Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
guys - can we discuss the summaries and daily news threads? If there's a request / demand for it, I'll do the daily testimony summaries for easy reference. If there's no need, I won't do them anymore. As for the daily news threads, can please everyone try to post the news stories and don't leave it all to the moderators please.
 
tumblr_mdxt67va7v1qh7ov5o2_r1_250.gif


Everytime i see this picture my heart just break.
 
ivy said:
guys - can we discuss the summaries and daily news threads? If there's a request / demand for it, I'll do the daily testimony summaries for easy reference. If there's no need, I won't do them anymore. As for the daily news threads, can please everyone try to post the news stories and don't leave it all to the moderators please.
Click to expand...

Oh no, Ivy you have to do daily summaries! I rely on your summaries every day for reference, and if there is a need, I go back to original tweets from ABC7 and AP.

As for daily news, I will post as much as I can, but I'm personally very much against AD's bias so I refuse to post his posts.

Lastly, what you do here is very much appriciated, thanks for the work you do here.
 
You are right Ivy their don't keep a records when their are doing something wrong. That why we have missing records.


Randy really hating Michael and will do anything to get his hands on Michael money so sad.
Can't wait for Prince to come of age to take care of him sister and brother. IMO i think their would be better off on their own without the Jacksons
 
Ivy you are good about keep us updated. I work and when i come home i come to this thread to get the later news.

I thank you.
 
Randy's testimony is so full of rage and contradictions that it's sad. Then on twitter he has the nerve to say he wants to testify in person because depositions can be manipulated and he just wants to be there for his brother. How is what he said being there for his brother?
 
jaydom7;3885928 said:
Randy's testimony is so full of rage and contradictions that it's sad. Then on twitter he has the nerve to say he wants to testify in person because depositions can be manipulated and he just wants to be there for his brother. How is what he said being there for his brother?
Click to expand...

What good does it make if Randy tweets wanting to testify, if defense is already playing his deposition?
He could have start tweeting a day earlier that "tomorrow I'll take a stand for my brother" or even few hours beforehand, but no. He only went on twitter AFTER AEG was playing his deposition - loser.

This is the time Randy tweeted that he wants to appear in person 4:44 PM - 9 Aug 13

I took time stamp from ABC when they said court is back in session and they play Randy's depo: 2:37 PM - 9 Aug 13 · Details

You see, he went to twitter after when he knew they already started, not a day or hour before.
 
Last edited:
Bubs said:
What good does it make if Randy tweets wanting to testify, if defense is already playing his deposition?
He could have start tweeting a day earlier that "tomorrow I'll take a stand for my brother" or even few hours beforehand, but no. He only went on twitter the same time when AEG was playing his deposition - loser.
Click to expand...


yep and he did that to try and minimize the damage. He knew the fans would come at his big head for lying
 
Ivy, if you don't mind too much please carry on with the summaries, but I appreciate that there is a lot of work involved in collating all the info, so I would understand if you didn't want to continue.

Re the news thread, I will certainly make more effort, although I was finding in the early stage of the trial that with the time zone difference I was often too late.
 
Debbie was due to testify last week and she tweeted being nervous of it. I just checked her twiter, there is nothing about going to court, so she might be testify later of the week.

I certainly hope it is someone other than Jacksons, I quite had enough of them already.
Randy's testimony was full of crap from start to finish, and don't need Rebbie confirm Randy's testimony:angry:
 
That Other Fan said:
That's assumption that the interventions were disingenuous and I don't believe they were.
Click to expand...

It's an assumption based on the family's history and how they usually operate. MJ knew it too and that's why he kept them away. I can't think of a time when they wouldn't try and use any kind of event to their own benefit. Even the most tragic ones. So why wouldn't anyone be highly suspicious? MJ was, he knew whatever they do it won't come for free.
 
So was Randy mad at his mother? is that why he totally threw her and her case under the bus?
 
