless caused by two distinct mechanisms.[4] The similar net effect makes the two phenomena difficult to distinguish in a clinical setting. Under chronic opioid treatment, a particular individual's requirement for dose escalation may be due to tolerance (desensitization of antinociceptive mechanisms), opioid-induced hyperalgesia (sensitization of pronociceptive mechanisms), or a combination of both.

Identifying the development of hyperalgesia is of great clinical importance since patients receiving opioids to relieve pain may paradoxically experience more pain as a result of treatment. Whereas increasing the dose of opioid can be an effective way to overcome tolerance, doing so to compensate for opioid-induced hyperalgesia may worsen the patient's condition by increasing sensitivity to pain while escalating physical dependence.

If an individual is taking opioids for a chronic non-cancer pain condition, and cannot achieve effective pain relief despite increases in dose, they may be experiencing opioid-induced hyperalgesia. In this case, they may benefit from complete withdrawal from opioid therapy. Many individuals report reduced pain levels when opioids are withdrawn.

src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid-induced_hyperalgesia

i wonder whether this could have been part of mj's problem?


--
re the implant mj used, is was a naltrexone implant according to ABC7 tweets, not a naloxone (narcan) implant as klein seemed to assume:

Koskoff: You have no knowledge whether the Narcan implant had anything to do with the reaction in June?
Fournier: No

Fournier said he never heard Narcan as an implant, had never seen one.

"I was told by two of his physicians there was one," Fournier said. He spoke with doctors Klein and Metzger about it.

Koskoff: If Dr. Farshchian said it was Naltrexone implant and he [klein?] thought it was the same as Narcan, it would be a mistake, correct?

Fournier: Correct. They are two different drugs.

Dr. Klein told Fournier MJ had a Narcan implant, he went home, research it and could not find anything on it.

"I know the effects of Narcan," Fournier said. It can cause cardiac arrest, tachycardia, defibrillation.

Naloxene, which is Narcan -- Fournier has familiarity with it.
Fournier is not used to Naltrexone, but said it's also an opioid inhibitor.

Koskoff: Do you know the effects of Naltroxene in anesthesia?

Fournier: It would have the same effect of this kinds of drugs, antagonist opioid effect and it's dose-dependent.

src: ABC7 Court News @ABC7Courts

naloxone (narcan) is not available orally or as an implant tmk. it's an antagonist used in "detox" situations, e.g. in case of an od, or after operations to undo the effects of analgesia applied during anesthesia.

it is different from naltrexone which does not completely reverse the effects from opioids; naltrexone is a partial antagonist which is used for longterm treatment. it's effects can be overridden, but require higher doses of opioids than usual to manage pain.

about naltrexone, from wiki:

Naltrexone should not be started prior to several (typically 7-10) days of abstinence from opioids. This is due to the risk of acute opioid withdrawal if naltrexone is taken, as naltrexone will displace most opioids from their receptors. The time of abstinence may be shorter than 7 days, depending on the half-life of the specific opioid taken. [...]

It is important that one not attempt to use opioids while using naltrexone.

Although naltrexone blocks the opioid receptor, it is possible to override this blockade with very high doses of opioids.

However this is quite dangerous and may lead to opioid overdose, respiratory depression, and death.

Similarly one will not show normal response to opioid pain medications when taking naltrexone.

In a supervised medical setting pain relief is possible but may require higher than usual doses, and the individual should be closely monitored for respiratory depression.

All individuals taking naltrexone are encouraged to keep a card or a note in their wallet in case of an injury or another medical emergency.

This is to let medical personnel know that special procedures are required if opiate-based painkillers are to be used.

