Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[ivy]

The plaintiffs argue that the incompetence of murray should have been evident to aeg.

yes but which incompetence? the 17 errors he did while giving Propofol? if yes how could anyone of AEG be aware of a cardiologist not properly giving propofol without knowing the propofol part?

did he have any general incompetence that would make it unsuitable for being a doctor?

 

[ivy]

"Asked about the Physician Desk Reference (PDR) Earley checked and propofol was not in the book. Can't get drug with prescription."

How does this impact Lee's statement that she took the PDR book to MJ and read him what it said about propofol? Or is it listed under Diprivan (not propofol)?? I am confused.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
The page with propofol had been torn out in a dramatic moment earlier in the trial. Laughs in the courtroom
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
During morning session DPR did not have propofol in the book. In the courtroom Boyle handed a note

 

[Tygger]

Bonnie Blue,

AEG inserted themselves as a third party to a doctor-patient relationship. Even if Michael did not have addiction issues, it would have been wise of AEG to vet any doctor they allegedly hired if only to prevent their own liability however, they did not.

Michael told the world he was addicted pain killers. Although his addiction would always be active, it did not mean he was an active participant in his addiction particularly in 2009. That still does absolve AEG from vetting a doctor that would care for Michael even in sobriety.

Again, Michael was not addicted to propofol so AEG cannot say Michael kept that a secret; he did not have an addiction to keep secret. Continuing, if Michael was not an active addict in 2009, how could he possibly keep his non-active addiction a secret? He cannot and that is why AEG has consistently had witnesses who testified to Michael’s past; nothing for 2009.

Not one witness AEG has brought forth has shown that Michael kept his addiction to painkillers a secret during any decade they testified to. Plaintiffs' witness Finkelstein said he discussed Michael’s addiction with Gongaware during the Dangerous tour (Gongaware did not remember). Phillips discussed an article that referenced Michael’s addiction in an email. In 2009, AEG was well aware of Michael’s visits to Klein where he was being “shot up” with something that frightened Phillips who discussed it with Kane.

AEG went about drafting an employment contract for the doctor they did not vet without ever showing one draft to Michael or his team and this is fine because Michael kept his addiction a secret.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

did he have any general incompetence that would make it unsuitable for being a doctor?

Yes, the incompetence that arises from being mj's personal doctor on $150k a month on a contract backdated to beginning of may, during which time mj has in the view of those working with him been on a steady decline, missing rehearsals and been losing weight. A decline that even murray admitted to in conversation with phillips. Yet when the situation reached crisis point, after a meeting with murray and mj and a half hour phone conversation with murray, phillips was still, by his own testimony, completely clueless as to what was wrong with mj but paradoxically found murray really impressive. I would argue that phillip's idea of what constitutes an impressive doctor is different to what a reasonable person would regard is an impressive doctor.

 

[barbee0715]

[QUOTE:=jamba;3897319]one thing about the autopsy report was that MJ's lungs were not in good shape--this struck me, since it would impact his performance stamina and esp. his singing live. Also CM treated MJ for at least 2 lung ailments earlier when he was in Las Vegas--in one report he says MJ was coughing up greenish phlegm (sorry for the specifics) and that is a sign of pneumonia or bronchitis. Pneumonia is highly debilitating, as anyone who has had it can tell you! I think MJ also had a case of the flu in 09 during TII (?). I think his lungs were a weak point that I did not know about before. [/QUOTE]

Michael had written about his spot on his lung when "something exploded" and the way he described it in Moonwalker made me think of pleurisy (which I have had and had weak lungs ever since)-it lasts forever and hurts like hell. And I really noticed this when Quincy was giving interviews after Michael's death and was quite awful about saying Michael was always whining about a "spot on his lung" or a "skin problem". I wondered if when the autopsy came out and confirmed both, if Quincy felt like scum. I tried to forgive him since he's old now and this was in his second or third round of interviews about it-and I thnk the jealousy started up-he was different when he first heard the news. He knows no matter how successful he was on his own, he will go down in history forever linked MAINLY to Michael's success.

