Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Petrarose]

I like what Rowe said below. To me she did not make a sacrifice, but did something willingly and lovingly for another person:
-When a lawyer for Katherine Jackson suggested that Michael's death wasn't something Rowe contemplated when she made the "sacrifice" of giving him full custody of their kids, the former dermatologist's assistant snapped back.
-"My children were never a sacrifice," she said, breaking down to the point that she needed time to compose herself outside the courtroom.


This really helps people understand that Michael was in severe pain that really needed some proper treatment:
-She said she saw him in so much pain, he would have cold sweats, grow pale, and couldn’t see or think clearly when this
happened.


The medical information really breaks your heart and again it shows that he was seeking legitimate procedures:
-She then explained that Jackson had keloids, a series of lumpy bumps on his skin that sometimes happen to burn victims.
-Keloid tissue is very hard and dense and it requires regular injections to treat. She said an air gun is used for some of the treatments.
-“It’s horribly painful,” Rowe said. She said in some treatments, you can hear the skin popping while the medication is administered.
- Rowe said keloids are extremely painful. On Jackson, they started “mid-scalp and went back to the crown,”


The information below is valuable, since there is a tendency to automatically think that if Michael had more than 1 doctor for a problem, he was doctor shopping for drugs:
-Rowe explained to the jury why Jackson needed two doctors to treat his discoid lupus. She said it. from a rheumatologist (Dr. Allan Metzger) and a dermatologist, (Dr. Arnold Klein.) Both got extra training in their respective fields.

What I also noticed about Rowe is that no matter how tough she is, she showed a lot of emotion talking about Michael, his pain, how he felt, his treatment, & Paris' attempted suicide. I did not see that same emotion from Randy when he talked about his brother.

I like the way Debbie hung up the phone when Katherine's assistant called. It seems she simply wanted to tell the truth, although she did not want to be in court. I think Debbie was the best person who finally put the drug use into perspective. No one else did this as well, and Randy really did not have any specifics. The jury needed to know this to understand the victim better. This may not have anything to do with who hired Muarry, but at least they will leave court having a better idea of what Michael went through.

The jury listened to Kenny and Debbie very attentively, & those witnesses, to me, helped AEG more than the plaintiffs.

 

[Tygger]

Don't you see a difference between close friends, family and outside people?

That being said Debbie's testimony humanizes Michael. I don't think AEG at any point tried to portray Michael as a high seeking addict, they only wanted to portray him as Propofol and Murray's treatment was his choice and they weren't prompted by anything AEG did.

"secretive" can be established if no one had a clear idea of what is going on.

Ivy, close friends and family was not clarified by the defense in their opening statements. Putnam stated Michael was a secretive addict, did not want help for his issues, and all of the negativity that description implies. This argument makes Michael blameworthy for his own passing as per That Other Fan’s post below:

There is no way no one could have known about Propofol though. Hence why testimony about his previous battle with addiction is so important. The narrative is: "He was addicted and doctor shopping. Murray was yet another doctor found to do what Michael pleased. We can't be held responsible because he had these issues for years. He was secretive and did little to rehabilitate himself."

The defendants have consistently discussed Demerol and with Rowe, they were able to discuss propofol and Demerol together. Every defense witness, minus damage "experts," testified to Michael seeking help and not keeping secrets from other doctors. Example: Sasaki knew Michael was receiving pain management from two doctors and still chose to give Michael Demerol when asked. Sasaki was responsible for his own actions in that situation yet; AEG would prefer Michael take the blame.

The fact that this is a wrongful death trial humanizes Michael however, I do understand that there are those who need to hear these memories told to see Michael as less of a entertainment machine and more of person very much like themselves. I believe portions of Rowe’s testimony helped the plaintiffs, portions helped the defense, and the sum total helped Rowe. She reminded me very much of Faye; both claim a savior role in Michael's life. This is why I suggested that both parties be highly cautious of Rowe and it is seen in the tweets when each lawyer seemed to retreat from certain questioning because they could see Rowe’s testimony would prove to be useless for them.

for dangerous I would say not proven as it's nothing more than a persons statement but for history if there are past accounting records / books , I would think it is proven. Just because you don't see the books doesn't mean it's not true. Also you need to look to the cross, if it was a lie, it would have been debunked. That being said I think where the money went is not clear. There might be charity donations which actually meant no profit.

