Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Ashtanga]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

*big sigh*




I do not care about the Jackson family and I do not support them. -_- I really hope Katherine do not win this case. So far this trial has been a big joke and the name of Michael has been played in the mud. errin: This crap has nothing to do with justice BUT with $$$$$$$$$$.

 

[8701girl]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

This trial just proves everyone but mjs kids just wanted mihael for $$$ reasons not love & care

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Guys how come you did not go to the May 6th discussion thread to discuss the issues, but spent the day in this thread talking about issues that are not really in the testimony yet, like thinness? Usually everyone is in the daily thread having a discussion.

 

[bluetopez]

Rogers said Jackson’s post-mortem exam revealed no heart disease or Lupus, the autoimmune disease that some, Dr. Arnold Klein, have attributed to MJ (NYDailyNews)

SAY WHAT?! Well that's a shocker! Didn't those leaked Pepsi burn Docs someone was trying to sell recently say in them MJ did indeed have Lupus? :blink:

 

[8701girl]

[QUOTERogers said Jackson’s post-mortem exam revealed no heart disease or Lupus, the autoimmune disease that some, Dr. Arnold Klein, have attributed to MJ (NYDailyNews)][/QUOTE

Didnt michael say he was suffering from that?

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Blue I was just going to comment on that. I find the comment strange, because you cannot SEE lupus. That is not the way Lupus is diagnosed. I want to see the transcript to see exactly what the Dr. said.

8701 I know people saw him contributing to the Lupus foundation or at some meeting & assumed he had Lupus. Could it be that treatment caused the symptoms to disappear?

 

[8701girl]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

8701 I know people saw him contributing to the Lupus foundation or at some meeting & assumed he had Lupus. Could it be that treatment caused the symptoms to disappear?

yeh i remember hearing bout him contributing to the lupus foundation it was sweet of him to do that

I dont know as im not a medical person

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

From what Rogers & Anderson said today, they were very consistent with their Muarry trial evidence, in terms of what was in the body, the condition of the body & pointing out no evidence of street drugs, alcohol, demerol. So right now I could not care less about all the addiction experts that both sides will drag into court.

Now I am waiting for family & AEG staff evidence.


Anyone has the address for the coroner's office for Anderson & Rogers?

 

[PrɛttyღBµʈʈɇrƒℓу]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

The coroner's testimony was very honest, without comments biased in favor of any party. Seemed instructive since I do not remembered what was he said in the trial of Murray. I found interesting he has not detected lupus. It is sad to realize that Michael could live much longer if not was a doctor incompetent arise in your life.

 

[qbee]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Im not sure its possible to diagnose lupus by blood work or in a autopsy (unless you are specifically looking for it) and based on the criteria needed it would be very difficult to give a diagnoses.

A dr diagnoses lupus based on multiple symptoms and by physically seeing a flare up. ( multiple described symptoms and criteria need to be present for it to be diagnosed as lupus.) that would not show up in a autopsy. plus there are different kinds of lupus. My sister had lupus. It took awhile before the Drs were finally able to diagnose it. I also would like to see the full corner statement about lupus and if he explained if you can detect lupus in a autopsy or not ? because Roger Friedman and the press are just going to sensationalise and not tell all the facts.

Diagnosis of Lupus


Is there a test for systemic lupus?
There is not a single diagnostic test for systemic lupus.


Why is systemic lupus so difficult to diagnose?
It is difficult for a number of reasons:


Systemic lupus is a multi-system disease, and before a multi-system disease can be diagnosed, there have to be symptoms in many parts of the body and lab work that supports the presence of a multi-system disease.

Systemic lupus is also difficult to diagnose because it is a disease that does not typically develop rapidly, but rather develops slowly and evolves over time. Symptoms come and go and it generally takes time to gradually accumulate enough symptoms to indicate that a multi-system disease is present.

Systemic lupus is known as a Great Imitator because it mimics so many other diseases and conditions.

Systemic lupus is difficult to diagnose because there is no single diagnostic test for lupus. In fact, many people may have positive lupus tests-particularly the anti-nuclear antibody test-and yet NOT have the disease.


How is systemic lupus diagnosed?

Physicians have to gather information from a variety of sources: past medical history, lab tests and current symptoms. They use a list of 11 criteria to help diagnose SLE. A person needs to satisfy at least 4 out of the 11 criteria before the diagnosis can be pinpointed. Some criteria, such as a biopsy diagnosis of kidney lupus, can carry more weight.

