Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Petrarose]

I don't know what is going on with TMezz. First of all, he is off the wall when he says Randy is bright! Who in their right mind would say Randy is bright? Maybe he means Randy is bright scheaming and conniving way, after all he nearly "released" MJ from his burden (sarcasm) of ATV catalogue.
Secondly KJ testified it was her and her only who decided to proceed with this lawsuit and she did not talk about it to her cubs. TMEzz is saying that she did. How that is going to come up when AEG calls KJ to stand, we'll see what she has to say.
I find it odd that TMezz is supposed to be this brilliant lawyer, but he goes on record saying he talked with Randy and KJ about lawsuit, odd thing to do from brilliant lawyers or mistake?

That is the problem with TMez. He brings in Randy's connection because he is not following the trial in a way he would if he was trying the case, so he does not realize how what he says contradicts what Katherine says. It is just the same with the kidnapping. He was not following it in detail, so he makes a statement on tv, which contradicts the facts. He did not see Prince's message, did not follow all Paris' tweets, did not follow the events from top to bottom. I don't like him doing these things, because if he is found to be sloppy in his analysis, when he gives talks about why the 05 verdict of Not guilty is correct, people will not believe him. They will simply think he is saying that because he was the lawyer. He needs to always research topics in detail before he goes on tv, which it seems he likes to do lately.

I wish he would say what that amply evidence is of the hiring and supervising, so we could look at it. He seems to be focusing on those e-mails, the fact a contract was written up, & the implied oral contract. However, I doubt TMez has looked at all the evidence and analyzed it because he has his own work to do.

 

[mjchris]

It was in a hotel room, DR testified that the room was set up like a proper surgery and a team monitored him.

However, I am interested to hear from Dr Ratner ( an anesthesiologist) was one of the doctors who accompanied Michael on the History tour. Debbie made no mention of him.

i know that. that was not my question. i want to know what other people think about what they saw and remember. the people that were also on the history tour, like myself.

 

[Petrarose]

question. i have not read the discussion from the last week here. so, was it allready discussed about the history munich. where two doctors gave propofol?
cause i was there all these days, and never recognized doctors going in there, or recognized that michael jackson looked tired or anything else. did someone recognized anything thats not normal on tour. i did not. it was like it was always.

You see that is important^^. Something was going on in Michael's room, and you could not tell. Your comment is a good response to those who insist that AEG knew, because they are using hindsight.

Last Tear you are right. AEG could not do the same check that the police could do. What you read from Martinez testimony shows that.

 

[mjchris]

You see that is important^^. Something was going on in Michael's room, and you could not tell. Your comment is a good response to those who insist that AEG knew, because they are using hindsight.

Last Tear you are right. AEG could not do the same check that the police could do. What you read from Martinez testimony shows that.

sorry, i understand what u have written, but i dont understand what u want to say. can u explain it more precisely?

 

[Petrarose]

^^Ok. You wrote:

question. i have not read the discussion from the last week here. so, was it allready discussed about the history munich. where two doctors gave propofol?
cause i was there all these days, and never recognized doctors going in there, or recognized that michael jackson looked tired or anything else. did someone recognized anything thats not normal on tour. i did not. it was like it was always.

Do you see the part I underlined? You are saying you went to the show all those days. You saw Michael. You did not see anything that was not normal. You did not see he looked tired or anything else. This shows that you did not see anything, at a time when he had to take medication for pain and was given propofol for sleep. You did not know what was happening in Michel's bedroom during the night after he left the stage. This is the point AEG is making. They did not know what was going on in Michel's bedroom. However, some fans here claim AEG knew. AEG knew Muarry was giving Michel drugs and making him sick. They are saying this because they are using hindsight, that is, because they now know what Muarry was doing, they are saying AEG should have known.

 

[LastTear]

i know that. that was not my question. i want to know what other people think about what they saw and remember. the people that were also on the history tour, like myself.

I do apologise, I read you asking where they gave it and that's what I answered.

 

[marebear]

Is this trial almost over? I just think it's gone long enough.

 

[Petrarose]

^^The thing is with a question like that, people often use hindsight. How about the fans who swear that Micahel looked shakey going up the ramp, after they heard the e-mail from Gongaware. Once people hear something, they then begin to look at each and every move, expression, gesture of Michael's to characterize it as a form of behavior that they think represents someone who took a drug.