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naltrexone

mj definitely should have told the anesthesia nurse about the implant; that he told klein, but not the nurse, to me is an indicator he maybe didnt understand very well what the implant was doing. - did farshchian explain to him that pain relief during a procedure would require higher doses of opioids?

i'm also stunned that klein seemed to assume mj was getting narcan (not naltrexone), but only told this the nurse during the procedure. no wonder the nurse was upset.

if mj had indeed received narcan, i'm not sure pain relief during a procedure would have been possible.

i don't understand why klein went ahead with planned procedures without discussing the implant with the anesthesia nurse to find out if sedation/pain relief was actually possible; especially since he wrongly assumed it to be a narcan implant.

here's some more information from the fda re naltrexone and response to opioids:

When Reversal of Naltrexone Hydrochloride Blockade is Required

In an emergency situation in patients receiving fully blocking doses of Naltrexone hydrochloride, a suggested plan of management is regional analgesia, conscious sedation with a benzodiazepine, use of non-opioid analgesics or general anesthesia.

In a situation requiring opioid analgesia, the amount of opioid required may be greater than usual, and the resulting respiratory depression may be deeper and more prolonged.

A rapidly acting opioid analgesic which minimizes the duration of respiratory depression is preferred. The amount of analgesic administered should be titrated to the needs of the patient.

There is also the possibility that a patient who had been treated with Naltrexone will respond to lower doses of opioids than previously used, particularly if taken in such a manner that high plasma concentrations remain in the body beyond the time that Naltrexone exerts its therapeutic effects.

This could result in potentially life-threatening opioid intoxication (respiratory compromise or arrest, circulatory collapse, etc.).

Patients should be aware that they may be more sensitive to lower doses of opioids after Naltrexone treatment is discontinued.

src: http://www.drugs.com/pro/naltrexone.html

i wonder why mj had stopped breathing during one procedure; maybe the problem was that he needed higher doses of opioids than usual which caused hypoxia?

as we know from the autopsy, mj had reduced lung capacity which probably made him more susceptible to respiratory depression.


--
when googling these subjects i also came about some interesting info re so called "low-dose" naloxone/naltrexone therapy.

low-dose therapy is different from normal dosage as used for detox or to prevent relapse.

unfortunately, naloxone and naltrexone loose these low-dose therapeutic effects when given at higher doses.

here's an interesting article about this topic:

http://pain-topics.org/pdf/OpioidAntagonistsForPain.pdf

Opioid Antagonists, Naloxone & Naltrexone — Aids for Pain Management

March 2009
Researcher/Author: Stewart B. Leavitt, MA, PhD

the article says there are case reports and small studies indicating that naloxone/naltrexone at low doses can help to make opioid therapy more effective, ameliorate pain, reverse tolerance and help to overcome hyperalgesia (opioid induced pain), help with the tapering process from opioids, and ameliorate opioid side effects; they may also help with chronic pain in certain autoimmune diseases such as fibromyalgia.

the article says the biggest problem which needs to be ovecome to profit from these effects is accurate dosage.

here's also a scientific article about research done in this area:

http://www.la-press.com/ultra-low-d...o-improve-opioid-analgesia-the--article-a2351

Ultra-Low-Dose Naloxone or Naltrexone to Improve Opioid Analgesia: The History, the Mystery and a Novel Approach

16 Nov 2010
Authors: Lindsay H. Burns and Hoau-Yan Wang

pdf: http://www.la-press.com/redirect_file.php?fileId=3207&filename=CMT-2-Wang-et-al&fileType=pdf

if this new approach is successful it could be a breakthrough in the management of pain and opioid therapy.

i wonder whether mj ever heard about this new "low-dose" lead in pain therapy. the naltrexone implants he used don't have these therapeutic effects however, since the dosage is too high.


--
finally, i did some research on "12 steps" and substance abuse treatment programs and i'm posting some links to sources critical of today's common approach in sat (substance abuse treatment):

http://www.casacolumbia.org/templates/NewsRoom.aspx?articleid=678&zoneid=51

Addiction Medicine: Closing the Gap between Science and Practice

June 2012

CASAColumbia’s new five year national study reveals that addiction treatment is largely disconnected from mainstream medical practice.

While a wide range of evidence-based screening, intervention, treatment and disease management tools and practices exist, they rarely are employed.

The report exposes the fact that most medical professionals who should be providing treatment are not sufficiently trained to diagnose or treat addiction, and most of those providing addiction treatment are not medical professionals and are not equipped with the knowledge, skills or credentials necessary to provide the full range of evidence-based services, including pharmaceutical and psychosocial therapies and other medical care.