Trial gives behind-the-scenes of Jackson shows
Associated Press
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY | Associated Press – Sun, Aug 11, 2013 11:42 AM EDT

RELATED CONTENT

FILE - This Oct. 27, 2009 file photo shows atmosphere at Columbia Pictures' Premiere of Michael Jackson's "This Is It" at the Nokia Theatre L.A. Live, in Los Angeles.

Jurors hearing a case filed by Katherine Jackson over her son Michael’s death have received a behind-the-scenes look at the superstar’s troubles off-camera as he prepared for his ill-fated comeback shows. The panel was reminded on Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, of statements describing the “Thriller" singer as deteriorating and slow to pick up material for the shows that would heavily feature the hits that made him famous, but defense attorneys for concert promoter AEG Live LLC say the “This Is It” footage is an accurate portrayal of his preparations and doesn’t show Jackson in decline. (Photo by Eric Charbonneau/Invision/AP Images, File)View Photo

FILE - This Oct. 27, 2009 file photo shows atmosphere at Columbia Pictures' Premiere …

FILE - In this March 5, 2009 file photo, Michael Jackson announces several concerts at the London O2 Arena in July, at a press conference at the London O2 Arena.

Jurors hearing a case filed by Katherine Jackson over her son Michael’s death have received a behind-the-scenes look at the superstar’s troubles off-camera as he prepared for his ill-fated comeback shows. The panel was reminded on Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, of statements describing the “Thriller" singer as deteriorating and slow to pick up material for the shows that would heavily feature the hits that made him famous, but defense attorneys for concert promoter AEG Live LLC say the “This Is It” footage is an accurate portrayal of his preparations and doesn’t show Jackson in decline. (AP Photo/Joel Ryan, file)View Photo

FILE - In this March 5, 2009 file photo, Michael Jackson announces several concerts …

This Oct. 27, 2009 file photo shows Jermaine Jackson, Director/Producer Kenny Ortega, Tito Jackson, Jackie Jackson and Marlon Jackson at Columbia Pictures' Premiere of Michael Jackson's "This Is It" at the Nokia Theatre L.A. Live, in Los Angeles. Jurors hearing a case filed by Katherine Jackson over her son Michael’s death have received a behind-the-scenes look at the superstar’s troubles off-camera as he prepared for his ill-fated comeback shows. The panel was reminded on Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013, of statements describing the “Thriller" singer as deteriorating and slow to pick up material for the shows that would heavily feature the hits that made him famous, but defense attorneys for concert promoter AEG Live LLC say the “This Is It” footage is an accurate portrayal of his preparations and doesn’t show Jackson in decline. (Photo by Eric Charbonneau/Invision/AP Images, File)View Photo

This Oct. 27, 2009 file photo shows Jermaine Jackson, Director/Producer Kenny Ortega, …

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Nearly four years ago, audiences got their last look at Michael Jackson in the top-grossing concert film of all time, "This Is It." Tens of millions worldwide saw a seemingly healthy and confident performer sing and glide across a rehearsal stage as he prepared for his ill-fated comeback tour.

Now, those same sessions are being replayed for a new audience: jurors in a case filed by Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, claiming concert promoter AEG Live should be held liable for his untimely death in June 2009.
Through testimony and evidence, the panel has seen a very different picture of Jackson — one framed by descriptions such as "skeletal," ''lost," absent from rehearsals and unable to perform songs that made him a superstar.

In a darkened courtroom, and in stark contrast, the jurors have also seen clips of the concert film — visibly captivated by Jackson's smooth moves and easy vocals as he prepared for his "This Is It" tour in yet another indicator of the enduring allure of the so-called "King of Pop."

AEG Live's lawyers have used the film to point to the flashes of brilliance in Jackson's final rehearsals as proof that its executives could not have known the singer would soon die.

But Katherine Jackson's attorneys have played the footage juxtaposed to video of her son spinning and Moonwalking in younger years in an attempt to show that his skills were diminished and the film was selectively edited.