 

[mjchris]

^^Ok. You wrote:

question. i have not read the discussion from the last week here. so, was it allready discussed about the history munich. where two doctors gave propofol?
cause i was there all these days, and never recognized doctors going in there, or recognized that michael jackson looked tired or anything else. did someone recognized anything thats not normal on tour. i did not. it was like it was always.

Do you see the part I underlined? You are saying you went to the show all those days. You saw Michael. You did not see anything that was not normal. You did not see he looked tired or anything else. This shows that you did not see anything, at a time when he had to take medication for pain and was given propofol for sleep. You did not know what was happening in Michel's bedroom during the night after he left the stage. This is the point AEG is making. They did not know what was going on in Michel's bedroom. However, some fans here claim AEG knew. AEG knew Muarry was giving Michel drugs and making him sick. They are saying this because they are using hindsight, that is, because they now know what Muarry was doing, they are saying AEG should have known.

fans?

sure AEG knew what murray gave him. i'm sure about that.

when i remember back, the days before munich, in vienna, michael was all the time in the hotel. it was said he was ill. also the media said that when he was there. could fit with the story that they gave him propofol in munich.

 

[mjchris]

another interview from t-mez on last friday august 16...

[youtube]6uIASpglGfE[/youtube]

 

[AliCat]

In reading the different opinions about Conrad Murray and debt and credit report info, Conrad Murray was "happily" married with two children. His wife is also a doctor. I'm bringing this up to show the face that Conrad Murray wanted the world to see. I'm sure through his wife's credit report, Conrad Murray was able to secure his mansion in Las Vegas. That's the thing with loans, a determination is made about how much interest to charge you and what your debt to what you earn is part of the determination.

Conrad Murray was not good about child support payments, why he was taken to Court by the women who he impregnated, but was not married to. This is more common in Society today, than in the past, having children born out of wedlock.

I'm sure Conrad Murray made sure people knew he was legitimately married with children. I'm sure he didn't go around bragging about how he strayed as a married man and had several children out of wedlock. Conrad Murray wanted people to believe in that his Clinics in Houston and Las Vegas were about helping the poor.

I'm sure most people only knew the Conrad Murray on the surface, the face he wanted the world to see. That he was happily married, with two wonderful children, that his life had importance, because he gave back to the community, in helping poor people with their medical needs, as well as the rich, like Michael Jackson.

Tom Barrack, who saved "Neverland" from foreclosure did an Interview about a month before Michael died. Should he be sued because he looked at Michael Jackson like an investment? Tom Barrack is a successful businessman, who looked for stressed properties to make money from. This is how he looked at Michael Jackson, an underrated asset, a distressed property. It's why Tom Barrack picked up the phone and called his friend Philip Anschutz and convinced Philip Anschutz to employ Michael Jackson. Philip Anschutz was hesitant because of the child molestation allegations, but Tom Barrack said that his own children had been at "Neverland" and nothing untold happened to his children.

Decisions were being made and most felt that Michael Jackson was trustworthy enough to fulfill his obligation. So Michael Jackson was trusted with advances. This is why he sought out and stood his ground about keeping Conrad Murray, to administer propofol so Michael could sleep and not sit up at night worrying about life!

 

[Petrarose]

fans?

sure AEG knew what murray gave him. i'm sure about that.

when i remember back, the days before munich, in vienna, michael was all the time in the hotel. it was said he was ill. also the media said that when he was there. could fit with the story that they gave him propofol in munich.

Being ill has nothing to do with them giving him propofol in Munich for sleep. I am not saying he was not ill. You think because the media said he was ill it could fit with the story that they gave him propofol. How about he was really ill and given some drugs for the illness? Propofol is to go under (sedation) not for illness.
^^
What evidence makes you sure that AEG new what Muarry gave Michael?

 

[ivy]

The plaintiffs have always maintained that the doctor was compromised because he was in debt, needed monies desperately, and was willing to do an unethical act - negligently administering an anesthetic in a home setting that he was unqualified to do – to receive monies.

exactly and the discussion we were having just because a person has a debt does it mean they are compromised and would do something unethical and negligent? Almost all Americans have student loans, mortgages, credit card debt, car loans, so almost all American have some sort debt. Does it mean that they are all compromised?

for example assume Jane gets hired and she has significant amount of student loans and no money to her name, does it mean she is compromised and willing to do an unethical, negligent even a criminal act - such as let's say stealing, accepting bribes and so on? Should Jane not be hired?