Of the 11 criteria, 7 relate to symptoms, and 4 have to do with lab tests. The ANA test is used as a screening test for systemic lupus. We know that 95 % of people with SLE have a positive ANA. Therefore, if a person has many symptoms of systemic lupus and their ANA test is negative, that's generally regarded as pretty good evidence against lupus being the explanation for the symptoms they are having.

If on the other hand, the ANA comes back positive, that IS NOT proof of lupus. The positive ANA is only an indicator; it is not diagnostic. A positive ANA can be found in a number of illnesses and conditions including:

Rheumatoid arthritis
Sjogren's (show-grens) syndrome
Scleroderma (sklare-a-derm-a)
Infectious diseases such as:
Mononucleosis
Malaria
Subacute bacterial endocarditis (SBE)
Autoimmune diseases including:
Autoimmune thyroid disease
Autoimmune liver disease

Certain medications can also cause a positive ANA. About 20% of the general population when tested will have a positive ANA and not have any of the above mentioned illnesses. The ANA is only a test and like a high cholesterol value, a positive ANA doesn't necessarily equate having a disease.

So, a positive ANA, by itself, is not diagnostic of any one particular disease and may be present in people who have no illness. Although it is often referred to as "a lupus test," it is not like a pregnancy test where a positive result can mean only one thing. The ANA is only an indicator, which points in several possible directions. A positive ANA satisfies only one criterion. A person would need to satisfy at least 3 additional criteria.

SEE MORE: http://www.lupus.org/webmodules/web...aboutintroduction.aspx?articleid=380&zoneid=9

 

[jamba]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Re Palazuelos, here is some info re her area of expertise when she was an assistant attorney in the US Attorney's office in Ca since 1990--before Gov. Gray Davis appointed her to be a Superior Court Judge in 2000:

Palazuelos, 37, specializes in prosecuting large-scale narcotics traffickers and money launderers. She has won five special achievement awards from the U.S. Department of Justice and two certificates of appreciation from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/17/local/me-41839

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

You can not diagnose lupus by blood work or in a autopsy -A dr diagnoses it based on multiple symptoms a patients describes and by physically
seeing a flare up. It will not show up in a autopsy.

Exactly, that is why I was wondering about how the reporter phrased that comment, which is why sometimes we need the direct information ourselves.

^It seems she works in the 'drug' area, so maybe that is why she is biased against certain elements in this case.

 

[bouee]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Exactly, that is why I was wondering about how the reporter phrased that comment, which is why sometimes we need the direct information ourselves.

^It seems she works in the 'drug' area, so maybe that is why she is biased against certain elements in this case.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the reproter's comment. Maybe Christopher did not mention that in some cases you don't see signs of lupus at an autopsy. Maybe the question was asked to show that lupus can not be the explanation of the symptoms he had in 2009, and can't be related to how he died.

I agree with you re drugs and the judge.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I think it'd be a bit unprofessional from Rogers to state that MJ did not have Lupus, because of what others said: it's not a desease that autopsy can determine. So I wonder how it was worded in the context. I'd imagine he was asked if he could determine Lupus and he said "no" - which wouldn't mean MJ didn't have it, just that the coroner could not determine it.

MJ never publicly claimed he had Lupus, but apparently he told people privately. And in those medical documents which were leaked about his Pepsi accident burns Klein advises another doctor not to give MJ a certain medicine because it would interfere with his Lupus meds. So I think he had Lupus. Discloid lupus at least (which affects only the skin). Whether he also had systematic lupus (which effects other organs), I don't know. People speculated that the chronic inflammation in his lungs might be a result of systematic lupus, because Lupus can cause chronic inflammation in the body, but of course Lupus is not the only explanation for chronic inflammation, so when a coroner sees inflammation he cannot say "it's because of Lupus".

 

[Tygger]

Margaret Lodise met with all three children after their alleged, attempted abduction by some of the siblings in the driveway of their home. That meeting happened without any Jackson family members’ interference.

If the oldest children did not want to participate in this trial they would not be. They could be removed from those proceedings IF they wanted to. There is no coercion or conflict of interest and they are being protected. They may feel reluctant about the situation overall (as even adults are) but, they are committed to participating as we have seen.

