Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Bubs]

It was the doctors - not me - that claimed recovery wasn't going to be easy. I do think addicts with right motivation could get clean but relapse is a possibility as well. There's a paradox for me with Jackson lawyers saying Michael had dependency issues at times which got worse when he was going through a rigorous schedule, such as concerts, preparing for concerts and then come up with a easy recovery and claiming he would be doing 5 tours with no problems. I would have expected at least if the tours are the stressor , he would stay away from them.

Maybe that was the reason Michael didn't tour so much as he knew how much it effected on him and the toll it took, not to mention unusual sleep methods he had to resort.

I don't know how plaintiffs are going to say that with correct help MJ would have done 4 world tours etc. Who was going to do the helping part? So far none of his doctors really helped with his sleep issue, mother didn't know anything if there wasn't announcment of it on telly, siblings only cared when is the next tour so they could get piece of action.

I'm totally getting headache reading about these doctors.

 

[#MJforever57]

I like the way all of you are posting in this thread. All of the terms in the medcial field inplants,opiate addict ,etc.etc. I love the way you all explain it.

What i have gotting out of this trial so far is yes Michael kept a secret from all of the doctors that he saw to me i am really not surpise about that but IMO it should have remain private. This was part of AEG defense to show that Michael was leading a secret life that the world didn't know and to put the blame on Michael Jackson and to say their (AEG) was not the cause of his death.


My opinion on Michael Jackson will never change AEG want the world to see Michael in a diffrance light. He was not perfect he made mistakes like everyone else did but for Michael his mistakes cost him his life and that was sad to see.

He was the world greatest entertaine a genuie in the world of music there will never be another Michael Jackson he was one of a kind.


IMO what ever come out of this trial was it worth it for either side?

 

[#MJforever57]

I'm totally getting headache reading about these doctors.

Totally agree with you.

 

[Bubs]

I said that from the beginning.. Both Klein and Hoefflin are fishy and they should've stopped treating MJ 25 years ago. I was fishy about the scalp surgery in 1993. Why have scalp surgery 9 years after the 1984 burn?? that makes no sense. I think they both took advantage of MJ and gave him unnecessary treatments and unnecessary plastic surgery. Mike needed an intervention from those two rogue doctors 25 years ago.

I don't know much about Hoeffin, but Klein is certainly as fishy as they come.
I don't know the specific of that scalp surgery, but I do know that he had these scalp balloons inserted to strech the skin, see example here:
[video=youtube;-j10Df-aOXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j10Df-aOXg[/video]

This is Klein's interview with Larry K
KING: Did he have hair?
KLEIN: He had lost a great deal of it. You forget this first fire…
KING: That was the Pepsi fire, right?
KLEIN: Yes. But then what happened is he used a great deal of what are called tissue expanders in his scalp, which are balloons that grow up — blow up the scalp. And then what they do is they try to cut out the scar.
Well, because he had lupus, what happened is every time they would do it, the bald spot would keep enlarging.
So, I mean, he went through a lot of painful procedures with these tissue expanders until I put a stop to it. I said no more tissue expanders, because he had to wear a hat all the time and it was really painful for him.
KING: So what would his — without the hat, what would he look like?
KLEIN: Well, he had a big raised ball on the top of his head because of this device. It would expand the tissue, which you cut out.

So I don't know how long it took to strech the skin, but as Klein mentioned, because MJ's lupus, the bald patch kept enlarging.
Obviously MJ wanted to have full head of hair and went through this painfull operation many times to get what he wanted.

 

[bouee]

It was the doctors - not me - that claimed recovery wasn't going to be easy. I do think addicts with right motivation could get clean but relapse is a possibility as well. There's a paradox for me with Jackson lawyers saying Michael had dependency issues at times which got worse when he was going through a rigorous schedule, such as concerts, preparing for concerts and then come up with a easy recovery and claiming he would be doing 5 tours with no problems. I would have expected at least if the tours are the stressor , he would stay away from them. Because that's the other theory - I believe your theory as well - that he was clean and he only needed drugs / Propofol due to the stress and demands of TII as he needed to sleep. So if you argue he was clean but the pressure of TII 50 shows prompted the drug use, how can you say 5 tours with no problems is a possibility? Isn't that a paradox?