Imagine another person - let's call him John- he lost his job during the economic crisis and has been unemployed for 2 years, he used all of his savings, he's behind for payment of all of his debts and his house is about to be foreclosed. Does it mean that he's compromised and would do anything and he should not be hired?

Without the background check, it was an ignored red flag for the doctor to ask for $5M for less than a year’s work and eventually settle for $150K/month; there is no logical sense there. A doctor making $1M/month with two genuine offices and two faux offices would most likely not request $5M. Phillips testified the $5M request was not as alarming to him as the $150K/month.

gross versus net. The $1 Million a month was the gross income number. So his net income after office rent, utilities, expenses, salaries of staff etc. would be lower. His AEG salary did not have the same expenses. AEG was going to pay for equipment + additional doctor/nurse. Murray did not have the rent expenses and he was actually also being provided housing, travel costs and insurance. So a doctor who earns $1 Million gross a month can accept a $150,000 net a month + housing, travel + insurance.

The only red flag was his willingness to drop $5 Million to $1.5 Million. Some of the drop is the negotiation effect - you start negotiation at a high amount and given a low amount and settle for the middle. Also the red flag could be explained by he was told "this is what Michael offered, take it or leave it". Murray took it. AEG could have look to it and simply said "sweet we got a deal".

Ivy, no, it was the type of debt that was an issue and she did not basically say anyone with debt is not suitable for hire. She specifically spoke only about the doctor; there were no generalizations.

and what type of debt was he under? student loans, mortgage, child support? those are very common types of debt. saying those type of debt is not suitable for hire would make a lot of people ineligible for hire. and she did testify that failing credit history was sufficient to deny employment.

Seawright said that once she checked Dr. Murray's credit check it made him ineligible for employment, thus she didn't investigate further. "There was no need to," Seawright said, explaining the fact that Dr. Murray failed the credit history was sufficient to deny him employment.

Having 2 fake offices is a red flag & 3 social security numbers is too. I would agree his being in debt is not necessarily one however.

The fact that doctor had three social security numbers was ENOUGH to stall any and all negotiations as that is illegal and can result in a federal offense.

sorry but you are making assumptions about the security numbers. There are a lot of people in America with multiple social security numbers and there might be legit reasons for that. Here's social security webpage about multiple social security numbers: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/ans...ltiple-social-security-numbers-on-a-statement

Here's a 2010 study : 20 million Americans have multiple Social Security, More than 100,000 Americans have five or more SSNs associated with their name.

so as long as the social security numbers are legit and are properly associated with Murray's name in social security records, there's no red flag there. The only red flag would be if he had one legit and 2 fake social security numbers. seeing that the government did not charge Murray with social security fraud, I'm going to assume that his numbers were legit.

ps: Michael himself had 2 social security numbers.

Have we actually established whether AEG could have carried out the same check on Murray as law enforcement could?

yes, Orlando Martinez did at the beginning of the trial. he specified what was public and what was not

Thanks Bouee, I must be a little slow, I have re-read Martinez summary and it's just not clear to me how much AEG could have delved without either Murray's permission or a supeona. I'm just not sure from the debts that we discuss whether its reasonable that AEG could have found that info.

you need to get written authorization to run a credit check.

you might have experienced this if / when you were buying a car, home or doing refinancing. They ask for your social security number and get you sign a document to run your credit report. they will also warn you that too many credit report requests soon enough could be problematic. so they can't run a credit report without a written authorization. legally they are also required to provide copies of the credit report to you.

so they could not done it without Murray's authorization. therefore the question becomes how can you justify running a credit check on an independent contractor doctor?

 

[passy001]

I know this is directed at Soundmind, but i do have some suspicions about Murray's intentions. His use of benzos seemed really really excessive, insane, unless he was stockpiling for London. He was buying a lot of antidotes to benzos that don't work on propofol, and he used some on the 25th, which means he did use benzos. What was found at autopsy showed high levels of benzos. They were all injectables or injected, which makes them more powerful and addictive.

Those weird symptoms could be, among other things, withdrawal from benzos (Murray did start to prescribe valium on june 20th, Michael did take some, it's a benzo and one of its use is to ease withdrawal symptoms, and Michael was better aftr that).

