Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tygger said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes the defense wants to use a portion (15 minutes) of deposition but the motion to exclude is not about portion. Because as I said Jacksons can allow the defense play the 15 minute portion and can choose whatever portions they want to play it themselves to put in context. however Jackson lawyers filed a motion saying that the deposition they want to play is cumulative , perjudicial and should be rejected entirely and added that defense experts cover these topics in their testimonies. It goes on to say "the instant motion in limine is directed to precluding the defendants presenting any of their designated excerpts"

so sorry but you are wrong, jackson lawyers aren't against that portions being played out of context, they are asking to stop playing them at all. If they had a problem with the context, they did not need to file this motion and could simply add their own portions - also known as counter designations

and did you see the motion or not?

dcr2hi.jpg


29nv4at.jpg


so as you can see Jackson lawyers did say AEG's own expert testimony was good enough and there was no need to play Shimelman as it would be cumulative.

and a bonus, here's AEG's response

8y5qvm.jpg
 
Ivy, are you saying experts and excerpts are the same?

I have no issue with being wrong in this instance because I know where I rather be right; AEG being held liable.

No, I did not read the motions or deposition summaries at all because I am more focused on AEG's culpability being expressed in Jorrie's testimony than distracting testimony about Michael's past.

Michael, nor his past actions, including any substance abuse, forced AEG into a contract with the doctor. It was AEG choice to gain control 100%.
 
Tygger said:
Ivy, are you saying experts and excerpts are the same?
Click to expand...

what?

No, I did not read the motions
Click to expand...

So you are saying you had no idea what is in the motion and claimed they just did not want out of context excerpts and they did not say AEG's own expert testimony is enough and there's no need to play the Jackson expert at all?
 
ivy said:
So you are saying you had no idea what is in the motion and claimed they just did not want out of context excerpts and they did not say AEG's own expert testimony is enough and there's no need to play the Jackson expert at all?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering too, because I do read "excerpts" "excerpts in their entirety" on the doc you provided, not the whole depo. They are talking of a 15mn video the defense want to play.
 
bouee said:
I'm wondering too, because I do read "excerpts" "excerpts in their entirety" on the doc you provided, not the whole depo. They are talking of a 15mn video the defense want to play.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you are wondering but as far as I can explain

- whole depositions are never played. they are long (takes hours to multiple days) and have a lot of objections and side topics

- they almost always only play relevant excerpts

- in this instance AEG wanted to play a total of 15 minutes from Shimelman's deposition

- when one party decides to play a deposition, they send what they will play to the other side

- so AEG sent their request saying "we want to play play this and that a total of 15 minutes from Shimelman" to Jacksons

- normally Jacksons can list their oppositions - such as "this is hearsay so you can't play that" or their additions also known as counter designations which is like "we want to play this and this additional portions to put the deposition into context"

- parties can discuss among themselves and come to an agreement or a judge looks to both parties, requests , objections and additions and make the final decision of what could be played

- in this instance after AEG sent Jacksons "we want to play these portions from Shimelman", Jacksons said no. they did not provide any objections or additional portions

- they filed a motion to exclude with the judge saying that what AEG wants to play is cumulative to what their own experts would say and therefore judge should not allow them to play anything from Shimelman

- obviously AEG is objecting to that motion to exclude saying that they are entitled to play Shimelman and Jacksons cannot argue it's cumulative

Jacksons motion to exclude deposition of Shimelman- as self explanatory from the name - did not say "we want to play additional portions" or "we want to play whole deposition". It said "what our expert Shimelman said is same as what AEG experts have said, so don't allow them play our own expert as it would be the same thing over and over again".
 
sfosteredi said:
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
Click to expand...




How clear can Michael be he didn't want to tour plain and simple but that is what the record company excpect you to do. He said okay i will make it postive but you know the true.
 
yes, but that expert is still on the Jacksons expert list, that's weird to do such a mistake. He must have said things that help them, or they would not have retained him.
I don't know, I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens , and if the judge allows it to be played to the jury, we'll see how the Jacksons deal with that, if they add other parts of his testimony that go in their favor, or if thatb expert contradicted himself.
When you posted the parts of his depo earlier, do you know who was asking the questions, which side ? I thought the way the questions were asked were not precise enough.
 
Tygger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well that contract is the reason why her clients are on trial... So if they lose, her work will not have been so effcicient..
 
bouee said:
yes, but that expert is still on the Jacksons expert list, that's weird to do such a mistake. He must have said things that help them, or they would not have retained him.
I don't know, I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens , and if the judge allows it to be played to the jury, we'll see how the Jacksons deal with that, if they add other parts of his testimony that go in their favor, or if thatb expert contradicted himself.
When you posted the parts of his depo earlier, do you know who was asking the questions, which side ? I thought the way the questions were asked were not precise enough.
Click to expand...

he could have said things that help Jacksons arguments and if it is played Jacksons can add those parts. I have no idea about what is in the rest of the deposition as I said this is not a motion that says we want to add these other parts. so the only thing I can see is what AEG wants to play. so what can Jacksons add to it is a wait and see.