Have you ever seen any of my posts arguing about what Erk and Briggs said ? Never, because I didn't read their testimonies, I only read SOME of the posts in this thread. Based on that very little info, I think that both of them are ridiculous. as i said before, I'm not interested in that part of testimony, it's pure speculation, and I'm not interested in the calculation of damages.

I just said that their theory- not their numbers whether it is about the number of shows or money - made sense, it's not a paradox to me, from a "medical" point of view, or based on their medical experts. The conversation was originally about their own experts contradicting each other, and a change in the jacksons stratetegy. That was what I was talking about.

The only explanation of propofol in 09 that we have had so far is Metzger's in Murray's trial, and Michael worried he wouldn't be able to do 50 shows, that's all.

 

[#MJforever57]

this case is a complete mess... whatever it is, MJ had terrible doctors and he had no support at all during his issues. He needed a sober coach and a therapist and good doctors that cared in order to beat his pain issues.

I agree with you that all Michael needed.

 

[#MJforever57]

I don't know much about Hoeffin, but Klein is certainly as fishy as they come.
I don't know the specific of that scalp surgery, but I do know that he had these scalp balloons inserted to strech the skin, see example here:
[video=youtube;-j10Df-aOXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j10Df-aOXg[/video]

This is Klein's interview with Larry K
KING: Did he have hair?
KLEIN: He had lost a great deal of it. You forget this first fire…
KING: That was the Pepsi fire, right?
KLEIN: Yes. But then what happened is he used a great deal of what are called tissue expanders in his scalp, which are balloons that grow up — blow up the scalp. And then what they do is they try to cut out the scar.
Well, because he had lupus, what happened is every time they would do it, the bald spot would keep enlarging.
So, I mean, he went through a lot of painful procedures with these tissue expanders until I put a stop to it. I said no more tissue expanders, because he had to wear a hat all the time and it was really painful for him.
KING: So what would his — without the hat, what would he look like?
KLEIN: Well, he had a big raised ball on the top of his head because of this device. It would expand the tissue, which you cut out.

So I don't know how long it took to strech the skin, but as Klein mentioned, because MJ's lupus, the bald patch kept enlarging.
Obviously MJ wanted to have full head of hair and went through this painfull operation many times to get what he wanted.

Wow Michael went through some pain all to get a full head of hair.

 

[ivy]

Notes

- Percocet mention is coming from Dr. Sasaki. Apparently he prescribed it twice and refused to give it a third time. This was 93.

Metzger deposition parts

- Klein socialized , had more personal relationship with Michael
- Klein was like a mother hen , like to be the first door, handling a lot of medical stuff. sometimes call Metzger (Debbie called him), told about Michael's complaints, asked for advice , medical care. Metzger would give advice without seeing Michael. If it concerned him, he would ask to see Michael.
- Metzger prescribed Plaquenil for lupus
- Metzger says he never knew Michael would be having surgery
- Hoefflin had unusual views regards to Michael's health, trying to advise on general health, a lot feelings about sleep, herb medicines
- Metzger tried melatonin, echinacea and prescription meds for Michael's insomnia
- Metzger heard concerns about Michael taking too much pain medicine from Karen, Debbie, Klein and Hoefflin, Michael never told him what he was doing
- Metzger once talked with Michael saying getting A from Dr. A and getting B from Dr. B can hurt him. He told Michael to minimize pain medicine he was taking for any surgery.
- Metzger provided some drugs for 93 tour and says Michael left for tour against his wishes, he was too sick and Metzger did not want him to leave
- Metzger had concerns about Ratner and what he was doing for sleep but did not know specifics
- at least 2-3 times Debbie told him her concerns saying Michael was getting medicines for minor procedures when no one else does.
- they tried to replace Demerol with another agent. Metzger cannot remember what but it could placebo, Toradol or Talwin
- Metzger says Klein felt stuck. He needed to do these surgeries on Michael and he had a low pain threshold so he needed to give Demerol. Klein would sometimes say to Metzger "I wish I could give him something else"
- Metzger heard from Klein that he was trying to convince Michael to take less pain medicines

note : most of the above seems to be 1993.


- Van valin removed the implant from right lower abdomen because the wound was infected. he did not know what the implant did. He gave Michael Levaquin for infection. Looks like later on he asked Farshchian how the implant worked.