 

[Ashtanga]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
The page with propofol had been torn out in a dramatic moment earlier in the trial. Laughs in the courtroom
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
During morning session DPR did not have propofol in the book. In the courtroom Boyle handed a note

Oh God.... :no:

 

[Petrarose]

-Boyle also showed Earley the ethical guidelines of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, which state members should only provide general information about addiction and not offer diagnosis on celebrities or other public figures
-Boyle questioned whether Earley’s blog posts on Michael Jackson violated those guidelines. Earley said he didn’t think they did.


^^Earley did not think he violated the guidelines, so why didn’t Boyle show him specific areas where his posts violated the guidelines, line by line. That would be very useful for a jury—to have Boyle point them out. If there are none, then Boyle should not bring up the question.


I find the following question by Boyle very good, since Earley gave a “grave prognosis” about Michael’s life expectancy. So if his study participants were taking prof for years, are over 49, and still living, that would make the grave prognosis not so grave after all. I see he had a good answer about privacy.

-The journal article focused on case studies of 22 medical professionals who had propofol addiction. Boyle asked if they were all alive.
-Dr. Earley said didn’t know and he couldn’t contact the people in the study due to medical privacy laws


How about this:
-It turns out Earley’s co-author had his medical license suspended due to some addiction-related legal problems. He wasn’t working in medicine at the time the study was written. -Earley said his co-author has since had his license reinstated and is working in New York


^^This is the best: so both authors were addicts. AEG hired a former addict who engaged a former addict, to do a study about addicts, to show that Michael was an addict. Then, Earley admitted he used his personal experience in his conclusions. This trial has everything. It makes me think about the argument that Muarry having debt should be a red flag because he could compromising his oath. How about Earley being a former addict should be a red flag, since he puts his own experiences of being an addict in conclusions he made about Michael.

 

[Tygger]

From Duke's article:

Earley testified that he never disclosed to AEG Live lawyers that his co-author had lost his medical license. Ironically, the company is being accused of the negligent hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray, convicted in Jackson's death because it allegedly failed to check Murray's background before hiring him.

Ironic indeed. Unfortunately, not surprising!

AEG Live lawyers will announce if they have any more witnesses to call before playing the video depositions of three more doctors on Friday. Jackson lawyers would then take several days to call rebuttal witnesses before closing arguments are heard, which is likely to happened around September 23.

I am very interested in what the defense has decided regarding witnesses as I do not believe additional witnesses will assist them. Their decision may impact the plaintiffs who may decide to keep their rebuttal extremely brief.

Boyle did a great job on the cross of Earley.

 

[Virre]

A bit off topic maybe, but I wanted to tell that I've friends who are in Los Angeles right now. They have been to court a few times. They said they have talked to some of the fans who attends every day (not Taaj though) and they are all on Katherine's side and they kept saying how AEG's witnesses are good for Katherine's side. And today when they visited Michael they overheard a few more saying that "everyone knows she is going to win this". They got the feeling that they are very sure she is going to win.

 

[HIStory]

I wish it would end already. It feels like some big mud wrestling that doesn't go anywhere, apart from dissecting Michael. For how long do they want to drag this out?

 

[twinklEE]

I wish it would end already. It feels like some big mud wrestling that doesn't go anywhere, apart from dissecting Michael. For how long do they want to drag this out?

If it was on Katherine she doesn't care, she and her lawyers will continue to drag this as long as possible in order to get $$ Same goes for AEG they are going to drag this as long as possible to avoid any payment. But given that AEG is a corporation it's no suprise what is digusting to see though is to which lenghts Katherine is willing to go in order to secure bucks for her ever hungry and useless cubs. I'm no AEG supporter, but I hope and pray that they are not afforded a single dime in this lawsuit.