This landmark report examines the science of addiction--a complex disease that involves changes in the structure and function of the brain--and the profound gap between what we know about the disease and how to prevent and treat it versus current health and medical practice. [...]

full report:
http://www.casacolumbia.org/upload/2012/20120626addictionmed.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Rehab-Surprising-Addiction-Treatment/dp/0670025224

Inside Rehab: The Surprising Truth About Addiction Treatment-and How to Get Help That Works

Anne M. Fletcher
2013

Customer Reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Rehab-Surprising-Addiction-Treatment/product-reviews/0670025224

^i think these customer reviews make an interesting read, you get to hear different opinions and approaches on the subject

another article on skepdic.com:

http://www.skepdic.com/sat.html

substance abuse treatment

reader comments:
http://www.skepdic.com/comments/satcom.html

and a study about the lack of scientific data showing the effectiveness of aa (alcoholics anonymous) 12 steps:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence

2006 Jul 19

Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M.
Source: Agency of Public Health, Project Unit: EBM and Models of Health Assistance, Via di Santa Costanza 53, Rome, Italy 00198. ferri@asplazio.it

[...]

Authors' conclusions
No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF [12 steps] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed.

 

[ivy]

The question is why this ridiculously, weak defense when the stronger defense would be to show Michael hired the doctor.

weak versus strong is nothing more than your personal opinion. if verdict wise they get a favorable verdict what you call as weak would work for their advantage. so we won't know how this pans out until there's a verdict. I posted this before "blame the victim" is a very common defense strategy so there's nothing surprising there. I personally see this "well they could have defended themselves without attacking Michael" as an unrealistic or biased fan opinion. Why would AEG think about sparing Michael, especially if you think they mistreated him in life why would you expect them to treat Michael properly after death?

Again, the Jacksons are not to blame for AEG choosing that particular defense method; AEG’s defense team are completely responsible for that choice.

and I believe I already responded to that. even if you don't "blame" Jacksons for AEG's choice of defense, the only reason AEG is defending themselves is because they are sued. You really cannot deny that the Jacksons are the cause here.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

Last Tear, why is the story being told to world by AEG except for their perceived benefit? It has nothing to do with their culpability for their own 2009 actions. Michael did not force AEG into a relationship with the doctor. That story has no effect on MY memory of Michael because I am choosing that it has no effect on my memory of Michael. If another person’s perception of Michael has now changed because of this story or any other story AEG decides to present, then that is their choice. I am not going to now blame the Jacksons because AEG had a witness tell this story in the hopes their perception of Michael will now be as negative as possible because that is how they chose to portray him. Not one of these stories presented have background information, only incomplete details of an isolated event and jurors are left to fill in the blanks in hopefully, the most negative manner that they can if it will benefit AEG.

The stories are being told because of the Jacksons, so yes I blame them. You know how I feel on the subject of Murray's freedom to profit, IMO it has been set aside fo the hope of a greater monetary gain in this lawsuit.

 

[crillon]

@Tygger

The stories are being told because of the Jacksons, so yes I blame them. You know how I feel on the subject of Murray's freedom to profit, IMO it has been set aside fo the hope of a greater monetary gain in this lawsuit.

LastTear, I totally agree with you. If this trial were about the truth and not money, I could maybe give the Jacksons a pass on queuing this trial up. But, their motivation behind turning down restitution for the individual responsible for Michael's death and filing a lawsuit against a corporation with barely a nexus to the event has to do with who has the money for a big payday. Most of us see that clearly. Dragging Michael through the mud is something both sides engaged in when it was only necessary for the defense to do it. Makes you wonder.

I don't understand how fans can turn a blind eye to the motivation of the Jacksons--money over truth. To me, that says it all and corrupts everything they've done here--they've lost the high ground. imo

 

[jamba]

Jamba, if the tour broke even, it would mean amount of monies coming in would equal the amount of monies going out. Michael would not have proceeds from the History tour to donate to charities if the tour broke even and he DID donate proceeds from the tour to charities.