We can only speculate because we don't know what Murray was doing exactly, but I always thought of 2 things :

- getting him addicted to benzos (Murray as a doctor knows what those drugs are), making insomnia worse, Michael needed a doctor to sleep.
- he thought that propofol was too dangerous, was too much monitoring work, and used benzos instead of propofol every now and then, or on a regular basis.

Benzos would have given him real sleep, so it wouldn't work with the lack of sleep explanation, that was based on propofol most of the time.

I personnally never thought Murray intentionally killed him, he wouldn't kill his source of income, and there's nothing that shows he had that intention. I think he got over confident and thought he could fool people and not get caught. And, just in case, he had that recording.

That makes perfect sense. I also suspected this scenario but with Murray refusing to talk it's hard to say for certain.
This also explains why Murray was recording MJ secretely. he already felt insecured by MJ looking to bring in another doctor more familiar with propofol. just incase MJ ended up dumping him, he would have used the recording as a leverage to remain on the TII team or to extract a huge financial payout from MJ.

 

[Annita]

Minor updates

- Dr. Van Valin, Dr. Adams and Dr. Ratner deposition videos are being worked on

- Joseph Marcus deposition is out unless either parties agrees on what they want to play or Marcus comes to court explains why he did not answer questions and if required sits for another deposition.

(Note: Apparently Marcus was also asked questions about prescriptions in his name and picking them up. He refused to answer questions about that topic too. judge thinks Marcus mentioning wanting a lawyer and not answering the questions could be an implied invoking the 5th - self incrimination )

- Jacksons ordered to give AEG, Katherine's finances including payroll, household budget and family finances from 2003 to present.

Is there no decision about the Shimelman - Jackson expert-depostion?

 

[ivy]

Is there no decision about the Shimelman - Jackson expert-depostion?

not yet on the court system- remember there could a few days delay for the documents.

 

[bouee]

so they could not done it without Murray's authorization. therefore the question becomes how can you justify running a credit check on an independent contractor doctor?

Why not ask for his authorisation , or impose it (we need to do it, AEG's policy, etc..) : the contracts were done between june 15th to 23rd : there were doubts about Murray at the time.

 

[ivy]

Why not ask for his authorisation , or impose it (we need to do it, AEG's policy, etc..) : the contracts were done between june 15th to 23rd : there were doubts about Murray at the time.

the question as I said is how to justify it.

it wasn't AEG's policy - they did not do credit checks- so saying that would be a lie and if sued AEG would face discrimination claims. So according to Equal opportunity commission guidelines that you need to justify the need for such a check. Jackson expert claimed it was high risk job position as a justification. I expect AEG expert to say the opposite or come up with statistics to show that credit checks aren't common.

a little information / real life example about background checks in USA - criminal background check is the most common one and sometimes it's required as a condition of employment. For example both my boyfriend and I were subjected to criminal background checks in our current jobs- after the job offer and before the contract signing. so we have already gotten the job - contingent that we pass the criminal check. (There are people who have been hired with criminal backgrounds depending on the charge and job type.) I had jobs that did not do a criminal background check. Note : this example also shows that whether a person will get the job is dependent on their abilities, education and such. The background check etc, should come later on. Neither one of us were asked for a credit check (at none of our current or past jobs) because our jobs do not include handling any money , never was asked about our debt amounts or our ability to pay not pay. Both of us are hired with student loans. both of us still have debts (student loans, mortgage, car loans). I even got hired after one year of unemployment when I had made a hardship claim to was given permission to defer payments on my student loan. (but as I said no one ever asked me about my debts and my ability to pay them and I never authorized a credit check) my boyfriend went through a drug testing - only once at the time of hiring - because he has access to a company car and I think it was done most probably to avoid some sort liability before giving him access to a company car, not because of any red flag . I worked as seasonal independent contractor jobs that did not do a single background check, only thing they asked was social security number to verify I was legally authorized to work.

there are a lot of privacy and discrimination issues that goes with background checks and I believe they need to be justified.

 

[bouee]

Kathy Jorrie did recommend one on Tohme. Phillips could have done the same at the time, I guess. now if Murray (or Michael) had refused, then maybe they could not go further than that, but at least they would have tried something.
Well yes, they could have gone further than that at the time : refuse to get involved & hire Murray & leave it to Michael.