Once again last week, jurors were reminded of many of the dire descriptions of Jackson's deteriorating health in the final weeks. An attorney for the singer's mother presented snippets of testimony from five of Jacksons' collaborators expressing concerns about his health, including one who openly worried that he might die. Some of the statements were also sent in emails to AEG Live executives in 2009.

"If we didn't have these emails, we know what they'd be saying," Katherine Jackson's attorney Brian Panish said. "You can't come in and change those now."

"It is only the fair and accurate representation of what he was actually doing to prepare," AEG Live defense attorney Marvin S. Putnam said of the film. "What we can't know and we can't provide any picture of is what Mr. Jackson was doing when he was not preparing for 'This Is It' at rehearsal."

"It wasn't meant to be a day-by-day chronicle of Mr. Jackson's life," Putnam said, adding that "it doesn't show someone who's deteriorating."

The footage that became the "This Is It" movie was never intended for the big screen and by its nature is a bit rough. Jackson's outfits often change several times in one song because it is compiled from multiple rehearsals. There are few time elements in the movie, so rehearsals shot on the last night the singer was alive are shown alongside earlier rehearsals.

For instance, Jackson's final rehearsed song was his environmental anthem, "Earth Song," which appears an hour and 20 minutes into the movie. The next song, "Billie Jean" was performed weeks earlier, according to testimony in the trial.

"This Is It" was released in October 2009 for a two-week theatrical engagement, earning more than $260 million worldwide — far more than concert films by Justin Bieber, Katy Perry or Madonna.
In the film, Jackson shows off many of the crisp dance moves that made him a superstar, but in the courtroom, his collaborators have detailed his missed rehearsals, his difficulty performing some of his signature moves and occasional signs that Jackson was under the influence of medications.

Among their observations not reflected in the film:
— Choreographer Travis Payne went to Jackson's home almost daily for rehearsals, but acknowledged that he couldn't say how many times the singer often skipped the one-on-one sessions. Payne testified that Jackson was struggling to prepare for the show and had asked to use a teleprompter to help him remember lyrics to some of his songs.

— Nor did Jackson show up for rehearsals with the band and backup dancers. Director Kenny Ortega told jurors that Jackson missed numerous rehearsals in mid-June. When he arrived for a rehearsal session on June 19, 2009, Jackson was shivering, incoherent and unable to rehearse. Ortega massaged Jackson's feet and got him food, later describing the singer in an email to AEG Live CEO Randy Phillips as "like a lost boy."
— Production manager John "Bugzee" Houghdahl wrote Phillips on June 19, "I have watched him deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last 8 weeks."

— Emails sent by Phillips have led Panish to suggest that the footage shown in "This Is It" was selectively edited and that any clips showing Jackson was sick were in AEG's control. After the singer's death, Phillips sent an email to another AEG executive, Paul Gongaware, telling him, "Make sure we take out the shots of MJ in that red leather jacket at the soundstage where the mini-movies were being filmed. He looks way too (thin) and skeletal."
Gongaware denied to jurors that any footage was taken out at Phillips' request, and AEG Live's attorneys showed a clip from the film in which Jackson is wearing his infamous red leather jacket while watching the filming of a 3D mini-movie that would introduce "Thriller" during the concerts.

Lawyers for Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, thought footage that became the "This Is It" film might help their defense of the doctor on an involuntary manslaughter charge, but their review of more than 100 hours of unseen footage didn't yield anything useful to their case.