 

[LastTear]

From Alan Duke article

Jackson lawyers are hoping the controversy over Earley's work for AEG Live will distract jurors from his conclusion that Michael Jackson was a drug addict with a "grave prognosis" that would have shortened his life had he not died of an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009.
Each dose of an anesthetic his doctor gave him to help him sleep was like playing "Russian roulette," Earley said.

Then why fill your opening statements with Michael was a drug addict comments then!

I get the impression that the plantiffs have changed tactics over the period of this trial.

I agree, I don't care about who wins or looses because I can't help but be of the opinion that this trial has little to do with justice and I hate to see Michael's personal/private life being dissected just for money. The only loser here is Michael.

 

[Justthefacts]

IMO AEG should stop trying to dirty Michael up and focus more on who hired Murray.

 

[ivy]

Almost done.. 3-4 deposition videos this friday, we will see if AEG calls any other witness next week and then rebuttal and closing. it'll be over - while probably an appeal will continue for a few more years

 

[#MJforever57]

IMO AEG should stop trying to dirty Michael up and focus more on who hired Murray.

I agree but that has been AEG who defense to put the blame on Michael.

 

[Petrarose]

From Alan Duke article



Then why fill your opening statements with Michael was a drug addict comments then!

I get the impression that the plantiffs have changed tactics over the period of this trial.

Oh the plaintiffs changed their tactics a month ago, when they saw the way AEG was cross examining the defense witnesses about drug use. The plaintiffs then realized too late that opening with the addiction claim would lower their damage award. Yet they still flip flopped back and forth, yes addict, no addict. Sometimes they can't make up their mind.

I realize that Panish & Boyle do not know how to try this semi-medical case. Boyle had a good opportunity to attack the validity of Earley's study in its ability to give a general conclusion that can be applied to Michael Jackson, and he did not. He should have examined that sample and all the characteristics. Rather he focused on conflict of interest. Sure conflict of interest is important, so do it the right way. He could have even tied this up with their claim about the conflict of interest between Muarry's-AEG-Michael and what that caused, which is one of the plaintiffs big points. They had experts about that for goodness sake.

Boyle asks Earley for his manuscript and Earley realized he did not bring it. Boyle should have had that months ago!!!
Rather than take all Earley's internet writings and go through it line by line to show how Earley went against the association's ethical behavior guidelines, he allows Earley to say he doesn't think he went against any standards. This shows me that Boyle did not do his homework. He missed a good opportunity to shake this witness's testimony effectively. Boyle should really look at how Walgren dealt with articles and books during the Muarry trial. People need to know that even though a study is published in journals and peer reviewed, it can still be attacked in valid ways.

To me Boyle was good in starting good cross questions, but he did not go all the way to bring out his points. He did good when he asked if any of the participants in the study died. He was good in showing Earley had made a conclusion about the addiction of Michael even in 09. He did good in showing Early was paid by AEG and therefore there is a question of the feasibility of the study's conclusion to Michael Jackson.

 

[serendipity]

Oh the plaintiffs changed their tactics a month ago, when they saw the way AEG was cross examining the defense witnesses about drug use. The plaintiffs then realized too late that opening with the addiction claim would lower their damage award. Yet they still flip flopped back and forth, yes addict, no addict. Sometimes they can't make up their mind.

Because they need him to be an addict to show AEG should've known, but for high damages they don't need him to be an addict. Basically they want to have it both ways. LOL

 

[jamba]

Michael had written about his spot on his lung when "something exploded" and the way he described it in Moonwalker made me think of pleurisy (which I have had and had weak lungs ever since)-it lasts forever and hurts like hell. And I really noticed this when Quincy was giving interviews after Michael's death and was quite awful about saying Michael was always whining about a "spot on his lung" or a "skin problem". I wondered if when the autopsy came out and confirmed both, if Quincy felt like scum. I tried to forgive him since he's old now and this was in his second or third round of interviews about it-and I thnk the jealousy started up-he was different when he first heard the news. He knows no matter how successful he was on his own, he will go down in history forever linked MAINLY to Michael's success.