Ivy, normally I would agree the cross would reveal more information however, I do not believe all of the records exist for charity donations. If donations were claimed for tax purposes, that would be a record of donation. However, if Michael did not have the best financial staff in place, it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to prove otherwise. Unless a charitable organization revealed they received a donation from Michael after the History tour, there is not much else that can be done. Panish did what he could which was to show Michael had a history of donating proceeds from tours to charity. If there is not a record of donation, in this instance, it does not prove there was not a donation. If Michael had any proceeds from the History tour, he mostly likely gave those monies to charity.

The point truly is not if the History tour was successful enough for Michael to donate to charities. The defense wants to suggest Michael had not made money professionally since the Bad tour. The defense prefers the jurors believe that Michael would not generate any monies professionally, zero monies, and would never recover from debt to provide for his mother or his children had he lived. This theory continues to defy all sense of logic. If that theory was true, why would Michael agree with the TII tour to begin with? Why work if he could never clear his debt and provide his family in the way he chose?

their stance have always been "we did not know Propofol", they never denied the knowledge of pain addiction. they couldn't Michael publicly announced it in 1993.

AEG did attempt to suggest Phillips/Gongaware were not aware Michael had any substance issues and Panish discredit that suggestion.

AEG did not "get involved" with Murray--Michael did. Murray was Michael's idea, not AEG's idea and because Michael did not have any funds to pay him, AEG stepped in to help Michael out. That's the only reason AEG was "involved" with Murray.

Crillon, that is incorrect. AEG decided to engage the doctor with an employment contract instead of paying him through an advance as they did Klein. That was AEG's choice, not Michael's. Even if it was Michael's choice; AEG should have told Michael they would use an advance as they were paying Klein. As per Bouee’s post:

AEG issued an indep. contractor contract with Murray, he was budgeted in the tour costs, Murray was negociating with AEG and asking his salary from AEG. He was in meetings, was asked by AEG to go to rehearsals, was doing Michael's rehearsals schedule , and was made responsible for Michael's appearancea ta rehearsals.

Looks like Kenny was the only one suspecting Murray.

Vici, Payne did as well.

 

[Petrarose]

Court resumes tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. PDT with Dr. Gary Green. Green is a sports medicine specialist meant to rebut the testimony of the plaintiff's conflict of interest expert, Gordon Matheson.

so basically an expert witness who will probably say there was no conflict

Funny, the bolded ^^ you got that right. Matheson spoke such a long time ago that I forgot the details of his testimony. Oh well I am sure Green will tell us how wrong Matheson is. AEG seems to be covering their major points very quickly, unless they are going to double up and have 2 people to give testimony for each of their main points. Let's see they worked on the drug use & secrecy, prior use of prof, money/debts, contracts, testimony to reduce damages, conflict of interest coming up...It seems they are really trying to finish their case in the beginning of September as they promised. I guess the plaintiffs might end up taking longer to put on their case--May, June July, part of August.

 

[jamba]

Anyone understand why they gave Michael a number of scalp surgeries just before he embarked on a tour? I don't understand why this was not done a year before the tour started. This caused him to be battling touring sleeplessness & pain at the same time. This is a lot for any human to endure.

My other puzzle is that according to Rowe, she and Mertzer began a regiment for Michael. Rowe did not go on the tour & during the tour Michael gets this doctor who gives him demerol for the pain. Now Michael had money, why didn't anyone of them think of hiring a nurse or some such person to continue the regiment? This is a big problem I have with all the doctors who treated Michel for pain or dependency. None of them had some plan that was workable.

Michael gets burned and gets 2 million which he gives away, and the treatment to regraph, stretch the skin, work on the scarring, work on the hair loss all cost much, much more than 2 million.

He is burned & gets addictive drugs and no one sets up a plan for that. Debbie & Mertzer sets up a treatment which is working nicely & they appear clueless about arranging personnel to continue the regiment during the tour. Then, he is given a private reharb and again there is no plan for handling triggers like in NYC. Worse Frank calls the family to talk to him, which is one of his triggers. When you look at all the mistakes made, and realized it was done by professional doctors who billed hundreds of thousands of dollars, it is really a shame and disgrace.