"Even on his bad days, he's good," Murray's defense lawyer J. Michael Flanagan said at the time.
The testimony and evidence from the civil trial are unlikely to impact Jackson's legacy, and may even spur some renewed interest in "This Is It," said Robert Marich, the author of the book "Marketing to Moviegoers."
"This makes him look more tragic and enigmatic," he said.
 
ivy said:
First of all I did not say that so you are exaggerating. In Debbie Rowe's deposition she said Klein ordered Demerol in his clinics name so that it can't be tracked to any single patient. It's the same reason why Murray ordered Propofol in his clinics name. I'm not a doctor or able to determine if what Klein gave Michael shown dependency (3 out of 4 experts did classify it as addiction, including a Jacksons expert) but I can tell you that in my opinion giving a person with known painkiller dependency (talking about 1993) high amounts of painkillers is fishy and it risks relapse.

Even from a simple alcoholic, you would know that the way to stay clean is to stay away from it all together. I haven't seen any recovering alcoholic drinking small amounts (or large amount) of alcohol. So even if Michael wasn't addicted in 2009, Klein was playing a very very dangerous game, risking relapse every single day. Again you can attack me as much as you want, it won't change my opinion.

So again I'm willing to agree that "there's no definitive proof Michael was addicted to Demerol in 2009 but Klein was risking a relapse by giving such doses to Michael".
Click to expand...

Question : if , because of an accident or an illness, Michael had to deal with pain, how do you think he would do that, without painkillers, to which he had a high tyolerance ?
We know from Waldman that withdrawal starts after 24 or 48 hours. So he would have had to be injected everyday or every 2 days. Do you think there are so many records missing ? Don't you think the coroner would have found somehing weird with his liver and / or kidneys ?
An expert can say he's "addicted" maybe at one poiint in time, but how often and how long ? And why would he have to use painkillers ? If they ignore the cause , they can, as many experts already did in this case, say whatever fits.
Where do you draw the line ? painkillers are not like alcohol, you might HAVE to use them.

it's not an "anger fest" , it's being objective.

ivy said:
yeah, remember when I was talking about the direct relationship between the knowledge and risk and wrote 30+ examples?

There have been successful examples of such nonsuits (or partial dismissals) mid trial. Sam Lufti's case against Britney Spears parents for defamation was dismissed mid trial for not being able met burden of proof. In Anna Nicole Smith death lawsuit, some claims were dismissed by the judge for lack of proof after verdict. But that being said this judge kept the negligent hiring claim during summary judgment so unless something changed her mind I don't see her dismissing the case. She might remove Gongaware and Phillips though.

I feel like given that this is a high profile case she tends to do middle of the road decisions and prefers someone else - such as the jury or appeals court etc- makes decisions.

AEG is building a strong argument for an appeal.
Click to expand...

That's if you think propofol was the particular risk- which is AEG's theory. If you think the particular risk was drugs in general OR Murray's incompetence, then their defense is not working at all.

----
I'm wondering what the jury will think of Randy J. He does sound crazy at times, or he has such a different version than other testimonies that his testimony can sound as anger, jealousy, or at least showing the family don't agree with each other about Michael's "addiction".
 
How can Katherine blame AEG for not watching out for her son, when she herself did nothing. She acts as if she was in la la land for the past 25 years or so. She didn't help her son, yet she was always there with Joe on some money making scheme or being the 'go to' in order to bribe MJ into doing some shows or engaging in some business adventure.
 
bouee said:
Question : if , because of an accident or an illness, Michael had to deal with pain, how do you think he would do that, without painkillers, to which he had a high tyolerance ?
We know from Waldman that withdrawal starts after 24 or 48 hours. So he would have had to be injected everyday or every 2 days. Do you think there are so many records missing ? Don't you think the coroner would have found somehing weird with his liver and / or kidneys ?
An expert can say he's "addicted" maybe at one poiint in time, but how often and how long ? And why would he have to use painkillers ? If they ignore the cause , they can, as many experts already did in this case, say whatever fits.
Where do you draw the line ? painkillers are not like alcohol, you might HAVE to use them.

it's not an "anger fest" , it's being objective.
Click to expand...

yes you might need to use painkillers but there are multiple other painkillers that aren't as addictive. also it is possible to give them under control or at minimal amounts. there are non opioid pain medicines. and there is also pain management centers for people that require pain killers non stop. so while I understand that for example Michael might need pain medicines for his bad back or for injections to his face, I don't get why the doctors needed to give him Demerol and specifically Demerol. so yes he might have needed to use a painkiller but he did not need to use Demerol.