- Gordon is a doctor that Michael went to get fillers in his face before TII. Murray called Dr. Gordon for the procedure. After the procedure Gordon did not provide any post care or pain medications because Murray told him he was Michael's personal doctor and he was taking care of Michael's day to day needs.

 

[Justthefacts]

Michael went through a lot that is true. But there is a reason Klein could not keep his mouth shut about Michael or the kids after Michael died. And I think he was worried about what they would find out about him and was trying to deflect as much as possible

 

[Justthefacts]

Notes

- Percocet mention is coming from Dr. Sasaki. Apparently he prescribed it twice and refused to give it a third time. This was 93.

Metzger deposition parts

- Klein socialized , had more personal relationship with Michael
- Klein was like a mother hen , like to be the first door, handling a lot of medical stuff. sometimes call Metzger (Debbie called him), told about Michael's complaints, asked for advice , medical care. Metzger would give advice without seeing Michael. If it concerned him, he would ask to see Michael.
- Metzger prescribed Plaquenil for lupus
- Metzger says he never knew Michael would be having surgery
- Hoefflin had unusual views regards to Michael's health, trying to advise on general health, a lot feelings about sleep, herb medicines
- Metzger tried melatonin, echinacea and prescription meds for Michael's insomnia
- Metzger heard concerns about Michael taking too much pain medicine from Karen, Debbie, Klein and Hoefflin, Michael never told him what he was doing
- Metzger once talked with Michael saying getting A from Dr. A and getting B from Dr. B can hurt him. He told Michael to minimize pain medicine he was taking for any surgery.
- Metzger provided some drugs for 93 tour and says Michael left for tour against his wishes, he was too sick and Metzger did not want him to leave
- Metzger had concerns about Ratner and what he was doing for sleep but did not know specifics
- at least 2-3 times Debbie told him her concerns saying Michael was getting medicines for minor procedures when no one else does.
- they tried to replace Demerol with another agent. Metzger cannot remember what but it could placebo, Toradol or Talwin
- Metzger says Klein felt stuck. He needed to do these surgeries on Michael and he had a low pain threshold so he needed to give Demerol. Klein would sometimes say to Metzger "I wish I could give him something else"
- Metzger heard from Klein that he was trying to convince Michael to take less pain medicines

note : most of the above seems to be 1993.


- Van valin removed the implant from right lower abdomen because the wound was infected. he did not know what the implant did. He gave Michael Levaquin for infection. Looks like later on he asked Farshchian how the implant worked.

- Gordon is a doctor that Michael went to get fillers in his face before TII. Murray called Dr. Gordon for the procedure. After the procedure Gordon did not provide any post care or pain medications because Murray told him he was Michael's personal doctor and he was taking care of Michael's day to day needs.

Thanks Ivy. It seems like Michael's Lupus made it hard for Michale to heal like everyone else.

 

[bouee]

Notes

- Gordon is a doctor that Michael went to get fillers in his face before TII. Murray called Dr. Gordon for the procedure. After the procedure Gordon did not provide any post care or pain medications because Murray told him he was Michael's personal doctor and he was taking care of Michael's day to day needs.

I wonder if there was any contact between Klein and Murray... we know Murray was aware of Klein. Did Klein ever say anything about talking with Murray ?

 

[serendipity]

-Jorrie also told jurors she mistakenly left language in a contract that Murray signed that called for him to perform services "reasonably requested" by AEG Live.

-She maintained throughout her testimony that Murray was Jackson's personal doctor and the language about him performing services for the promoter shouldn't have been in the agreement. Jackson's approval was required on the contract, but he died before signing it.

That mistake is going to be a problem for AEG. She testified that she works with contracts and trial work, so why did she make this crucial mistake, if indeed it was a mistake?

She changed it, but there was a second place in the contract where this was mentioned which she didn't notice and didn't correct. Basically there were two instances where that line was used, she corrected one but didn't notice the other:


ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 26m
1- Scope of Services -- it had language saying perform services reasonably requested by "Producer."

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie: Murray said we need to change that to Artist, it's the artist who's my patient. I said absolutely right, the artist if your patient.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie said provision 4.1 also says "Perform the Services reasonably requested by Producer."