That burn really was a life-long problem from what we are hearing. Debbie talked aboutg th keloids (sp?), the hard, bumpy scaring on his scalp as a result of the burn and these were extremely painful, so I gather the surgery in 93 was an attempt to replace these keloids (sp?) with normal skin. That appears to have just made everything worse. I guess it was an example of how MJ trusted the drs and their solutions to his problems. The idea of having a balloon under your skin and having people inject stuff into it to make it bigger, sounds awful and somewhat like a medieval torture. But I guess the scars were also painful. Seems sometimes MJ was between a rock and a hard place and had to go for the lesser of 2 evils, but sometimes that choice turned out to be the greater of the evils. He did the best he could given the horribly difficult circumstances, I do believe that.

 

[jamba]

Funny, the bolded ^^ you got that right. Matheson spoke such a long time ago that I forgot the details of his testimony. Oh well I am sure Green will tell us how wrong Matheson is. AEG seems to be covering their major points very quickly, unless they are going to double up and have 2 people to give testimony for each of their main points. Let's see they worked on the drug use & secrecy, prior use of prof, money/debts, contracts, testimony to reduce damages, conflict of interest coming up...It seems they are really trying to finish their case in the beginning of September as they promised. I guess the plaintiffs might end up taking longer to put on their case--May, June July, part of August.

AEG's having a fast-moving and focused defense might go down well with the jury after they had to sit through the rambling, interminable, still ongoing (?) plaintiff's case.

 

[bouee]

just a little note. The summaries of summary judgment motion is available . You will see that the distinction between propofol and painkillers wasn't a point raised during summary judgment. so it wasn't considered before. Furthermore there are 2 ways to prove a negligent hiring claim - 1 - direct relationship between past behavior and future behavior ( a man with a history of violence beating someone) and 2 - totality of the situation (a man with 10 arrests in the last month from different misdemeanors being a risk). So your comment of "There would be no trial if it was about Propofol. " is kinda wrong because a) judge did not really consider it b) even if she thought there was no way to know about Propofol, she could have allowed this to go to trial and let jury decide about the totality of the situation could bring a foreseeablity.

re bolded : so my comment (actually our comments since there are several of us making the same comments) are not "kind of wrong" unless you misunderstand them ("misunderstand is a word you like to use).
It's saying what you wrote (in bold).

It would be nice, for the sake of obejctivity, to see you "explain" the Jacksons line of arguments as much as AEG's. There are 2 sides in this trial, not only one.

 

[Bubs]

This is what bothers me also, why Michael thought CM was competent - given the lack of equipment, plus another person in case one nods off or goes to the bathroom, also was it true that Murray was trained up by another of Michael's doctors. (?) If so then Michael knew CM wasn't qualified. And he wasn't even on tour at this stage.

I can have those questions and still hold the professional, the doctor, wholly responsible.

I agree with you. Debbie testified that MJ slept 8 hours under German anesthetists, and those German's explained that they always have 2 when someone is under more than 4 hours. I assume MJ was there when those anesthetists explained this to him, so why in earth he though it was safe to be under when CM was just alone?

and especially after this:
Rowe said the doctors had physicians desk reference book with them. They told Michael there was risk, including death.

 

[bouee]

I agree with you. Debbie testified that MJ slept 8 hours under German anesthetists, and those German's explained that they always have 2 when someone is under more than 4 hours. I assume MJ was there when those anesthetists explained this to him, so why in earth he though it was safe to be under when CM was just alone?

Because Murray told him he would be safe.

 

[Tygger]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts
The question regarding excessive use of drugs or alcohol was circled 'no'.
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts
There are questions on the form that were filled out during the physical. Dr. Slavit said MJ was the only source of the responses.
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts
At the time of the examination the form was filled out with Michael Jackson. We reviewed the form before he signed it.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts
Q: Did he say he had trouble sleeping?
A: He didn't say he had trouble sleeping, he didn't say he had insomnia..

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts
Dr. Slavit didn't see anything that suggested MJ was not telling the truth. He didn't find any typical signs of narcotic intoxication.

Michael passed with only the substances the doctor gave him in his system. Michael was clean in 2009. This is a weak effort on the defense's part to defend themselves. If Michael circled yes, that would be a fabrication as the question is general and does not request a specific time period. There would be no need to tell Slavit about insomnia as Michael most likely did not suffer from insomnia Feb 2009.