For example we have all heard witnesses that Demerol are no longer a popular or commonly used painkiller, similarly we heard about Buprenex (or whatever) as a non addictive format or other drugs to replace Demerol (metzger depo) . So I don't get how anyone can explain Klein's practice of giving Michael demerol at high dosages as logical, required or good medical treatment. It's not like Klein tried alternative non addictive drugs, or had some sort of pain management program. He just gave the drug that Michael formed a dependency at least once in 1993 at higher amounts. It was a very risky move.

as for his liver - it demonstrates that Michael's dependency / addiction wasn't continuous and he had clean periods. You will see effects on the liver after long term drug use but liver would be able to repair itself after a certain period of not using it. I believe one of the addiction witnesses of AEG in their deposition said in after 2 years of clean period the organs will repair themselves and the life expectancy would return back to normal. Similarly for example when a person quits smoking, the lungs clean themselves out in a period of time. ( I have a relative who smoked for 30 years, had lung x-rays showing problems, quit smoking and now has better lungs and has perfect x-rays)


edited to add: a real life example. several years ago my BF had his wisdom teeth removed. it was an minor operation with anesthesia + pain killers and he was given prescription for really strong painkillers (which actually knocked him out) for 7 days. He took them 3 days and stopped. While we were going to the dentist for the prep , we met with this one other guy that BF started to talk at the waiting room. He had previously painkiller addiction and gotten clean and needed wisdom teeth operation. He was sent home with no prescription to painkillers, and he was being given painkillers at the dentist office daily at a minimal amount - just enough to make his pain bearable but not make it completely go away. He had told us that the doctors don't trust him with 7 days worth of strong painkillers - which he might have used more than recommended dose and they did not want the pills to remove all the pain. In other words they were controlling to make sure that he would not have that good feeling thay comes with painkillers and so that he won't have a relapse.
 
I want to say AGAIN that I have never seen a so-called "drug-addict" be CLEAN as Michael's autopsy revealed. There were NO DRUGS in Michael's system other than what the MURDERER, Conrad Murray, PUMPED into him.
 
bouee said:
Question : if , because of an accident or an illness, Michael had to deal with pain, how do you think he would do that, without painkillers, to which he had a high tyolerance ?
We know from Waldman that withdrawal starts after 24 or 48 hours. So he would have had to be injected everyday or every 2 days. Do you think there are so many records missing ? Don't you think the coroner would have found somehing weird with his liver and / or kidneys ?
An expert can say he's "addicted" maybe at one poiint in time, but how often and how long ? And why would he have to use painkillers ? If they ignore the cause , they can, as many experts already did in this case, say whatever fits.
Where do you draw the line ? painkillers are not like alcohol, you might HAVE to use them.

it's not an "anger fest" , it's being objective.



That's if you think propofol was the particular risk- which is AEG's theory. If you think the particular risk was drugs in general OR Murray's incompetence, then their defense is not working at all.

----
I'm wondering what the jury will think of Randy J. He does sound crazy at times, or he has such a different version than other testimonies that his testimony can sound as anger, jealousy, or at least showing the family don't agree with each other about Michael's "addiction".
Click to expand...