This seems a false assumption. What I understand by 'broke even" is that costs equal profit. However, costs INCLUDE salaries. So MJ's earnings were included in the costs of the tour. What he did with his salary was up to him.

 

[Ashtanga]

All this crap seems to be taking forever to finish.... errin: *big sigh*

 

[jamba]

Michael did not force AEG into a relationship with the doctor.

He didn't 'force' in that he did not put a gun to their heads but he sure insisted and demanded that CM be on the tour as his personal doc, which means paid by AEG b/c MJ did not have the $ upfront (or did not want to use his advance $ for CM). He insisted he must have CM to RP when he tried to talk him out of using CM and instead go with a UK doc. When negotiations came to a halt when CM wanted 5M, it was MJ who came up with the $150k/mo amt. I think MJ made it clear to AEG he wanted, needed, and insisted on CM and would not be talked out of it.

 

[Tygger]

I personally see this "well they could have defended themselves without attacking Michael" as an unrealistic or biased fan opinion. Why would AEG think about sparing Michael, especially if you think they mistreated him in life why would you expect them to treat Michael properly after death?

The stronger argument is they could not hire the doctor because Michael already did. AEG’s emails, their actions, and their relationship with the doctor support the plaintiffs’ claim which is why AEG is attempting to steer jurors away from the claim and are choosing the deflection method of blaming Michael. This usually happens when the defense case is not particularly strong which is what happened in the recent Zimmerman trial. The defense was successful in that trial not because of a strong defense but, because of a weak prosecution case.

and I believe I already responded to that. even if you don't "blame" Jacksons for AEG's choice of defense, the only reason AEG is defending themselves is because they are sued. You really cannot deny that the Jacksons are the cause here.

The stories are being told because of the Jacksons, so yes I blame them. You know how I feel on the subject of Murray's freedom to profit, IMO it has been set aside fo the hope of a greater monetary gain in this lawsuit.

Ivy, Last Tear, we are going in circles, correct? I have no problem with you both and others in the thread who prefer to blame the Jacksons for AEG’s actions and reactions. I just find it convenient that the blame starts when the civil trial is filed and not before when the negligent doctor was allegedly hired negligently. Again, the Jackson filed the suit but did NOT determine the defense method the defense chose. This defense of Michael as a secretive addict to counteract the claim of AEG negligently hiring the doctor is all the defense's doing. Let us see where it takes them.

This seems a false assumption. What I understand by 'broke even" is that costs equal profit. However, costs INCLUDE salaries. So MJ's earnings were included in the costs of the tour. What he did with his salary was up to him.

Jamba, I do not believe Michael was a salaried employee on his own tours. He was a business partner who shared in the profits.

 

[LastTear]

Ivy, Last Tear, we are going in circles, correct? I have no problem with you both and others in the thread who prefer to blame the Jacksons for AEG’s actions and reactions. I just find it convenient that the blame starts when the civil trial is filed and not before when the negligent doctor was allegedly hired negligently. Again, the Jackson filed the suit but did NOT determine the defense method the defense chose. This defense of Michael as a secretive addict to counteract the claim of AEG negligently hiring the doctor is all the defense's doing. Let us see where it takes them.

How else are they to defend themselves? They need to show that Michael had a history with CM - done. They need to show that any adverse drug use was happening periodically, in secret before AEG came into the picture - done. They will also show that he even convinced his family he was ok and when they weren't convinced he shut them off. Also showing a history of long term drug use and possible problems relating to it would also effect any possible damages awarded.

 

[bouee]

you don't see that anything happens in this trial is because of Jacksons suing? for example can't you see that AEG is saying Michael wouldn't earn a dime because Jacksons sued them? Don't you see AEG is trying to portray Michael as a secretive addict because Jacksons sued them? Anything and everything AEG had done in this trial is because Jacksons sued them and they are defending themselves. So yeah that's on Jacksons. If anyone expected AEG to just write a check to Jacksons or act all nice and kind in their defense or spare Michael is excuse me but they are delusional. This is something that Jacksons started. How can you blame AEG for defending themselves anyway they see fit when they were sued by Jacksons?

weak versus strong is nothing more than your personal opinion. if verdict wise they get a favorable verdict what you call as weak would work for their advantage. so we won't know how this pans out until there's a verdict. I posted this before "blame the victim" is a very common defense strategy so there's nothing surprising there. I personally see this "well they could have defended themselves without attacking Michael" as an unrealistic or biased fan opinion. Why would AEG think about sparing Michael, especially if you think they mistreated him in life why would you expect them to treat Michael properly after death?



and I believe I already responded to that. even if you don't "blame" Jacksons for AEG's choice of defense, the only reason AEG is defending themselves is because they are sued. You really cannot deny that the Jacksons are the cause here.