What was the purpose of this video testimony?

 

[Bubs]

That burn really was a life-long problem from what we are hearing. Debbie talked aboutg th keloids (sp?), the hard, bumpy scaring on his scalp as a result of the burn and these were extremely painful, so I gather the surgery in 93 was an attempt to replace these keloids (sp?) with normal skin. That appears to have just made everything worse. I guess it was an example of how MJ trusted the drs and their solutions to his problems. The idea of having a balloon under your skin and having people inject stuff into it to make it bigger, sounds awful and somewhat like a medieval torture. But I guess the scars were also painful. Seems sometimes MJ was between a rock and a hard place and had to go for the lesser of 2 evils, but sometimes that choice turned out to be the greater of the evils. He did the best he could given the horribly difficult circumstances, I do believe that.

I had to do google image search on keloids in the scalp and photos that came up were not pretty, poor Michael.
"Cortisone softens the tissue. "You could hear the skin popping when the medication was going in," Rowe said. "It was horribly painful.""

Poor poor Michael

Chang: It literally expands, stretches the skin?
Rowe: Yes
"It was brutally painful," Rowe said. "It required pain medication."

Poor poor poor Michael. I cannot imagine the pain he went trough with this treatment. I tried to test how it feels, and took bunch of hair and started pulling it upwards. I tell you, it was painful, but I was able to stop the pain, MJ had to suffer it for ages:no:

 

[Thrill]

It would be nice, for the sake of obejctivity, to see you "explain" the Jacksons line of arguments as much as AEG's. There are 2 sides in tjis trial, not only one.

agree with this statement. not only ivy but several members go so hard to defend and explain what AEG is trying to say. ive not seen anything similar when it comes to the plaintiffss. there were very few ppl defending mj/plaintiffs when eric briggs said he would not make any money or when he undervalued the catalogue. these are just a few examples where members (except a few) have not said a thing when aeg have lied on mj. i dont care who started this trial, its now happening so a little more support against aegs lies would be nice to see.

like bouee said, more explainations to understand the plaintiffs would also be nice to see

 

[LastTear]

I agree with you. Debbie testified that MJ slept 8 hours under German anesthetists, and those German's explained that they always have 2 when someone is under more than 4 hours. I assume MJ was there when those anesthetists explained this to him, so why in earth he though it was safe to be under when CM was just alone?

I don't get it. Debbie testified Michael used propofol on two occasions during the dangerous tour - and yet he travelled with Dr Neil Ratner, an anaesthesiologist? Debbie doesn't mention him at all. So it's one of two things, either Debbie was actually hardly around and never met Ratner (btw babies can be made without sex) - Or Ratner wasn't on tour.

Because Murray told him he would be safe.

In this instance I think Michael chose to believe him - but regardless it's still down to the doctor, they are the ones to hold the position of trust and should not put any patient in harms way.

 

[bouee]

In this instance I think Michael chose to believe him - but regardless it's still down to the doctor, they are the ones to hold the position of trust and should not put any patient in harms way.

I'm not sure I understand the difference : Michael never thought he could die, I think we agree on that. So to me, he trusted Murray, simply because Murray said he could do it. Michael didn't understand the equipment, etc.. he knew he had to be monitored, and thought he was.

 

[LastTear]

@Bouee & Thrill - The Jackson line of arguments were discussed whilst they were presenting their case. But honestly there was not much to discuss, I remember discussing why the plantiffs would want show a history of drugs, everything else is self explanatory - the emails to show lack of care and everything else is about how much money they should be awarded.

And re Briggs - it was discussed. if you want to discuss, question or review something then I'm sure everyone would be happy to contribute.

 

[LastTear]

I'm not sure I understand the difference : Michael never thought he could die, I think we agree on that. So to me, he trusted Murray, simply because Murray said he could do it. Michael didn't understand the equipment, etc.. he knew he had to be monitored, and thought he was.

The difference being between a hotel room set up like a surgery, with a team to monitor him versus Murray on his own and no equipment. If Michael was familiar with this treatment then he would have realised the difference, but he obviously chose to trust him.

 

[bouee]

@Bouee & Thrill - The Jackson line of arguments were discussed whilst they were presenting their case. But honestly there was not much to discuss, I remember discussing why the plantiffs would want show a history of drugs, everything else is self explanatory - the emails to show lack of care and everything else is about how much money they should be awarded.