Your post makes a LOT of sense.
 
ivy;3886032 said:
yes you might need to use painkillers but there are multiple other painkillers that aren't as addictive. also it is possible to give them under control or at minimal amounts. there are non opioid pain medicines. and there is also pain management centers for people that require pain killers non stop. so while I understand that Michael might need pain medicines for his bad back or for injections to his face, I don't get why the doctors needed to give him Demerol and specifically Demerol.
Click to expand...

re bolded : please take the board exam : many doctors are still unaware of that.
Re demerol : it depends on WHEN it was given : it was on of the choice medication in the 70s and 80s.

ivy;3886032 said:
For example we have all heard witnesses that Demerol are no longer a popular or commonly used painkiller, similarly we heard about Buprenex as a non addictive format or other drugs to replace Demerol. So I don't get how anyone can explain Klein's practice of giving Michael demerol at high dosages as logical or good medical treatment. It's not like Klein tried alternative non addictive drugs, or had some sort of pain management program. He just gave the drug that Michael formed a dependency at least once in 1993 at higher amounts. It was a very risky move.
Click to expand...
re Klein : of course he didn't need to give him that in 09, I think we all agree.

Re Buprenex, from Wikipedia :
Buprenorphine is a semi-synthetic opioid that is used to treat opioid addiction in higher dosages (>2 mg), to control moderate acute pain in non-opioid-tolerant individuals in lower dosages (~200 µg), and to control moderate chronic pain in dosages ranging from 20–70 µg/hour. It is available in a variety of formulations: Subutex, Suboxone (buprenorphine HCl and naloxone HCl; typically used for opioid addiction), Temgesic (sublingual tablets for moderate to severe pain), Buprenex (solutions for injection often used for acute pain in primary-care settings), Norspan and Butrans (transdermal preparations used for chronic pain).
Click to expand...
Michael was tolerant as far as I know, THAT is the problem : opioids won't work unless given in a relatively large dose.

Of course Klein was abusing his postion, my question was about Michael. Would he qualify for an addict in the example I gave you ?
Let me repaeat my question : where do you- or many experts- draw the line ?
Do you really think he was injected- at times, and except 93- once a day or every other day, and the medical records and doctors just disappeared ?
 
Last edited:
Bubs;3885876 said:
I thought I read something in Margaret M book about Taiwan episode, I'll try to find her book for checking what she said about it.

About MSG thingy. Frank C wrote in his book that he contacted on MJ's family:
AS MUCH AS I WORRIED ABOUT MICHAEL’S MEDICAL situation, I never imagined it would interfere with his performance at the 30th Special. He was, after all, a consummate professional, and if anything, he used the medicine to help prepare himself for an appearance. But as the night of the first concert approached, Michael started seeing a new doctor. Although his health had improved under the care of Dr. Farshchian and he had successfully tapered off his medicine, there came a time when the good doctor had to return to his family in Florida. He couldn’t babysit Michael, and neither could I. The doctor who replaced him was based in New York; he was a sweet man, with a nice family. Unfortunately, Michael, in spite of the progress he had made with Dr. Farshchian, requested the same old medications. Though he never appeared to suffer from any kind of stage fright, my only theory to explain this behavior was that he must have been anxious about the upcoming shows. The new doctor was naive, and complied with Michael’s requests.

I tried to speak to Michael about it, but soon realized that I wasn’t getting through to him and that I needed some help. His family was coming to town for their appearance in the special. There were ties that bound them—no matter how much time and distance was between them—and I hoped that they might be able to intervene. Who else could I trust? If Michael had known I was talking to anyone, even his family, about my concerns, he would have killed me. In general, he did not want his family to know his business—especially when it came to things that he was adamant about keeping secret.

But I was convinced that it was the right thing to do, and so I spoke with Randy, Tito, and Janet. Tito and I walked around the Four Seasons several times, just talking. I had a private conversation with Randy. I didn’t speak with Michael’s mother: though I knew how much influence she had with him, it seemed wrong to burden a mother of a certain age with such distressing news about her beloved son. The family took my words seriously, and a couple of days before the show, they met with Michael to talk about the matter. But of course Michael told them that there was no cause for concern. He had barely acknowledged to himself that he had a problem. They wanted to be there for him, and they tried, but, as I had feared, he wouldn’t let his family into his life to help— not even for a moment.