I don't know who is asking the questions as it's mostly written as Q - and A- and it's partial so there's no way for me to keep track of who is asking the question.

but I know an interesting tidbit. This expert has worked with Koskoff law firm before and he was at their offices discussing another case. He ran into Michael Koskoff at the law firm's kitchen. Koskoff asked to him hypothetically if I told you someone took 100 -300 mg demerol doses 48 times over 3 months could they be addicted to it. and Shimelman said yes he would think that person would be addicted. So they retained him knowing he would probably say Demerol addiction. he was later given the medical records and say confirmed his opinion that there was a demerol addiction. and in his deposition he says "certainly addicted" opiates and benzos. so I agree with you that he seems to be a weird choice given that even after a simple hypothetical his first instinct answer was addiction.

in AEG motion I'm also seeing a little additional part asking about time MJ addicted to opiates, his partial reply "this is a lousy medical record .. it's hard for any expert to say from x to y.... I think he is pretty much addicted to opiates at least since early 90s to his death".

he also says if a person gets off drugs, the life expectancy would return to normal after several months to years
 
ivy said:
I
- they filed a motion to exclude with the judge saying that what AEG wants to play is cumulative to what their own experts would say and therefore judge should not allow them to play anything from Shimelman
Click to expand...
why anything ? They are just talking of the 15mn bits, it could be just a tactic on Jacksons part. What if the judge doesn't allow the video to be played, and AEG comes up with another 15mn portion of Shimelman's depo ?
 
Last edited:
To me why is obvious.

This Jackson expert Shimelman is testifying opposite of Jackson expert Schnoll in regards to addiction. If AEG can play it, it would show
- Jacksons withheld contradictory testimony which can question the credibility of their case
- it would work against Schnoll
- as this is a Jackson expert there could be no argument that he is biased in giving a low life expectancy . If anything his bias would be to give a long life expectancy.

so obviously Jacksons would want to stop it altogether.
 
Justthefacts said:
I get the feeling Pannish is going for a mistrial at times
Click to expand...


You know what at this point and time that wouldn't surpries me the way this trial is going.


I like what a fan said in a post you have to remember what you said in the first place because your words will come back and haunt you. In this trial alot of witnesses testmonties has change.

And why was she execpt Murray to point that out to her that is should have said Arisit not Producer(AEG) it was not Murray job to do she work for AEG she did the contract. See that what i am saying one word can turn the whole thing around. If Michael would had fire Murray why would he have to go throught AEG? That does not make any sense to me. AEG has said along that Michael hire Murray so Michael should have be able to fire Murray without going throught AEG am i right?
 
Last edited:
Bubs;3882851 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good point. I think one of the problems is that the plaintiffs never tried to put Michael's drug use in context in a continuous way. Before they brought in their addiction experts, they should have tried to get these doctors to identify that a medical procedure or pain warranted the drug treatment. Then, they could outline in a clear way how these continuous procedures led to more addictive drugs & then addiction. They did not do that. They simply showed a man getting a large number of drugs and led experts to state or imply he was getting them to feed an addiction, that he did not want to stop, & this would lead to his early death. They should even think of bringing in data on all the 50+ addicts that are still out there & alive. It seems to me that since they wanted to lead their case with an addiction theory, they should have gone through from beginning to end a theory of how it started and give the jury a clear idea of what sustained it. Now due to lack of preparation, all they have now is to contend with AEG's experts and Shellelman.

I blame the plaintiffs for believing the case would be settled, and therefore not thinking of a strategy that would deal with the addiction that they knew AEG would go for. After all Muarry tried it, and what did a juror say: She thought Michael had a problem, but Muarry still was guilty.
 
Tygger said:
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.
Click to expand...




That why i have this feel and i believe that AEG hire Murray.
 
wow Panish being Panish again

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Judge ordered Panish to move on or she will finish his examination.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish: When she says my client told that, why can't I ask about communication about that?
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Bina said it was done in good faith, Tohme told her he was an officer of the company. She said DiLeo also told Jorrie MJ approved the budget
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish: Nonetheless she, as concerned he was not the real Mccoy, brought document to him with $34 million for him to sign off.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish: It's improper what she did, your honor. As member of the bar, she knew as of January that this person was not officer of the company
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Panish explained what he was trying to do, that Jorrie volunteers and continue to volunteer what is not asked, almost more than any witness.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
"If you don't move on I'll shut down the examination," Judge Palazuelos told Panish.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Judge: I don't want to waste time with that, over and over. I know you understand the ruling, I assume you have nothing better to ask.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Judge: As to the budget -- she keeps telling you she didn't review it. Any question about the budget is without foundation.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Outside the presence of the jury:
Judge Yvette Palazuelos to Panish: You keep invading attorney-client privilege.
 
virginia_woolf said:
I was asking about Joe Marcus and maybe I'm blind but when I click the link I don't see anything about his deposition. Only Jacksons and AEG experts.
Click to expand...

oh I misunderstood. I don't know anything about Marcus's deposition. The only thing is during his deposition Marcus asked for a lawyer and then changed his mind saying he would do his deposition but he would not answer some questions. He did not answer questions about Tohme. Jackson lawyers asked to exclude his deposition based on he requested but did not have a lawyer. AEG argues that lawyers aren't required for third party witnesses, Marcus agreed to continue on without a lawyer present and he didn't answer the questions he did not want to answer - so he was not forced.
 