 

[ivy]

^^

even if a credit check was done and AEG found out about the debts and debts being unpaid , Jacksons assume - as tygger pointed out - that it would show that Murray was compromised and willing to do unethical things. do you think that's a reasonable conclusion? do you think debt not being paid makes people ineligible for work?

 

[passy001]

Why not ask for his authorisation , or impose it (we need to do it, AEG's policy, etc..) : the contracts were done between june 15th to 23rd : there were doubts about Murray at the time.

Why would you do a credit check if you are suspicious of a doctor with no history of wrongdoing? How is that going to tell you that he is in violating his oath while treating his patient, a patient he's been with for the past 3 years? Is it even appropriate to do a credit check on a doctor on a job at the request of his own patient? is there a relationship between debt and malpractice?

 

[crillon]

There is a financial motivation behind his support to Randy , he was the one who referred them to Panish so he would get a significant cut if they make any money out of this lawsuit .

We should not expect him to stay neutral , he is a party in this lawsuit .

Soundmind, that would explain a lot, but do we know for sure he's getting a cut should they win? Sounds to me (based on this interview) that Randy asked Mesereau for a lawyer recommendation and his opinion on filing a suit and that's all.

I think if what you suggest is true, in the interest of transparency and full disclosure, Mesereau needs to disclose his financial ties to the trial. Otherwise, because he has such high credibility with Michael's fans, we are led to believe his opinions are objective and neutral, when they may be far from it. Anyone interviewing him in the future--and that includes MJ forums (some of which have personal relationships with him) should ask him those questions point blank: is he a party to this civil lawsuit and does he have any financial interest in the outcome of this trial? Michael's fans have a right to know that. imo

 

[bouee]

Why would you do a credit check if you are suspicious of a doctor with no history of wrongdoing? How is that going to tell you that he is in violating his oath while treating his patient, a patient he's been with for the past 3 years? Is it even appropriate to do a credit check on a doctor on a job at the request of his own patient? is there a relationship between debt and malpractice?

^^

even if a credit check was done and AEG found out about the debts and debts being unpaid , Jacksons assume - as tygger pointed out - that it would show that Murray was compromised and willing to do unethical things. do you think that's a reasonable conclusion? do you think debt not being paid makes people ineligible for work?

it's the conversation we had yesterday, so I'll just repeat the same thing :

it's not "debt" as you constantly say, it's not paying them back when he was saying he had 4 successful clinics that made 12 millions a year. So it's not debts per se, it's lying.

Then I specified when they did the contract : there WERE suspicions about Murray when they were doing Murray's contract, as per Phillips himself "we check everyone out, he's sucessful , doesn't need this gig, unbiased" to convince Ortega there was no problem with Murray.

Phillips was acknowlegding money issues could push a doctor to do unethical things. That's what dr Green, the AEG expert, said too. That's also what Orlando Martinez said.

And it happens to be the truth : Murray did what he did for money. So we all know it's true, don't we ?

So yes a credit check would certainly have helped, at that point, after mid june, especially if you think that Phillips believed Murray was successful and super rich and didn't need a 1.5 million job

 

[ivy]

it's the conversation we had yesterday, so I'll just repeat the same thing :

it's not "debt" as you constantly say, it's not paying them back when he was saying he had 4 successful clinics that made 12 millions a year. So it's not debts per se, it's lying.

Then I specified when they did the contract : there WERE suspicions about Murray when they were doing Murray's contract, as per Phillips himself "we check everyone out, he's sucessful , doesn't need this gig, unbiased" to convince Ortega there was no problem with Murray.

Phillips was acknowlegding money issues could push a doctor to do unethical things. That's what dr Green, the AEG expert, said too. That's also what Orlando Martinez said.

And it happens to be the truth : Murray did what he did for money. So we all know it's true, don't we ?

So yes a credit check would certainly have helped, at that point, after mid june, especially if you think that Phillips believed Murray was successful and super rich and didn't need a 1.5 million job

I feel like there's a lot of hindsight in this comment.

so he said he earns $1 Million gross per month. Was there any suspicion to check his credit score? Michael Jackson wanted his doctor - despite AEG did not want him- a doctor that was his doctor for 3 years. Jorrie checked his company, his medical licenses and found his 2 clinics. Did she had any reason to think to run the credit check on him?