And re Briggs - it was discussed. if you want to discuss, question or review something then I'm sure everyone would be happy to contribute.

And a lot of it was about AEG being aware that something not quite right was going on with Murray, and the way he was hired (or not) , and treated as a tour employee, just like any other tour employee (or not).

That's where they have a totally different interpretation of the law or of this case than AEG. As it was said by almost everyone here, lawyers on both sides are not stupid and are good lawyers. So there's a reason why the Jacksons lawyers are presenting their arguments the way they do. That would be nice to hear "explanations" about that as much as we hear about AEG's theories. I should think that BOTH of them are valid interpreations, or there would be no case.

 

[Bubs]

The difference being between a hotel room set up like a surgery, with a team to monitor him versus Murray on his own and no equipment. If Michael was familiar with this treatment then he would have realised the difference, but he obviously chose to trust him.

Given that MJ had long history of surgeries (legit and needed) and was put under (tours) many times, I don't know how it is possible to MJ not realising the difference between full equipment in the hotel room, and oximeter in his finger in his bedroom?

We will never know the whole truth of that setting in Carolwood, but I can only speculate that CM told MJ that he can handle giving propofol on his own, and MJ trusted him.

 

[LastTear]

And a lot of it was about AEG being aware that something not quite right was going on with Murray, and the way he was hired (or not) , and treated as a tour employee, just like any other tour employee (or not).

That's where they have a totally different interpretation of the law or of this case than AEG. As it was said by almost everyone here, lawyers on both sides are not stupid and are good lawyers. So there's a reason why the Jacksons lawyers are presenting their arguments the way they do. That would be nice to hear "explanations" about that as much as we hear about AEG's theories. I should think that BOTH of them are valid interpreations, or there would be no case.

Sure but when I have raised questions regarding why the Plantiffs have offered a certain testimony it has been answered, I haven't asked a lot because I could see why for myself. So I think if anyone here wants to discuss or wants and explanation of a particular line of testimony then ask. I honestly just think that the Plantiffs case hasn't raised as many questions as the defences.

 

[Soundmind]

Given that MJ had long history of surgeries (legit and needed) and was put under (tours) many times, I don't know how it is possible to MJ not realising the difference between full equipment in the hotel room, and oximeter in his finger in his bedroom?

We will never know the whole truth of that setting in Carolwood, but I can only speculate that CM told MJ that he can handle giving propofol on his own, and MJ trusted him.

He hired Murray still he talked to Adams , wanted him to join , talked to Metzeger , talked to Lee , obviously he believed Murray needed help .However , Murray thought he could keep all the money . I still dont believe he was sedating him with propofol for hours, his respiratory system was not in the best shape he would not have survived that long . once he started he order huge amounts of lorazepam , midazolam and flumazenil . His intentions were clear from the very beginning .Even the sleep specialist who testified during Murray's trial did say he did not understand Murray's mixture of drugs . If you plan to sedate someone for hours with propofol you don't need 20 mg of lorazepam .

 

[jaydom7]

Murray had no clue what the heck he was doing.. he was mixing all kinds of drugs talking about weaning MJ off of something that he was the only one giving.. You don't wean from propofol, you just don't give it... I swear Murray should've got at least 10 years in prison

 

[TheChosenOne]

If I remember correctly, TMez spoke about Michael's keloid surgery when the issue of drugs came up in 2005. So this testimony from Ms Rowe supports that.

I really do hope that her testimony has gone considerable way to the jury seeing Michael as a human being. And I keep hoping that after seeing how Michael has been abused throughout the process of this trial, that the jury has a better appreciation of what he went through in his life, the opportunists, liars, fraudsters and users that surrounded him. And why he always spoke of loneliness and not being understood.

And since I am in a hopeful mood today, I REALLY hope that Randy Jackson is exposed as the deceitful, manipulative, deluded creature that he is.