Judge needs to stop telling Panish he keeps invading attorney-client privilege and start using her judicial authority.

Pminton I think the reasoning was that Michael did not have a reliable staff to do hiring and write up contracts; he did not have liquid cash to pay staff; AEG gave him an advance & since they had the manpower or structures in place to create contracts Michael told them who he wanted and they had the contracts written for Michael. They paid these people for Michel.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the jury might say that AEG hired Muarry.

Can the jury say that AEG hired muarry but it was not negligent because the artist requested someone who was already working with him, so that the working relationship was continuous?
 
ivy said:
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 2h
Judge: I don't want to waste time with that, over and over. I know you understand the ruling, I assume you have nothing better to ask.
Click to expand...

I thought that too when he kept asking about AEG expert being paid $700K. He must have asked/brought that up at least 10 times LOL. I just thought he may not have much else to ask. It ain't like the jury doesn't know that the experts are paid and it ain't like the Jacksons experts weren't paid thousands of dollars either.
 
Petrarose said:
Ha Ha. Things are getting interesting now. Anyway I see AEG spending time to show Michael was an addict, but shouldn't they also try to show that they knew NOTHING about this ongoing addiction. I wonder if for rebuttal the Jacksons would try to show that AEG knew? It seems that attorneys for both sides will be doing or saying things that will come back to bite them.
Click to expand...




Yes AEG did spend time on that their want to show this jury Michael had this big dark secert with drugs and all of the doctors their brought to the stand to prove that. You are right their should have showing that their knew nothing about Michael's addict to drugs. AEG has said along their didn't know Michael has a drugs problem will imo that is not true their knew alots. And you are so right on that in the bold.
 
I have said for a long time that Panish is from a big and successful law firm but I can tell you multiple serious errors he's doing in my opinion.

@petrarose - depending on the verdict form yes it is a possibility
 
Petrarose said:
Judge needs to stop telling Panish he keeps invading attorney-client privilege and start using her judicial authority.

PmintonB] I think the reasoning was that Michael did not have a reliable staff to do hiring and write up contracts; he did not have liquid cash to pay staff; AEG gave him an advance & since they had the manpower or structures in place to create contracts Michael told them who he wanted and they had the contracts written for Michael. They paid these people for Michel.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the jury might say that AEG hired Muarry.

Can the jury say that AEG hired muarry but it was not negligent because the artist requested someone who was already working with him, so that the working relationship was continuous?[/QUOTE]



In the bold part that could be true but what get me is she left some language in the contract that Murray sign and then tell the jury in her testmony that it was not suppose to be in the agreement. One contract said Arisit and the other contract said Promoter that where i am have the problem at this was a big mistake that was made.

The last part of your post in the bold

I am feeling that too that this jury just might say that AEG hire Murray.

the facts in this case are.

1 Did AEG hire Murray
2 Did AEG cause the death of Michael Jackson.

It will be hard to know what this jury will say so much has going on in this trial imo it is very confusing right now from both side. I like what one person said in their post after this is all done and given over to the jury this Judge will have to remind the jury of facts in this case.

I have stop trying to guess what the jury will said it can go either way. It depend on who the jury will believe.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ABC7 Court News @ABC7Courts
Jorrie is ordered to be on call to conclude her testimony, probably Friday morning and Randy Jackson's depo Friday afternoon.
 
pminton said:
In the bold part that could be true but what get me is she left some language in the contract that Murray sign and then tell the jury in her testmony that it was not suppose to be in the agreement. One contract said Arisit and the other contract said Promoter that where i am have the problem at this was a big mistake that was made.
Click to expand...

again, this was already explained. She did correct it, it just that the same line appeared again in another place in the contract which she didn't notice. But the fact is it was corrected once, so that shows it wasn't supposed to be "producer".
 
ivy said:
^^

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.
Click to expand...

Why were the depositions done last minute? Honestly, when have you ever heard of a legal team "letting the chips fall where the may" on expert witnesses? I thought the whole point is to get an expert who happens to align with your position--not that he/she is coerced or influenced by money to do so--so there are no surprises on the witness stand. Lawyers don't typically "buy" an opinion, but they do search for experts who share the same POV/opinions as their legal position. Seems to me like carelessness, because this is not a standard way of doing it by any means.

I doubt David Walgren would have put Dr. White on the witness stand if he was going to testify that Michael may have administered the propofol himself. No way that would have happened--Walgren knew exactly what Dr. White would say. And, if White wasn't lined up with the DA's POV, they would have found someone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top