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie: I didn't change it to Artist because Murray didn't draw my attention to that and I didn't remember that language was in there twice.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie said if she had seen it, she would've changed it to Artist, not Producer.

 

[jrsfan]

I wonder if there was any contact between Klein and Murray... we know Murray was aware of Klein. Did Klein ever say anything about talking with Murray ?

Not that I am aware, but in TMZ interview he said Michael asked about whether Klein thought Murray was a good doctor. He said Joe Jackson knew Murray & that is how they met.

 

[Justthefacts]

Klein is a liar

 

[ivy]

2 versions of Murray's contract

undated early version

http://www.scribd.com/doc/128116431/CM-AEG-Agreement

june 23rd version

http://www.scribd.com/doc/158739657/Murray-AEG-June-23-Contract

producer / artist changes mentioned at testimony

earlier version mentioning services requested by producer

part 1

part 2

june 23 version services requested by artist

part 1 changed

part 2 unchanged

other changes between these two versions

-effective date from june 2009 to may 2009 (first line)
- term from july -september 2009 from july 2009 - march 2010 (recitals A)

 

[bouee]

both contracts have the "performed services requested by producer" (page 2 , 4.1), she only changed part 1.

Equipment : provided for the "term", ie starting may 1st, not for London as she and Wooley said.

murray can be fired by "producer" if Michael no longer wants Murray. So Michael had to go through AEG to fire him. :bugeyed

How is the "assistant" paid ? It says AEG is paying for the assistant, but not if someone pays it back to AEG. Same thing for the equimpent. It looks like AEG would have had to pay for both (and the contract says the equimpent is to be returned to AEG after the contract is finished- I'm wondering what they could do with catheters, salines and a gurney)

-----
I'm asking again, if AEG loses, can they sue her ? What's her situation in regards to the contract ? It looks very unprofessional to me.

 

[ivy]

both contract have the "performed services requested by producer" (page 2 , 4.1) where did Jorrie change it ?

4.1 is the unchanged part but pay attention to scope of services section. earlier contract says " Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Producer". in June 23rd Producer is changed to Artist.

which is exactly the testimony

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 26m
1- Scope of Services -- it had language saying perform services reasonably requested by "Producer."

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie: Murray said we need to change that to Artist, it's the artist who's my patient. I said absolutely right, the artist if your patient.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie said provision 4.1 also says "Perform the Services reasonably requested by Producer."

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie: I didn't change it to Artist because Murray didn't draw my attention to that and I didn't remember that language was in there twice.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie said if she had seen it, she would've changed it to Artist, not Producer.

so she said she changed the "scope of services" part but not provision 4.1

I'm asking again, if AEG loses, can they sue her ? What's her situation in regards to the contract ?

sue for what? sue is way too general, give me a possible claim / argument

 

[crillon]

Why Jackson's are opposing their own expert witness? If they hired an expert to testify for them, and the result is something that they don't want to hear, why not dismiss his testimony and him from their witness list?
Moreover, why the hell KJ and co are still going ahead with this lawsuit if their own expert is telling this to them. KJ must have known that if Shielman deposition is played at court, it would be extremely damaging to to her case, but even more damaging to Michael.

Yes, I don't get this either and THIS is the fault of Katherine's legal team. Did they just get overwhelmed with all the data & depos in the queue & didn't prep properly? Lawyers scour those depositions before they put someone on the witness stand so they know EXACTLY what that witness will say and if there's information they DO NOT want as part of the testimony, then they don't ask the question. It's that adage all lawyers learn in law school when questioning or doing a cross of a witness--"Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to." Now, they're in the embarrassing situation of blocking AEG's request to replay the testimony of their own expert witness. Panish et al messed up.

Maybe Panish should spend more time preparing for witness testimony than worrying about who is making faces at him in court.

 

[ivy]

^^

most of the witness determination and depositions were last minute. it might be they listed experts before talking to them in depth and then found themselves with an expert opinion they did not like. For example Jackson lawyers played AEG's tour expert (Hom I believe) who said $5 Million request was a red flag. that's a similar example. Although bias of an expert due to being paid by one party is a possibility, it is also possible having an expert that doesn't say exactly what you want them to say.

in other words perhaps you can pay enough so that Dr. White would claim something as absurd and impossible as drinking propofol. but there might be instances no matter how much you pay , expert can stick to an opinion regardless of if it helps your position or not.