Notice how the youngest was protected from the proceedings by the plaintiffs’ lawyer. He will not be participating yet, he remains a plaintiff. The same could have happened with the oldest children if they did not want to participate.

If the oldest was angry at his deposition, it is not the same as not being able to handle it. If fans are angry at his father’s death, he is allowed to be even more angry as that was his father. This does not mean he is not ready; it means he is still angered by his lost which is expected.

These children were BORN Jacksons and they know what that name means and what the public perception is of that name; fan or not, positive, neutral, or negative. I believe they know much more than some fans are willing to give them credit for.

Katherine's lawyers have their own motivations which includes getting their name known and possibly get a huge payout if they win this case.

What is the motivation of the defendants’ lawyers? Protect AEG’s profits and keeping their jobs.

There is no documented proof that any Jackson sibling is behind this lawsuit. The siblings showing support for their mother and their nephews and niece in public is not the same as admitting they are the masterminds behind the so-called extortion plot against AEG.

Amoremotus, I understood your post. All witnesses for the most part will be “prepared” in some fashion before testifying; not just the minor children.

 

[ivy]

Margaret Lodise met with all three children after their alleged, attempted abduction by some of the siblings in the driveway of their home. That meeting happened without any Jackson family members’ interference.

I disagree in one regard. In that event there were two camps. Some siblings were banned from the premises and the other party allowed Lodise access. It's not like for example Randy Jackson said "here kids, meet with Lodise to get TJ added", he went on a public rant on twitter blaming TJ for what he did. In that instance the only reason Lodise got access to kids was because of TJ.

So unless there are two camps in this instance as well, kids might or might not have access to an independent lawyer.

The reality is that we don't know either way.

What is the motivation of the defendants’ lawyers? Protect AEG’s profits and keeping their jobs.

so? it's not AEG's job to look after the best interest of the kids. They are being sued for billions, they are fighting no bars hold.

my point was can you look to Katherine's lawyers and for example expect them to say "let's remove the kids as plaintiffs as this might be something that hurts them" or will they be like "more plaintiffs more money , the more our share".

There is no documented proof that any Jackson sibling is behind this lawsuit. The siblings showing support for their mother and their nephews and niece in public is not the same as admitting they are the masterminds behind the so-called extortion plot against AEG.

Wait for it. I'm thinking AEG have already asked or will ask at least Randy Jackson about his involvement in the lawsuit.

He will not be participating yet, he remains a plaintiff. The same could have happened with the oldest children if they did not want to participate.

I don't agree. The only reason Blanket is not a part of it is because he was very young when Michael died and his answers said he did not remember anything other than Michael talking to him about 3D footage. The older kids knew and remembered more.

"the oldest children might not have participated if they did not want" is technically not that correct. Law allows every person to face their accusers. "I don't want" is not an excuse to avoid it. Blanket had the limitation of being young and how that could affect his vulnerable psyche. Prince and Paris don't have that luxury. AEG not being able to face their accusers would have been a serious issue and a valid reason for appeal.

Furthermore AEG also did not really pursue to depose Blanket. They had more focused on deposing Prince and Paris (and at the very last moment, they avoided it as much as they can) and only briefly mentioned Blanket in an email. Jacksons sent them a doctor note. AEG did not pursue Blanket, they did not serve him with a subpoena. It's anyone's guess what would have happened if they did. Judge might or might not allowed it.

 

[bluetopez]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Well anyway I do believe MJ had Lupus. I mean why have the medicine for flare ups in his home if he didn't? Besides there are many pics u can find of him in the thriller/bad era with that Butterfly rash across his face.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I disagree in one regard. In that event there were two camps. Some siblings were banned from the premises and the other party allowed Lodise access. It's not like for example Randy Jackson said "here kids, meet with Lodise to get TJ added", he went on a public rant on twitter blaming TJ for what he did. In that instance the only reason Lodise got access to kids was because of TJ.

Exactly. Twitter was (is?) not Randy's friend, in this and other regards. That was a time of a lot of turmoil in the Jackson family, and unfortunately, a lot of it was public. So as far as "documented proof" is concerned, a lot of it could be pretty well assumed from Randy's own words/rants.

So unless there are two camps in this instance as well, kids might or might not have access to an independent lawyer..

And THAT is ultimately up to the guardian(s), and not the children.

The reality is that we don't know either way..

Right. That is the reality.

Wait for it. I'm thinking AEG have already asked or will ask at least Randy Jackson about his involvement in the lawsuit..