I think that we are on a Michael forum here, and we have enough brains to think on our own. Yes AEG have to defend themselves. I'm not supporting the Jacksons and not even this trial, but did it ever occur to you that if AEG are in this position- and stuck in this line of defense- it's because they did something wrong to start with ? If it was a baseless lawsuit, why did the judge allow it ?

I think considering AEG as angels forced to defense themselves by the bad evil Jacksons is the "delusional" "unrealistic" part. AEG are as bad as the Jacksons, in my world, they don't deserve any more consideration, and I don't understand the need to defend and justify over and over again everything they do, especially in THIS forum. I said defend and justify, which is different than "explain". It's taking a position, not merely explaining.
Like trying to find out if demerol could have palyed a role on june 25th, when it was already clearly explained during Murray's trial, trying to show that Michael was addicted to demerol in 09, or explaining that "objectively" the Disney incident has to be related to drugs.

For example , please explain to me the following stuff :

Have they agreed to stipulate Murray killed Michael ? No ? Why ? Is Murray included in their verdict form ? Are we, on this forum, going to accept a line of defense that is likely to be defending Muuray, and blaming Michael for his own death ?
I see very few posters accepting this, you and probably just one other person.

Why use the Paris Grace video to impeach IRRELEVANT statements by Kai Chase, who, by the way, had already been impeached on a number of RELEVANT subjects. They did that because the Jacksons are bad people who did not think of the kids when they started this trial ? They felt that if the kids are defendants, anything can go with a 15 year old kid that has just tried to kill herself ?


The discussion was interesting and only showed that it is not, in theory, the only line of defense that AEG has. It is very clear they can not be held responsible for Murray's actions as a medical doctor, they could aim at his negligence.
They are stuck in downplaing Murray's role and blamining Michael, not ONLY because of the Jacksons, also because they did do something wrong.


"Why would AEG think of sparing Michael" : because the easiest defense is to blame Murray. I think they wish they could do that, for their own interest, not Michael's. Their line of defense doesn't make sense at all, their story is full of holes. The jury is going to wonder about what Murray did.
They don't blame Murray because they can't : Phillips was aware that Murray was negligent and incompetent before june 25th and he did nothing about it, worse, he kept pressuring Michael and Murray . That's the problem they have now, and one of the reasons behind this line of defense. How much I dislike some of the Jacskons, that's not their fault, that's AEG's.

Not all of us are following this hoping for a verdict for one side or the other. I would say very few posters actually hope for a positive verdict for either party. Whatever the verdict is, this is bringing out facts that help have a better idea about what happened, and maybe change our opinion about AEG.

 

[jaydom7]

All I know is if AEG was suspicious of why MJ wanted Murray and what Murray wanted a $150 k for and they didn't investigate him or question his treatments yet they hired him or was going to pay him they are responsible. Even though I blame the Jacksons, I think AEG should've investigated Murray and his treatments

 

[ivy]

I think that we are on a Michael forum here, and we have enough brains to think on our own.

yes everyone has brains but no one is free of bias - whatever it might be - and no one is free from the effect of being a fan. As far as I know no one here is a lawyer or a jury expert.

Looking to one side and saying they are weak or strong, or a witness has been perfect or useless. Yes that's your own interpretation but how do you know that the jurors - non MJ fans that doesn't have the biases we have - will feel the same way? Jury verdicts are notoriously hard to predict and even if you happen to be right , you won't know it until the verdict.

If it was a baseless lawsuit, why did the judge allow it ?