Yes if she did run it - assuming murray gave authorization - she might have found unpaid debts and realize he was lying to her but you need to justify the decision to run a credit check before. yes the detective ran a credit check but he did it after Michael's death. Financials / money is top reasons for a motive for crime.

The only suspicion about Murray was coming from Ortega mid june, not AEG, not Phillips, not Gongaware, not Jorrie. Jorrie believed what he told her matched what she found, she believed what he said to her and repeated it to Phillips. Phillips believed what Jorrie told him and repeated it to Ortega. so Ortega's suspicions weren't enough to create a suspicion in AEG. Ortega doesn't equal to AEG.

and finally even if the debt and not paying it and murray's lies were discovered, it doesn't mean Michael would give up seeing him.

--------------------------

So to be clear, are you saying that they did not have any reason to do a credit check on Murray but they should be alarmed to do a credit check on June 19? and even so how do you justify that? A person under a doctors care seems to be sick and when you are told that, does "let's check his credit , his debts" come to your mind? And as passy said is there a relationship with debt and malpractice? if so why would Klein and Hoefflin - two very successful and top doctors in the past with multiple celebrity clients- would be doing all of those negligent stuff Debbie Rowe testified about?

 

[Petrarose]

Crillon I don't think we can ask TMez about his personal ties to the case & about referral fees. He might feel that is not our business. Soundmind is saying that because on their Website Panish have information about referrals, and Mez did refer Randy to them and they know it.

By the way I was just outside in a Kosher restaurant and they were playing Off The Wall. Micheal's legacy is alive & well!!

 

[bouee]

I feel like there's a lot of hindsight in this comment.

so he said he earns $1 Million gross per month. Was there any suspicion to check his credit score? Michael Jackson wanted his doctor - despite AEG did not want him- a doctor that was his doctor for 3 years. Jorrie checked his company, his medical licenses and found his 2 clinics. Did she had any reason to think to run the credit check on him?

Yes if she did run it - assuming murray gave authorization - she might have found unpaid debts and realize he was lying to her but you need to justify the decision to run a credit check before. yes the detective ran a credit check but he did it after Michael's death. Financials / money is top reasons for a motive for crime.

The only suspicion about Murray was coming from Ortega mid june, not AEG, not Phillips, not Gongaware, not Jorrie. Jorrie believed what he told her matched what she found, she believed what he said to her and repeated it to Phillips. Phillips believed what Jorrie told him and repeated it to Ortega. so Ortega's suspicions weren't enough to create a suspicion in AEG. Ortega doesn't equal to AEG.

and finally even if the debt and not paying it and murray's lies were discovered, it doesn't mean Michael would give up seeing him.

--------------------------

So to be clear, are you saying that they did not have any reason to do a credit check on Murray but they should be alarmed to do a credit check on June 19? and even so how do you justify that? A person under a doctors care seems to be sick and when you are told that, does "let's check his credit , his debts" come to your mind? And as passy said is there a relationship with debt and malpractice? if so why would Klein and Hoefflin - two very successful and top doctors in the past with multiple celebrity clients- would be doing all of those negligent stuff Debbie Rowe testified about?

Who said "he's successful, is not biased, doesn't need this gig ?' When ? for what reason ? Phillips did think about that , you just ignored that part of my post. Did the problems start on june 19th ? And no Ortega was not the only one, Travis saw the same thing.

Klein and Hoefflin competition : money maybe ?

Where did I say they had no reason to run a credit check ? twisiting what I say ... again.

 

[ivy]

Where did I say they had no reason to run a credit check ? twisiting what I say ... again.

I asked "are you saying" followed by a question mark. it was a question showing I wasn't clear what you were saying and I was trying to understand / get clear about what you are saying. you did reference "after mid june" and that's what got me confused and got me try to seek clarification.

 

[Tygger]

Passy001, I will respond to you first so you will not have to read my post too much further. Nowhere in my original post did I suggest Michael was bound to do something unethical because of his debt. The reason debt did not equal molestation in 2005 is because Michael’s debt did not prove he was a prone fabricator. The doctor’s debt of non-payment of rent on his $1M/month offices proved he did NOT generate $1M/month on his two genuine and two faux offices BEFORE Michael’s passing.