 

[qbee]

I for one do not agree with AEG witness, Brigg's testimony or the testimony of any others stating had Michael lived he would not be able to be successful in generating a huge Income from his future projects and endeavors. (that is just to downplay his potential for AEG payout if they loose) I will never support or agree with that. In fact TII would have been his launching pad. There would be much more income generated from merchandise DVD TV broadcast of one of the TII concerts. From there the releasing new music and short films and other projects. His popularity and success would also bring in sponsors who were initially leary.

That being said I don't think AEG was responsible for Michael's death. But I certainly can't support or defend everything they bring to the table in this trial... I support Michael .. period

 

[bouee]

4.1 is the unchanged part but pay attention to scope of services section. earlier contract says " Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Producer". in June 23rd Producer is changed to Artist.

which is exactly the testimony

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 26m
1- Scope of Services -- it had language saying perform services reasonably requested by "Producer."

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie: Murray said we need to change that to Artist, it's the artist who's my patient. I said absolutely right, the artist if your patient.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie said provision 4.1 also says "Perform the Services reasonably requested by Producer."

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie: I didn't change it to Artist because Murray didn't draw my attention to that and I didn't remember that language was in there twice.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Jorrie said if she had seen it, she would've changed it to Artist, not Producer.

so she said she changed the "scope of services" part but not provision 4.1



sue for what? sue is way too general, give me a possible claim / argument

I'm not saying she lied, but this contract looks unprofessionnal.

When I first read part 1, the first thing that came to my mind is that AEG could haves asked Murray to treat other persons working on TII, and that's what Murray didn't want.

Why sue her : because she has a responsability : her job is to do contracts, she realised it was "special" or "unusual", so as a lawyer I guess her job is also to advise and protect her client. That would have been telling them not to do a contract with Murray, leave it to Michael, since he was a personal doctor and not a tour doctor, and then issue a contract that's clear, some points are really vague here (assistant & equipment payment), others seem really inadequate for a personal doctor (Michael going through AEG to fire him- it should have said that Michael had to inform AEG he had fired Murray or something like that, not the other way round).

EDIT : she's giving arguments to the Jacksons, even more so when she testified. At the very least, it should have been a 3 party contract, not only between AEG and Murray & validated by Michael. She made the conflict of interest worse, and confirmed AEG hired Murray (or was about to), on behalf of Michael, but AEG was the "employer", not Michael.

 

[qbee]

^^

most of the witness determination and depositions were last minute. it might be they listed experts before talking to them in depth and then found themselves with an expert opinion they did not like. For example Jackson lawyers played AEG's tour expert (Hom I believe) who said $5 Million request was a red flag. that's a similar example. Although bias of an expert due to being paid by one party is a possibility, it is also possible having an expert that doesn't say exactly what you want them to say.

in other words perhaps you can pay enough so that Dr. White would claim something as absurd and impossible as drinking propofol. but there might be instances no matter how much you pay , expert can stick to an opinion regardless of if it helps your position or not.

correct even though you bring in a expert witness to testify you can't be guaranteed they will support everything you are claiming. They took deposition of the expert witness and then decided not to call him to trial because some of his testimony didn't support their claim. Now AEG wants to use his deposition to support thier claim ... Its a smart move if they are allowed but I certainly don't agree with those claims that place Michael on his death bed or demean Michael's future possibilities.

 

[Tygger]

I have no problem with the discussion but, I do hope the jurors will lean more heavily on the claim of the trial than Michael's past. This is AEG's deflection defense. Every word about Michael's past is one word NOT about AEG's culpability.

I am glad to see a few post regarding Jorrie. The cross is only going to get more difficult for Jorrie as her testimony yesterday provided very questionable actions by her for AEG and conversations with the doctor instead of Michael and/or his legal team. Some of her testimony truly tested reasonable logic.

re AEG employees memory loss : maybe Murray did something to them too ? Since both parties love to spend money on medical experts,they should have one analysing those memory problems.

laughs Good one Bouee.