I personally never claimed it was baseless lawsuit. go check the old discussion thread in the trials and tribulations. I always said the hiring part : written contract versus an oral contract was 50-50 as an oral contract is perfectly valid in USA. Even in my recent posts you will see that I say "was Murray hired" question would most probably be answered as a yes due to the fact that oral contracts were established with everyone. I also wrote "who hired Murray" to be a 50-50 between AEG and Michael.

I think considering AEG as angels forced to defense themselves by the bad evil Jacksons is the "delusional" "unrealistic" part.

LOL, I never said AEG are the angels. Let me try again, I said if you corner an animal to a corner you should expect them to attack to free themselves. Their attack would obviously be vicious and dirty - hence no angels- but the only reason they would be attacking in that dirty manner would be because they were cornered.

AEG are as bad as the Jacksons, in my world, they don't deserve any more consideration, and I don't understand the need to defend and justify over and over again everything they do, especially in THIS forum. I said defend and justify, which is different than "explain". It's taking a position, not merely explaining.

I'm not "supporting" AEG or their choice of defense. As I said before (yeah) I hate it actually. I didn't want this trial to happen because I knew how dirty it would get and how Michael would be the party that is hurt most. What I am saying and apparently is misunderstood, I'm not surprised to see that AEG go with such defense. they are the animal that is cornered by this multi billion lawsuit and to get out of it they are attacking anyone and everyone on their path.

To me saying stuff like "well they could have not said this or not done this" sounds fan's biased opinion of how AEG should act in their defense and I'm trying to say AEG doesn't care about anyone but themselves.

Like trying to find out if demerol could have palyed a role on june 25th, when it was already clearly explained during Murray's trial, trying to show that Michael was addicted to demerol in 09, or explaining that "objectively" the Disney incident has to be related to drugs.

I couldn't be any clear in regards to Disney and how it is based to my personal experience and opinions. I never once claimed it to be fact or truth, I acknowledged other possibilities and said "we will never know". You disagree and it is fine. The only thing that I rejected was the argument that "if there was no pills around, it can't be drugs" based on the fact that Michael did not pop pills, he preferred injections. so even if there are no pills present , there could still be the possibility of an injection. I would think that any objective person would agree to this.

As far as the Demerol goes, I won't put blinders on and refuse to listen and evaluate testimony. Also if you go back to discussion threads back from Murray's trial you will find me saying that Klein's demerol levels were within the highest allowed amounts but still too high. You will find me writing I don't get giving those amount of Demerol to a person who had formed an addiction before. You will find examples written by me. So for a long time for me Klein and his use of Demerol has been fishy for me. It hasn't changed and it won't change.

Have they agreed to stipulate Murray killed Michael ? No ?

actually we don't know. the last was they were thinking about it. perhaps they did because the jacksons did not put experts about how Michael died.

Are we, on this forum, going to accept a line of defense that is likely to be defending Muuray, and blaming Michael for his own death ?

accept it, no. realize it's reality of the defense, yes. The same kind of "defend Murray and blame Michael" was also the defense during the Murray trial and have been written and discussed on these forums. There have been people that believed the Demerol effects and blamed Klein, wanted Klein to be arrested, there have been people that thought that prosecution weren't able to establish the presence of an IV (given that one tube wasn't present and prosecutions argument was Murray took it) and so on. What you fail to realize that every trial is a discussion and we don't operate on simple logic of "X is good, Y is bad". People can look the testimony and choose to believe parts of it. They can certainly discuss it as much as they want.

I see very few posters accepting this, you and probably just one other person.

I don't blame Michael for his death. He died because Murray failed to properly monitor him. For example AEG might have pressured Michael and he might have asked for Propofol but that did not kill him. If it was given properly he would have been alive. Michael died because Murray gave the drug improperly and he failed to monitor Michael properly and he failed to call for help as soon as possible. That's who I blame for Michael's death. That's also why I'm angry about restitution. That's why I think the person I blame - Murray - isn't being punished enough.