The DEFENSE’s argument suggests that everyone with debt is under suspicion and the plaintiffs’ have NEVER stated that. The plaintiffs’ have ALWAYS stated the particular individual doctor who killed Michael was suspicious based on the type of debt he had.

You suggested it was discrimination and illegal to not allow Michael to work because of his debt and the past molestation allegations. Now that it has been presented to you that it was Brigg’s, AEG’s highest paid expert’s argument, you have retreated from your previous stance.

Ivy, as I stated before and again to Passy001 above, the DEFENSE’s argument suggests that everyone with debt is under suspicion and the plaintiffs’ have NEVER stated that. The plaintiffs’ have ALWAYS stated the particular individual doctor who killed Michael was suspicious based on the type of debt he had. You are purposely ignoring the doctor’s non-payment of rent on his two genuine and two faux $1M/month offices BEFORE Michael’s passing.

Seawright said that once she checked Dr. Murray's credit check it made him ineligible for employment, thus she didn't investigate further. "There was no need to," Seawright said, explaining the fact that Dr. Murray failed the credit history was sufficient to deny him employment.

Correct, please show where Seawright applied this to all Americans. She only applied that to the doctor and specifically the one that killed Michael.

I do think it interesting that you suggest $1M/month was gross. Where did you get this information? When did the doctor classify the $1M as gross to Jorrie? Please refresh my memory if this was indeed testified to.

It is also interesting that you suggest it is a red flag to drop from $5M to $150K/month. Are you aware AEG’s Phillips testified $150K/month was alarming to him but NOT $5M? Therefore, AEG did not see $5M as a red flag; only Phillips thought $150K/month was alarming.

Please do not suggest that the doctor having multiple social security numbers was somehow legitimate and/or reasonable. If it was, the defense would have stated that on cross of Seawright and they did not. He can very well be charged with fraud now that this information was testified to in open court. Very similar to the doctor being charged with non-payment of child support by the California medical board in 2011 and Nevada medical board in 2010, after he killed Michael.

Yes, Michael did have two social security numbers: one issued in Indiana and one issued in California as did Elvis (one in Tennessee and one in Mississippi). I would suggest it was because some documents have Michael listed as Michael Joe and others as Michael Joseph (similar to Elvis Aaron). Would you like to suggest the innocuous reason the doctor had no less than three? It is STILL reason to stop any and all negotiations with that doctor and that alone could have saved Michael's life.

it wasn't AEG's policy - they did not do credit checks- so saying that would be a lie and if sued AEG would face discrimination claims. So according to Equal opportunity commission guidelines that you need to justify the need for such a check. Jackson expert claimed it was high risk job position as a justification. I expect AEG expert to say the opposite or come up with statistics to show that credit checks aren't common.

It was not AEG’s policy to hire a personal doctor for a third party either. They could have requested a background check that the doctor could have denied. The EEOC guideline would not prevent them from performing an approved background check on an independent contractor to prevent the liability they are experiencing now.

Not really, Murray was going to be travelling with them, and closing down practices, he would have needed some form of contract. Very different than simply seeing a doctor at their offices.

Last Tear, where did the idea come from that the doctor needed a contract in place and specifically one with Michael AND AEG? The doctor could have been paid through an advance.

Do you remember when AEG wanted to hire a nutritionist at a point in time? Would it not have been easier to question Chase? AEG could not question Chase; her contract allowed her to be paid through an advance and that is why AEG had no relationship with her. AEG had a relationship with the doctor which was allowed through their alleged implied employment contract.

To be fair:
Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson if she was aware of her son’s statement at the end of the “Dangerous” tour indicating a prescription drug problem. She said she hadn’t heard about it or seen it before it was played in court. She said she didn’t watch much television. Putnam: “Mrs. Jackson on Friday, you mentioned that you shut your ears to bad things. Do you remember saying that?” “I probably said it, but I don’t remember saying it,” Mrs. Jackson said, adding, “I don’t like to hear bad news.” Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson shut out hearing bad news about her son ending the Dangerous tour. She said she didn't remember how it ended. (AP)

Bubs, continuing to be fair: Katherine may have not seen the public announcement the rest of the world (including fans) saw and may not have known that is why the tour ended. However, she knew her son was in rehab so the announcement would not be necessary for her. Gongaware also testified he did not know that was why the tour ended as well.