 

[ivy]

It would be nice, for the sake of obejctivity, to see you "explain" the Jacksons line of arguments as much as AEG's. There are 2 sides in this trial, not only one.

well that wasn't explaining AEG's argument, it was explaining the judge's rulings. Plus "the totality of the situation could bring a foreseeablity." and "she could have allowed this to go trial" is actually statement go against AEG.

do I explain AEG's side more than Jacksons? seems like it but there's a reason for it. every morning I'm welcomed with "what is the purpose of this" question where as Jacksons side was welcomed with "they are perfect, it all makes sense". I don't get what makes it so hard to get the basics of AEG's defense but I'm happy to explain it for the people that have questions.

If you have any specific questions about Jacksons arguments, please feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer them. It's not like I ever stayed away from answering questions. That being said , I'm almost sure that you have no questions about Jacksons arguments, understood it perfectly and it made all the sense and it is the AEG's arguments you don't get. Am I wrong?

That's where they have a totally different interpretation of the law or of this case than AEG.

and that has been explained - I explained it too - as Michael's history of drugs + Murray's debts = Murray giving Michael drugs improperly. And that is actually the "totality of the situation" . I not only posted an explanation for all , I also had 3 case examples about totality claims it. I'm also pretty sure I kept explaining how Jacksons claims Murray's liability is AEG's liability. Remember when I posted peculiar risk doctorine explaining Jacksons arguments? That was me explaining how Jacksons can argue AEG's responsibility and Murray's responsibility is one and the same. I'm pretty sure that's against AEG's defense strategy as well.

 

[Aquarius]

And that the sad part about this whole thing all Murray had to do is just watch Michael i still can't undstand why Murray didn't have second person in there with his did he undrestand that he was given Michael a drug that is only use in a hospital setting and not your home that you must monitor and watch the patient just in case their stop breathing you don't walk out of the room and leave them alone. Michael shouldn't have dying like this he had to much to live for and Murray took a big risk and it cost Michael his life and he got away with it.



I remember that very well what Walgren said.

Well, it seems that Dr Adams was to be part but he never received a call back and I believe it was because Conrad wanted the money for himself. Even when Conrad wasn't getting paid, I believe a second person, being a nurse or another doctor, as long as they were unethical, they would stay with Michael just because he was Michael Jackson. It's funny because, like I say Conrad's asst. would have to be unethical, but that would have saved Michael.

It's also in my head the coughing. Conrad's girlfriend said she heard someone coughing. I wonder if Michael was alive when Conrad realized he was in distress and Conrad did the wrong thing and Michael died. I was told before that Michael didn't regained consciousness and I hope that is true.

 

[Aquarius]

I agree with you. Debbie testified that MJ slept 8 hours under German anesthetists, and those German's explained that they always have 2 when someone is under more than 4 hours. I assume MJ was there when those anesthetists explained this to him, so why in earth he though it was safe to be under when CM was just alone?

and especially after this:
Rowe said the doctors had physicians desk reference book with them. They told Michael there was risk, including death.

Isn't that sad? That only shows that Michael was extremely desperate to get a couple hours of sleep, maybe just to shut everything out of his head which probably included the fact that he knew he was getting propofol without the proper equipment and personnel. But still, Conrad gave him the med and he had to stay with him every second & what did he do? he decided to get on the phone and Michael trusted him with his life.

Michael deserved a better childhood, better parents/siblings, and better doctors. Unfair that he being such a nice person didn't have any of that.

 

[jaydom7]

Murray was too greedy to call Adams and get him to help.. if anything since Adams was the anesthesiologist he should've been administering the propofol and Murray watching

 

[AliCat]

Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson's ex-wife and mother of his two oldest children, delivered a tearful testimony yesterday (Aug. 14) in the trial for the wrongful death civil suit brought by Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, against This Is It concert promoter AEG Live. Rowe said that the mega pop star had trouble sleeping and a low tolerance for pain; and that doctors were more concerned with competing with each other to deliver him treatment than actually caring for him.

"I'm probably one of the only people who said 'no' to him," Rowe said.

Describing a time in Jackson's career when he was receiving treatment from his longtime dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein and plastic surgeon Dr. Steven Hoefflin, Rowe said that the the doctors "were going back and forth the whole time [about which of their recommendations were better], not caring about him."

She said she told another one of his doctors, Allan Metzger, that she was worried that Klein and Hoefflin were giving MJ too many medications.

Jackson instructed the two doctors to give him propofol during his HIStory tour. They warned him about the dangers of the drug, she said, but "He was just more worried about not sleeping."