[/I]

Here is the quote in Moonwalk:

"I was messing around in the surf, and all of a sudden I couldn't breathe. No air. Nothing. I asked myself what's wrong? I tried not to panic, but I ran back to the house to find Jermaine, who took me to the hospital. It was wild. A blood vessel had burst in my lung. It has never reoccurred, although I used to feel little pinches and jerks in there that were probably my imagination. I later learned that this condition was related to pleurisy. It was suggested by my doctor that I try to take things a slittle slower, but my schedule would not permit it. Hard work continued to be the name of the game." (138)

P.S. I agree 100% re Q.

 

[jamba]

Re Earley's testimomy--it is hard to discuss with the snippits we get from the media (esp. A. Duke's biased reports), but I don't think he said MJ was a propofol addict, right? he said there was not enough evidence to say he was addicted to propofol. He also made what I thought was a great point, that MJ was trying to stop a dependency on drugs that he actually needed for his pain--so while he would be clean for periods, he would get re-exposed when he had to get necessary treatments and that would restart the dependency. I also think he made a great point about how dependency/addiction alters the brain, which studies show is true--he said the drugs 'highjack' the brain pathways, which is confirmed in addiction studies and neuroscience studies. (As an aside, I absolutely HATE that they do this research on primates, which is forbidden in other countries.) So basically, to reroute the brain, you need to be off the drugs you are addicted to/dependent on, which MJ was not able to do b/c of his health issues, so he kept getting re-exposed.

I also have absolutely no problem with him or his co-author being recovered addicts themselves. I think it gives them insights and understanding that someone who has never been addicted does not have. I myself was a nicotine addict so it gives me insight into how hard it is to break an addiction. Thank god, I did! But it does not make me less able to understand addiction IMO.

IMO the plaintiffs did a terrible job on the cross by asking questions that even Palazuelos had to strike from the record, such as "Are you glad Mrs. Jackson is not here?" and other completely out of line questions. The unprofessional behavior of the plaintiffs throughout the trial has been a big turnoff for me. I admired T Mez b/c he put on a great defense and stuck to the evidence in a orofessional way. When lawyers act so unprofessionally (Panish and Boyle) IMO it weakens their case.

 

[MJLovesyoumore]

Diane Demon..d is at it again :no: this time commenting on some CNN news article.


Michael Jackson death trial takes odd twist

The facts are these: MJ hired Murray years ago to tend to his sick children during a trip to Las Vegas. MJ then brought Murray on board to be his personal doctor both pre concer tour and during the tour. MJ promised Murray 150k a month. MJ then tussled with AEG over who would actually pay Murray. AEG finally agreed to BUT NO CONTRACT WAS EVER SIGNED BETWEEN AEG AND MURRAY. Fact is Conrad Murray closed his medical practice, devoted all his time to caring for MJ AND NEVER GOT PAID A DIME.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/04/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/?hpt=en_c2#comment-1031046500

 

[Tygger]

^^^ Dimond is simply incorrect. This is the first time I am hearing Michael argued with AEG about who would pay the doctor. This was never discussed in open court.

 

[ivy]

IMO the plaintiffs did a terrible job on the cross by asking questions that even Palanzuelos had to strike from the record, such as "Are you glad Mrs. Jackson is not here?" and other completely out of line questions. The unprofessional behavior of the plaintiffs throughout the trial has been a big turnoff for me. I admired T Mez b/c he put of a great defense and stuck to the evidence in a orofessional way. When lawyers act so unprofessionally (Panish and Boyle) IMO it weakens their case.

There was an interview with AEG's lawyer Putnam - after the summary judgment & before trial started - when they filed the appeal. Putnam had said if the jury decides with emotion Katherine can win, if they decide with logic they would win. I think he has a point and Jacksons have been using emotion angle quite a bit. old and grieving mother and young orphan children has been their line and all of that "aren't you glad Katherine is not here?", and anything that sounds like why do you side up with bad evil AEG over the poor Katherine , Can you say these stuff to her face etc. has been their emotional lines.