However one important thing was the criminal trial established Murray being an important factor in Michael's death but not necessarily the only reason. So that added with this trial brings in the question of what - if any - responsibility Michael had. I refuse to be in denial or wear pink colored glasses when it comes to Michael's history of problems with drugs and I explained it before, no I don't think he was an addict seeking a high. He had legit medical problems and got legit medicines for those problems and at times got dependent on those. I'm not going to deny this. Heck even Jacksons state this.

So that's what I'm wondering right now. It is more like Michael asked for Propofol and unfortunately was at the hands of a negligent doctor. so the question becomes does Michael have any responsibility for asking for the Propofol. I can't say I made up my mind yet but that's what I have been wondering for a while. And you might remember an article I quoted here which said Katherine blamed everyone but Michael and when do we put responsibility on Michael. Don't get me wrong, I still blame Murray, blame Klein, blame all the doctors that had questionable treatments or did not do the right thing.

Why use the Paris Grace video to impeach IRRELEVANT statements by Kai Chase, who, by the way, had already been impeached on a number of RELEVANT subjects. They did that because the Jacksons are bad people who did not think of the kids when they started this trial ? They felt that if the kids are defendants, anything can go with a 15 year old kid that has just tried to kill herself ?

yes I answered this before and actually you might want to ask Tygger for that other site and go read the transcripts. Very recently they argued that Jacksons portrayed it like AEG had power on in hiring and firing of Michael's staff and they used Kai's testimony of "Michael wouldn't have fired Grace who was like a mother to the kids". They used Paris's deposition to show he fired her before. They are also trying to play Randy Jackson's deposition that he fired Grace before. So from that it is obvious that AEG sees Jacksons use of Gongaware firing Grace as an evidence of AEG hiring & firing people and they are trying to debunk it by using Paris and Randy and who knows who else.

I don't think this got anything to do with the kids, Paris's suicide or portraying Michael in a bad light and so on. Sometimes you need to wait for the whole trial to end for some things to make sense.

I know you are probably going to answer with " as I said before" " I already explained that", well yes , you have, the discussion was interesting and only showed that it is not, in theory, the only line of defense that AEG has. It is very clear they can not be held responsible for Murray's actions as a medical doctor, they could aim at his negligence.

see I disagree with this, I clearly showed you other possible angles Jacksons go to put the blame of Murray on AEG but you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility.

"Why would AEG think of sparing Michael" : because the easiest defense is to blame Murray. I think they wish they could do that, for their own interest, not Michael's.

and this is the part we keep disagreeing. You totally ignore the other possibilities and come up with a defense that might be totally like shooting themselves in the foot and you are angry that they don't follow your recommended defense. See the thing is law is not that easy and there are a million laws we don't know.

Not all of us are following this hoping for a verdict for one side or the other. I would say very few posters actually hope for a positive verdict for either party. Whatever the verdict is, this is bringing out facts that help have a better idea about what happened, and maybe change our opinion about AEG.

I agree with this. I don't care about the verdict either way. As far as I'm concerned AEG is a ruthless corporation that focuses on profit. I never had a positive opinion about AEG so this trial won't open my eyes to reality. I wouldn't care if they were ordered to pay billions, similarly I don't really care if the Jacksons lose. As far as the events of 2009 goes, I think we already had a good idea of what happened. This trial is bringing out other information from other stuff - such as Disney event, the implants etc - which while I understand why they are doing it is something I hate and see as an invasion of Michael's privacy.

 

[ivy]

Mod note: Thread has been cleaned.

- Do not post any criminal accusations (including but not limited to : jury tampering, corruption ) against the officers of the court (including but not limited to : lawyers, judge). Such posts will be deleted with no warning.

 

[LastTear]

All I know is if AEG was suspicious of why MJ wanted Murray and what Murray wanted a $150 k for and they didn't investigate him or question his treatments yet they hired him or was going to pay him they are responsible. Even though I blame the Jacksons, I think AEG should've investigated Murray and his treatments

Maybe they weren't suspicious of MJ wanting Murray, personally I believe a doctor patient relationship is a very personal thing. In hindsight of course they should have questioned his treatment of Michael, but in that moment I'm not so sure. But even if they had asked Murray, would he have been honest? With doctor patient privilege he wouldn't have to tell them.