 

[ivy]

I for one do not agree with AEG witness, Brigg's testimony or the testimony of any others stating had Michael lived he would not be able to be successful in generating a huge Income from his future projects and endeavors. (that is just to downplay his potential for AEG payout if they loose) I will never support or agree with that. In fact TII would have been his launching pad. There would be much more income generated from merchandise DVD TV broadcast of one of the TII concerts. From there the releasing new music and short films and other projects. His popularity and success would also bring in sponsors who were initially leary.

That being said I don't think AEG was responsible for Michael's death. But I certainly can't support or defend everything they bring to the table in this trial... I support Michael .. period

as far as the damages goes both sides are exaggerating

one thing is true that the California law says that the loss income sources should be reasonably certain and they can't be speculative. but what is reasonably certain and what is speculative is interpretation.

based on law and examples anything with a signed contract would be almost certain : those are 50 TII shows, merchandise deal with Bravado and one film agreement. so Briggs doesn't really make any sense when he even tries to label TII as speculative.

we can argue that some stuff are reasonably certain : such as the 1 world tour - as there was a 3 year contract and mentions of a world tour , a deal with Opus - which was in the works and finalized after death, an album - again in the works and mentioned, a pay per view of TII concert - mentioned in the emails. (of course other side can argue these aren't reasonably certain and it would be an interpretation issue)

everything else such as the 4 more tours seems to be on the speculative side.

truth is most of the time somewhere in the middle..

 

[Annita]

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

I’ll plan to have updates out at the lunch break, but will also be working on another story so my time is a bit crunched today.
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

Ortega probably won’t finish testifying on Thursday, so AEG plans to bring him back next week. AEG plans to play videos on Friday.
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

The court also took up some scheduling issues this morning. It sounds like Kenny Ortega will be back on the stand tomorrow.
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

... (cont) to sign a few days after Jackson’s death. Panish will likely ask more questions about this after the break.
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

No authorization was obtained from Jackson. Before the break, Panish asked about a form that Jorrie got MJ’s former manager Tohme Tohme ...
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

Panish has also been asking Jorrie about whether any authorization for tour expenses above $7.5 million was obtained before Jackson’s death.
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

He has spent a lot of time on Michael Jackson’s touring agreement with AEG Live, asking Jorrie about terms in it.
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

Cross examination by plaintiff’s attorney Brian Panish continued this morning. He hasn’t yet asked about Conrad Murray’s contract.
Öffnen
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 1h

We’re back in session in Jackson vs AEG Live. Katherine and Trent Jackson are here today. Attorney Kathy Jorrie remains on the stand.
Öffnen

 

[Tygger]

I see now that the plaintiffs' lawyers seem to be rejecting the defendants' use of a portion of the expert's deposition not their expert's whole deposition.

 

[ivy]

I see now that the plaintiffs' lawyers seem to be rejecting the defendants' use of a portion of the expert's deposition not their expert's whole deposition.

whole depositions are almost never played (most people are deposed multiple hours to multiple days). it's always a portion but the opposite side can make their own designations and play other portions. so Jackson lawyers are saying "let them play their own experts and not ours". why? well it's obvious.

 

[ivy]

what to expect as deposition video

- randy jackson
- joseph marcus (neverland manager) - motion to exclude request by Jacksons
- dr. stephen gordon
- dr. david adams
- dr. david slavit
- dr. gordon sasaki
- dr. myer shimelman - motion to exclude request by Jacksons

 

[sfosteredi]

In reference to speculation concerning a world tour after O2 London and then 4 more tours after that, why don't people just listen to Michael? In 2002 talked about how he feels about touring. He was not ambiguous, he didn't beat around the bush, he made it very clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpchM9BWgQ0

 

[Tygger]

Jorrie's testimony clearly shows the contract was designed for her client, AEG (which is why they would not sue her as she protected them) and the doctor with Michael as the third party. There is NO proof Michael requested the doctor to be beholden to AEG through employment as opposed to an advance payment. Michael chose the doctor and suggested his monthly salary only.

Ivy, where does it say the plaintiffs' lawyer only wanted the defendants' lawyer to play depositions of their own experts?

The defense only wants to use a portion and the plaintiffs' lawyers are against that portion being played out of context. This is normal and not questionable at all.