Jackson died in June 2009 from a propofol overdose. Conrad Murray was his physician at the time.

"The only physician who ever did anything, the only physician who cared for Michael was Allan Metzger," Rowe said.

Rowe was married to MJ from 1996 to 1999 and used to work with Metzger. At one point, prior to their marriage, but after he was a patient of Metzger's, Rowe said she lived with MJ for three weeks to help care for him in an attempt to help wean him off of his drug treatments. She said he was on medication to help soothe the pain from a scalp injury he suffered when his hair caught on fire on the set of a Pepsi commercial. The plan failed, she told jurors, when yet another tour doctor reinstated the drug treatment. He trusted doctors, she said, because he knew they went to school and took the Hippocratic Oath.

Katherine Jackson is suing AEG Live on behalf of MJ's three children, insisting that the company hired, but failed to properly vet Conrad Murray. AEG denies any responsibility in MJ's death.

http://www.bet.com/news/music/2013/...ex-wife-testifies-in-wrongful-death-suit.html

It's interesting that Debbie Rowe's testimony centered around Michael Jackson's burned scalp, the pain associated with it and then how Arnold Klein and Steven Hoefflin, a dermatologist and a plastic surgeon, competed against each other for services with Michael Jackson. But, that Debbie Rowe alluded to Michael Jackson seemed to enjoy the drug's given to him for his fear of physical pain. Although, Michael Jackson did not enjoy becoming high, did not like the appearance of being high because of the slurring of his words. Although the autopsy states Michael Jackson had healthy organs at time of death. The timeline Debbie Rowe gives is from the 80's and the 90's, not much from the 2000's.

 

[gerryevans]

It would be nice, for the sake of obejctivity, to see you "explain" the Jacksons line of arguments as much as AEG's. There are 2 sides in this trial, not only one.

agree with this statement. not only ivy but several members go so hard to defend and explain what AEG is trying to say. ive not seen anything similar when it comes to the plaintiffss. there were very few ppl defending mj/plaintiffs when eric briggs said he would not make any money or when he undervalued the catalogue. these are just a few examples where members (except a few) have not said a thing when aeg have lied on mj. i dont care who started this trial, its now happening so a little more support against aegs lies would be nice to see.

like bouee said, more explainations to understand the plaintiffs would also be nice to see

I hope this response comes off the right way, but I don’t see why Ivy has to explain any more than she does. She provides her very detailed and often exhaustive information and/or arguments as another member of this community. It certainly is not required as a moderator. We’ve come to expect a lot from her, because she gives a lot. As a member of this community, she doesn’t have to present both sides. She just does.

If she doesn’t present one side as much as a member likes, then why can’t the member do so. Quite frankly, even though MJJC overflows with great posters who do engage in long thoughtful and thought provoking responses, no one comes close to doing so as much as Ivy. I think we all are amazed at how thorough she is in responding to post after post after post after post, and sometimes responding to the same question over and over. It’s even more amazing she actually takes the time to do so.

I know Ivy doesn’t need anyone to speak for her, but sometimes I do think we expect more than we should and take a lot for granted because she is so good in expressing her opinions as well as providing us innumerable facts and information.

We've definitely been spoiled, but can take it upon ourselves more to find explanations we don't feel we're getting. By all means, then share them with us (even though we might not agree with them).

 

[virginia_woolf]

I read Debbie's testimony about keloids and scalp issues after the pepsi accident and I wonder does it mean his hair never grew again?

 

[jaydom7]

I read Debbie's testimony about keloids and scalp issues after the pepsi accident and I wonder does it mean his hair never grew again?

I don't think it did.. that is probably why he wore hair pieces and wigs

 

[twinklEE]

It probably didn't grow back in the burned areas, where the keloids started developing. Michael getting burned and dealt with the after effects for decades. When I think about it, it's unfair that he was the one who had the accident, when he was doing them a favor by doing the commercial in the first place. While Joe, his siblings and his mother happily mooched off/leeched off, even extorted him for decades, he was the one going through financial difficulties. While Michael was working, his brothers were busy impregnating women and beating women. Why do the bad get away and the good have to go?!


As far as I'm concerned I hope the Jackson's dont't get a single dime out of this lawsuit. Hopefully they will- along with all the other leeches, hanger on's, backstabber's, crooks- get what they deserve once they die.