Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read it. the title suggests to call Michael an addict but the body of the article calls it "hypotheses", "wild and worthless speculation" etc. So it's not like he makes a certain determination IMO. he knows he's speculating and he's clear about that.

Where is Earley saying he's speculating that mj is a propofol addict in the article, it seems clear that earley has assumed mj is a prop addict. He writes, 'once mj began using it it was a simple matter to find a physician to prescribe toxic doses. Once addiction takes hold the addict suffers consequences...For mj the consequences never did occur. This is an old story, one that is replayed over and over with the hollywood set.'

What earley calls 'wild and worthless speculation' refers to what mj might be doing with those sexual amorous feelings prop gives, while the 'hypothesis' is his determination that mj propofol addiction was caused by childhood abuse. Not to do with insomnia, or the tremendous pressures his comeback tour was putting on him and the need for sleep to prepare for rehearsals/performances, but childhood abuse, which although he doesn't state in this partic article (the linking article is missing) usually in research into prop addiction means childhood sexual abuse.

Each dose of an anesthetic his doctor gave him to help him sleep was like playing Russian roulette," Earley said.

Can't be very reassuring to hear for patients waiting to be given their dose before an operation. I would say risky russian roulette aspect of being given a dose of prop is immeasurably increased if the doctor is in another room for up to an hour talking on the phone instead of monitoring you. But oddly earley doesn't seem to want to dwell on that. He even suggested demerol (and therefore klien) might have had a role to play in mj's death, but didn't seem to know when challenged what levels of demerol were in mj's body when he died. I'm surprised chernoff didn't ask earley to be a defence witness for the murray trial, i suppose he couldn't afford him.
 
What I got out of Earley's blog is that celebrities who are addicts have a harder time than non-celebs due to a number of factors. For example, he thinks that the celebs have more power in the dr-patient relationship than the average person; that the celeb has a harder time going into rehab due to the negative press attn; and that the drs will be impressed with the celeb and the $ and give the celeb what he/she wants. All these seem valid to me.

As far as the propofol addicts self-injecting--if you go to the link I gave earlier, you can click on articles Earley wrote where he talks about this. These are usually medical people, anesthesiologist, and they inject at their desks and fall on the floor and have injuries from the falls. They are not out for long periods but they get the propofol effect (a high, sense of well-being, and energy) from a short-term injection. It's seems clear that this drug IS addictive, esp. to those with ongoing access.

Earley talks about addiction and how it is basically coming from the mid-brain rather than the cortex (this was interesting to me) in the brain. He also said that since MJ got the propofol and other drugs (like demerol etc) from drs. even being around drs. could trigger cravings or re-awaken the dependency (this was in his deposition played in April--it isn't on the link I gave). If you click around the link I gave you can read what he says--they are relatively short entries.
 
The Road to Recovery
Barriers to Recognition

It is no longer surprising when a movie star, a politician, or a sports hero reveals to the news media a personal struggle with the perils of addiction. The disease is common; we now know that it afflicts an estimated 10% of the population. In the U.S., this would equate to 30 million individuals who will develop addiction in their lifetime. Alcoholics Anonymous, the oldest and largest self-help group for addiction recovery, reports more than 53,000 A.A. meetings in the U.S. Addiction specialists use the term "addiction" to refer to alcohol, drug and many behavioral addictions such as gambling. In this article, when I use the word addiction, I will be referring to all of these types of addiction.

While these numbers are remarkable, most troublesome number is that of the addicts and alcoholics who continue to suffer with their disease. Addiction continues to be misunderstood, and the consequences of this misunderstanding are gravest for the addicts themselves. The most formidable barrier to a rational understanding of the disease is the mental image people have of addicts, based on nothing more substantial than prejudice. When people think "alcoholic" or "addict," they envision a down-and-out street person cradling his bottle in a torn brown paper bag. Despite the celebrity confessions and the odds that most of us have a family member, colleague, or neighbor with chemical dependence, this image persists in the back of our minds and interferes with awareness of our own addictive behavior. We struggle instead with the more palatable idea that next time, by handling our drinking or drug use differently; we will prove ourselves immune from this haunting mental image. Family members are blinded to addiction as well. When discussing their spouse's addiction I commonly hear: "He could not be an addict, he goes to work every day!"