 

[ivy]

The DEFENSE’s argument suggests that everyone with debt is under suspicion and the plaintiffs’ have NEVER stated that. The plaintiffs’ have ALWAYS stated the particular individual doctor who killed Michael was suspicious based on the type of debt he had.

they are implying that. can you please cite testimony to show that they argue that such debt or conclusion only applies to Murray? and what makes Murray so special?

You are purposely ignoring the doctor’s non-payment of rent on his two genuine and two faux $1M/month offices BEFORE Michael’s passing.

no I'm not. Can you show relationship between not paying debt / rent and malpractice?

I do think it interesting that you suggest $1M/month was gross. Where did you get this information? When did the doctor classify the $1M as gross to Jorrie? Please refresh my memory if this was indeed testified to.

I did not suggest it, it was in the testimony reported

Jorrie testified she told AEG Live Chief Executive Randy Phillips that Murray was successful, based on a 10-minute Google search and a conversation in which the doctor told her his four clinics were grossing $1 million a month.

"He told me his four medical practice was grossing a million dollars a month," Jorrie testified. Panish said $150,000 per month equates to $5,000 a day for 30 days.

It is also interesting that you suggest it is a red flag to drop from $5M to $150K/month. Are you aware AEG’s Phillips testified $150K/month was alarming to him but NOT $5M? Therefore, AEG did not see $5M as a red flag; only Phillips thought $150K/month was alarming.

so? relevancy? there's no requirement for me to think exactly like Phillips does. I can think whatever I like.

Please do not suggest that the doctor having multiple social security numbers was somehow legitimate and/or reasonable.

I suggested that you don't know if it wasn't legitimate or reasonable. You made an assumption about multiple social security numbers being fishy without knowing the reasons why he had multiple of them. I told you another possibility. 20 Million Americans have more than one social security numbers, are you calling them all illegitimate and doing something illegal?

He can very well be charged with fraud now that this information was testified to in open court.

law enforcement had that information for years, they don't need to wait for it to be testified in open court.

Would you like to suggest the innocuous reason the doctor had no less than three?

some blogs - although conspiracy based - claimed Murray changed his name. I don't need to provide reason to you. all I need to prove is that you are merely speculating. Michael had 2 social security number and it was completely legit and legal.

It is STILL reason to stop any and all negotiations with that doctor and that alone could have saved Michael's life.

so now are you claiming that the 20 million Americans that have multiple social security numbers should not be hired at all? peachy. that would also mean AEG should not be entering into a contract with Michael because he had 2 social security numbers. double peachy.

in case you did not realize, you can't have double standards. If Michael had 2 social security numbers for legit reasons, Murray could have them for legit reasons as well. Unless you can show proof that they weren't legit, it's just an assumption on your part and you are showing double standards.

plus "stop negotiations and that could alone save Michael's life" is also baseless IMO. Murray was giving Michael propofol - according to his own testimony- for 2 months without a signed contract and payment. there's nothing to suggest that he would stop doing it if AEG did not sign his contract. As I said before even if AEG said to Michael, "no absolutely not" in regards tp Murray and refused to negotiate and pay Murray, Michael still could have said "F*ck AEG, here's 20,000 K" and Murray still could have been pumping Michael with benzos and Propofol. Murray did not enter into Michael's life by AEG or TII, there's nothing there to suggest that he would leave Michael's life either.

 

[crillon]

Crillon I don't think we can ask TMez about his personal ties to the case & about referral fees. He might feel that is not our business. Soundmind is saying that because on their Website Panish have information about referrals, and Mez did refer Randy to them and they know it.

By the way I was just outside in a Kosher restaurant and they were playing Off The Wall. Micheal's legacy is alive & well!!

This is one of the rare times we actually disagree. I think when TMez is out there giving media interviews about the trial and offering an opinion that appears to be unbiased, I think the audience/viewers have a right to know if he is a party to the lawsuit. If he benefits in any way--and I think it's a fair question to ask--then the audience can decide how much weight to give to his opinion.

Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't been asked yet, since he does make the rounds on talk shows on behalf of Randy & the family apparently. If all he did was provide a "referral" for Brian Panish, that's a different story and he's been very open about that. But, Soundmind seemed to be suggesting he would benefit financially from the outcome of the trial should the plaintiffs win. So, unless we have proof of that, we shouldn't imply that's the case. imo