Especially Panish had a really weird style and to me personally it looks like he made several mistakes. hard to say it if will affect the verdict but I guess we can discuss it later on.

 

[Tygger]

^^^Logic does not suggest Michael hired the doctor and neither has any court testimony or evidence. If AEG could have simply shown Michael hired the doctor they would have however they cannot because that evidence does not exist.

 

[ivy]

^^ how is this relevant to what I wrote? u know what nevermind

 

[LastTear]

Has there been any evidence that AEG introduced Murray to Michael? Has there been any testimony that AEG suggested to Michael that Murray comes on tour?

Its a tricky one, AEG were responsible for organising contracts for various people. Who Michael has as his personal doctor should be his choice, that's only right. The testimony has shown Michael's history with Murray and I think it's clear Michael wanted Murray. But my grey area is AEG's name on the contract.

 

[jaydom7]

They all should've left Murray's crazy behind in Vegas.. and why did bodyguards always recommend folks to MJ?. You would think a good friend or something would recommend a good doc for MJ.. Mike had absolutely horrible people around him including his enabling nanny and ex-wife. Both of them could've put a stop to that mess just by reporting the doctors to the medical board. Klein and Hoefflin should've been investigated years ago.

 

[bluetopez]

Both sides has had WEAK and GOOD points throughout this trial so far and some very unprofessional b.s between each other. Almost forget this is about MJ! SMH But, has either side has actually proven their case, IMO NO! I think it has and will always remain a back and forth thing! So it will come down to what the Jury FEELS is right to do IMO! I know what I would do and what I think...but that's just me!

 

[Mneme]

They all should've left Murray's crazy behind in Vegas.. and why did bodyguards always recommend folks to MJ?. You would think a good friend or something would recommend a good doc for MJ.. Mike had absolutely horrible people around him including his enabling nanny and ex-wife. Both of them could've put a stop to that mess just by reporting the doctors to the medical board. Klein and Hoefflin should've been investigated years ago.

jaydom,
I, for myself explain it so:
It looks like Michael had no other people he trusted. But every human needs at least ONE other human whom he can trust.
I think that Michael was dreadfully lone and alone (what is the reason for much other things he done, too).
Maybe for Michael this bodygard(s) where a temporary solution. This is sad and bitter.
Moreover: Michael with that cut the distance between himself and his employers and this is never good.

To Grace and Debbie:
What do you mean what they should done was not been a good way because
1. from what I understand for physicians it is not forbidden in principle to give Propofol
2. Reporting the docs to the medical board would have inevitably Michael in the spot... and in the spot of the medias, too.
I mean that G. and D. could do nothing and this was their dilemma.

IMO...

 

[ivy]

Alan Duke @AlanDukeCNN
AEG Live surprises judge today saying it may call Katherine and Prince Jackson back for more testimony in MJ wrongful death trial.

 

[Tygger]

There was an interview with AEG's lawyer Putnam - after the summary judgment & before trial started - when they filed the appeal. Putnam had said if the jury decides with emotion Katherine can win, if they decide with logic they would win. I think he has a point and Jacksons have been using emotion angle quite a bit.

Ivy, did that help?

Last Tear, there is no question Michael chose the doctor. AEG did attempt to choose AND hire Michael’s doctor with Finkelstein.

Did Michael hire the doctor or did AEG? I have not seen any evidence or testimony to show Michael hired this doctor. AEG’s defense was spent attempting to minimize possible damage payout with the two highest paid experts in this trial and portraying Michael as a secretive addict.

If they truly want to call Katherine and Michael's oldest to the stand, I suspect they are going to fail on the direct of those witnesses. If they do not, the cross will fail them.

AEG still has time to show Michael hired that doctor and absolve themselves. There is a reason they have refused to focus on that.