Michael avoided confrontations. After the meeting, all he said about it was, “My family talked to me about my medicine. They were out of line.”
Click to expand...

Bubs what is this medicine. It seems to be something to help with anxiety, because Cascio mention "to help prepare for the show." I wonder why he would be anxious about the show though? Then, he says the new doctor came the night of the first concert. Then, the family talked to Michael a couple of days before the show. How many shows were there for MSG?

OK so Dr. F working well with Michel, then Michael goes to New York, and he relapses. Frank claims the doc and himself could not babysit Michael anymore. That to me is a big problem. I understand the doc had a life, but he should have found a reliable & loyal person to keep Michael in check. Someone who would call him each day & see how he is doing. When you are treating any addiction, you simple do not leave the person high and dry with no support. Frank was not the right person, because he had other things to do.

Frank calling the family was not the right thing, because he KNEW Michael does not listen to them. You can't ask someone to help another, if the person in need of help does not recognize the authority of the helper. He needed to call someone Michael holds in high esteem & who Micahel would listen to, and we all know who that is.

Another question: Why did Michael relapse in New York? Is it that doing this show with the brothers was stressing him out? What was going on at that time that acted as a trigger? That is another problem with Dr. F. He was supposed to question Micahel and find out what situations acted as a trigger (he found out about Michael problem on the internet.). Then, he had to work with Michael with these triggers, because if he does not, when the situations occur again, the first thing the patient will do is look for the old methods of dealing with it, which is exactly what Michael did--Frank claims he went back to the same medicine.

It seems there was no plan in place. I get the feeling too that Frank and family would simple say Michel don't take that, go to rehab, or ask if he is on something, but non of them had a plan to help. No brother/sister said, let me call him each day, let me text him some daily support messages, etc. We don't hear that, and to me it is this form of person-oriented daily support that really helps. I think that is what Micheal needed, and I hope if I get into a situation like that, my family or close friends will be calling or emailing daily to check up on me. I notice something about Michel, and that is if he does not want you in his business he will say everything is OK. He did it to his family, to Kenny.
 
bouee said:
Re demerol : it depends on WHEN it was given : it was on of the choice medication in the 70s and 80s. re Klein : of course he didn't need to give him that in 09, I think we all agree.
Click to expand...

yes we agree. I understand that Demerol is the top choice in the 80s. but in 2009 there's no logical explanation for giving Michael Demerol especially when it is known that he formed a dependency to it in 1993.

Let me repaeat my question : where do you- or many experts- draw the line ?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert to determine addiction , to me just the opiate blocker inserts in 2001 / 2002 shows that Michael thought he had a problem at least in that time period. I never claimed a non-stop dependency issue. I said relapses and clean periods. In this trial 3 out of 4 experts , claimed an opiate addiction. I guess we will understand how they came to that conclusion if they take the stand.


Do you really think he was injected- at times, and except 93- once a day or every other day, and the medical records and doctors just disappeared ?
Click to expand...

well I'm not saying it definitely happened, what I'm saying I won't be surprised if there's no medical records. So according to everyone - Michael included - he had a problem in 1993 with opiates, did you see daily injection records to back it up? Why do you think Murray did not keep medical records? Is it because he was lazy or is it because he did not want to create a written record of his improper treatment? Do you think Ratner has records of whatever treatment he was giving during History tour? and even more so Do you think Metzger / Debbie Rowe documented their at home detox?

My point was I just don't get the logic of "if he was given injections, there would be medical records of it". I would think that if you or I were doctors and we were doing improper treatments, we wouldn't write them down. If I robbed a bank, I wouldn't have written a confession. There is also the issue of multiple aliases and time issues - medical records get destroyed after a while.

So to me it's just lack of medical records does not in absolute certainty show lack of drugs / injections. If no records = no drugs given, with that logic we would have to conclude that Murray did not give Michael any propofol as there were no medical records showing administration of Propofol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top