Yes. Given the incredible detail of the questioning already, I think it IS likely that Randy will be asked about his part in all of this.

"the oldest children might not have participated if they did not want" is technically not that correct. Law allows every person to face their accusers. "I don't want" is not an excuse to avoid it. Blanket had the limitation of being young and how that could affect his vulnerable psyche. Prince and Paris don't have that luxury. AEG not being able to face their accusers would have been a serious issue and a valid reason for appeal.

Legally, the children really don't have the choice of "participating" or not. No one here can speak with authority about what they might or might not want, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to see their father thrown under the bus this way.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I find it interesting that no one is pointing out that Rogers said that there were NO DRUGS-street or otherwise- in Michael's body EXCEPT what the MURDERER, Conrad Murray INJECTED into him. I don't care about the "lupus" statement. The MORE important FACT that needs to be SPREAD to the media and everywhere else is that Michael was NOT an addict. The media seems to WANT Michael to be an "addict" and conveniently IGNORES what Rogers testified to. This"message" needs to be tweeted, e-mailed to the media. gossip whores like Friedman and others.

 

[bouee]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Maybe the kids want to do something for their dad, that's understandable after what happened. One very good occasion would have been the victims' statement at the end of Murray's trial, they wouldn't have been cross examined. But the kids were just a few lines in the Jacksons' victims statement.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I do not believe any Jackson prevented Lodise access to the children at any time since her appointment. There would be legal penalties for that kind of activity and that would have been public knowledge.

I agree with you that if the oldest children decided they did not want to participate it would have been grounds for an appeal. However, if the oldest children were not as well adjusted as they are, they would not be participating in this trial. If they were not well adjusted, they could have begged to participate and they would not have been allowed to.

Because they are so well adjusted, participating would not be considered harmful. It is considered harmful for the youngest and he was protected. I agree the defendants may have not pursued the youngest but, it would be foolish for the plaintiffs to take that chance. Without the doctor’s note, the defendants were allowed to pursue the youngest if they chose to; now they cannot.

How would the children benefit by not being plaintiffs? If the defendants are found culpable of negligent hiring, the children deserve damages as per the jury for their lost; why should they not be eligible for that?

I am interested in hearing what the Jackson family, Randy Phillips, and Paul Gongaware will say on the stand so yes, I am waiting.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP 1h
It's impossible to know, but wondering how jury reconciles description of relatively healthy Jackson with portrayal in openings of addict MJ

elke hassell ?@ElkeHassell 2h
@mccartneyAP So you have problems as well with the whole thing?

Anthony McCartney
?@mccartneyAP
.@ElkeHassell Mainly curious and wondering where it's all going. It's early and hard to say what jury will focus on in deliberations.

 

[bouee]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

^^ Michael was healthy, he would have had a long and successful 40 billion dollars career after TII. I think that's one of the points.
Another point could be that he was using medication only for stress not for recreation, stress greatly increased by AEG, who pushed an incompetent unethical doctor into doing dangerous things to MJ.

I find the comparison of Michael's weight between History tour and TII interesting, since he supposedly also used propofol during History Tour. What would explain such a difference ?

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

SAY WHAT?! Well that's a shocker! Didn't those leaked Pepsi burn Docs someone was trying to sell recently say in them MJ did indeed have Lupus? :blink:

The docs said he had discoid Lupus, not systemic Lupus.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I think it'd be a bit unprofessional from Rogers to state that MJ did not have Lupus, because of what others said: it's not a desease that autopsy can determine. So I wonder how it was worded in the context. I'd imagine he was asked if he could determine Lupus and he said "no" - which wouldn't mean MJ didn't have it, just that the coroner could not determine it.

MJ never publicly claimed he had Lupus, but apparently he told people privately. And in those medical documents which were leaked about his Pepsi accident burns Klein advises another doctor not to give MJ a certain medicine because it would interfere with his Lupus meds. So I think he had Lupus. Discloid lupus at least (which affects only the skin). Whether he also had systematic lupus (which effects other organs), I don't know. People speculated that the chronic inflammation in his lungs might be a result of systematic lupus, because Lupus can cause chronic inflammation in the body, but of course Lupus is not the only explanation for chronic inflammation, so when a coroner sees inflammation he cannot say "it's because of Lupus".

The 1984 document states MJ had recently been diagnosed with discoid lupus.

MJ told Taraborrelli he had it in 1995 in a post Sawyer interview. The drug he told Taraborrelli he had to take for it was one of the ones listed in the 1984 medical records. Taraborrelli of course was dismissive of MJ.

One of MJ's main doctors was Metzger who was a lupus specialist rheumatologist, obviously MJ sought him out on the basis of his lupus.

MJ definitely had it, but his form seems to be mostly skin specific (which affects his hair too) and it looks like he suffered other ailments in connection with that, like his lungs. He was diagnosed in 1977 after a pneumothorax with having pleurisy, one of the drugs he was taking in the 1984 document is for lupus/pleurisy - pleurisy is one of the lung conditions most strongly connected to lupus. So it seems clear to me at least that it was a connected complaint for MJ. I don't even know if the coroner knew about his previous lung issues.

Only 20% of people with discoid lupus have "positive" ANA tests for lupus, and no ANA test was performed during his autopsy. When MJ was diagnosed with the disorder when he was younger he had the big red rash on his face - biopsies of these are used to confirm the illness is present, when he was older he'd managed to treat it to prevent recurrences of this rash from happening.

If MJ's medical records are revealed more then I'm sure we will see "discoid lupus" and the various drugs he used to treat it mentioned in many of them.

I wonder if he meant that lupus was not involved in how he died or when he died MJ was not suffering from any symptoms of lupus so to him he saw no signs of it?

 

[LastTear]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP 1h
It's impossible to know, but wondering how jury reconciles description of relatively healthy Jackson with portrayal in openings of addict MJ

elke hassell ?@ElkeHassell 2h
@mccartneyAP So you have problems as well with the whole thing?

Anthony McCartney
?@mccartneyAP
.@ElkeHassell Mainly curious and wondering where it's all going. It's early and hard to say what jury will focus on in deliberations.

Hmmm, this could work towards AEG's advantage. From the outside this person appears healthy (to AEG) but in secret uses various medications from several different doctors. Maybe, idk.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

It means someones lieing lol. a drug addict that was healthy and had nothing in his system other than what murray killed him with.

the family lie so much they contridict themself first its mj was so ill he couldnt clean his room therefore aeg should have known and in the next breath its mj would have made 40bill and was gonna do hundreds of shows with us. u cant have it both ways.

sickening that even mcartney sees the blatent contridictions and what is the re writing of history when it comes to mj

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Family prob wanted rogers to say he didnt have lupus or at least imply it so they can do a murray and push any illness onto demoral withdrawl

 

[Bubs]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Because so much money is at stake and they chose not to settle, you would think going in AEG would've been villainizing the family to the point where no one would even think to reward a family like this. The family didn't hesitate to twist things to make AEG look bad, so why not play this same game towards the family? Instead they are being made to look like these mean bullies and the mud slinging is coming from their side. While Katherine is playing up the sweet caring mother image. Her crying in court made the news and I saw one report last week that said this trial is going to be tough for MJ's fans and family.

I just hate when it comes to MJ and his kids everyone is bold and loud, but when it comes to this slimey family, people want to get all tip toey.

Don't worry, they will get their share later on as trial proceeds.
We already know what AEG wants to put their verdict form, Katherine's name is there so she is going to get what she deserves and also this:
allowed (motion denied)- Motion 8 - KJ did not file a suit against Murray

- AEG is precluded from pointing out that Murray is not a defendant in the lawsuit (see reason cited at motion 7 above)
- However AEG is allowed to present a comparative fault defense and verdict form.
- AEG is permitted to question Katherine Jackson as to her motive (financial) for filing the lawsuit.
- AEG are not permitted to question minor kids (Prince, Paris and Blanket) as to their "motive" for filing the lawsuit because their motive is irrelevant in that Katherine Jackson, their legal guardian and their guardian ad litem in this lawsuit, made that decision for them and they can only appear / file through her.

I'm sure AEG will bring out at some stage that CM wasn't asked for restitution, and hopefully AEG lawyers explains to jury members why it was better for Jackson's not to ask restitution from CM, but to go for bigger fish - AEG deep pockets.
CM - no money and empty pockets
AEG - loads of money so cubs can eat and pay their child supports(in case family wins).

 

[bouee]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Family prob wanted rogers to say he didnt have lupus or at least imply it so they can do a murray and push any illness onto demoral withdrawl

how does that help the family ?