Addiction to alcohol or drugs is a final common pathway illness. That is to say, many factors propel an individual along the road toward becoming an addict; once there, however, research and clinical experience shows that the addicted individual cannot go back to the days when alcohol or drug use was casual and voluntary. One of the most powerful factors leading to addiction is genetics. This does not mean that people inherit addiction, but that they inherit the propensity to become addicted. Whether they go on to develop an addiction depends not only on genetics but on the repeated consumption of addicting substances or addicting behaviors. In addition to genetics, addiction has other factors that stimulate its appearance. Family structure, personality, other psychiatric disease and environment all play a part in the etiology of addiction. Children who have grown up in an atmosphere of shame experience a high incidence of addiction. People who tend to be anxious and driven or who have other psychological problems seem especially vulnerable to addiction. Childhood trauma-whether intentionally inflicted, like sexual abuse; or unintentionally inflicted, like the death of a parent-can result in an emotional injury that leaves one susceptible to becoming addicted later in life. Stress can also lead a casual substance user along the road to compulsive use of chemicals. Each of these factors link in various combinations to reach the final common pathway: the disease of addiction. Regardless of the particular combination of contributing factors, once a person has developed an addiction, complex alterations in the brain's chemistry make it impossible to return to an earlier phase of moderation and control. Unfortunately, addicted individuals spend a lot of time and energy trying to return to a relationship with mood altering chemicals that is no longer possible.

Another barrier to recognizing chemical dependence is that people addicted to drugs tend to misinterpret the source of the chaos in their lives. Alcoholics and addicts invariably define their problem as something external to themselves: a nagging spouse, hormones, a stressful job, or the drug itself, which they have come to love, crave, and hate. Research during the last decade has revealed that many individuals suffer from more than one addiction-6o% of people with bulimia nervosa are also alcoholic, 8o% of gambling addicts are addicted to chemical substances. Addiction Medicine physicians understand addiction as a disorder in the brain that creates a distorted relationship between the brain and the substance or behavior.

Whatever the addictive substance or behavior, symptoms of addiction are the same. One of the primary symptoms is denial, which makes it very difficult for the addict to seek help. Denial is the subtle reorganization of reality that occurs in the addict's mind that keeps him or her from seeing their problems as arising from their addictive disease. This is why the alcoholic is often the last to know they have a problem. Other manifestations of chemical dependence include physical dependence and increasing tolerance for the drug. Once the person is under the sway of addiction, what began as apparently harmless and voluntary social drinking or occasional drug use becomes the ruling passion of his life. Nothing is as important, not the entreaties of his wife, tears of his children, loss of a job, or even skirmishes with the law appear to get through to him.


What Happens to the Brain in Addiction?

Understanding how addiction affects the brain helps explain these perplexing symptoms. To appreciate how things go haywire in the addict, it is helpful to visualize the basic structure of the brain. The cortex is the part of our brain in which conscious thought occurs, and the part of the brain that makes us distinctively human. The cortex is also called the "new brain" because from an evolutionary point of view, it appears in more highly evolved species such as lower primates and humans. The cortex houses the superior mental faculties-memory, learning, and judgment-of which we are understandably proud; it is, in fact, the part on which all conscious thought is based.

Despite its amazing properties, however, the human cortex is baffled by addiction. To see why, we must look at another part of the brain, the midbrain. The midbrain is the seat of the basic drives: hunger, thirst, the fight or flight reaction, sex, and pain regulation. No conscious thought occurs in the midbrain; instead, pressure from the midbrain is transmitted to the cortex, where it registers as conscious thought ("I'm hungry"). Although the cortex may appear to be running the show, the midbrain wields deceptive power. Several times in life-at puberty, for instance-the midbrain totally rearranges the way we see the world.

From the perspective of addiction, the midbrain is where the action is. In people who develop addiction, the midbrain takes on a sixth activity in addition to the five basic drives delineated above. This sixth activity is a primitive push for the addictive substance or behavior, which feels to the individual exactly like a basic drive. But there are two fundamental differences between this sixth function and the basic drives. The sixth (addictive) function eventually grows so powerful that it eclipses all the drives. And whereas the drives push the individual toward self-preservation, the sixth "drive," the pressure to get drunk or high, leads ultimately to self-annihilation.

The midbrain sends its signals to the cortex through the motor cortex, which controls movement. The pressure from the midbrain drives action, a motor event. For example, the midbrain transmits pressure for alcohol. The alcoholic turns into the liquor store parking lot. Only then do what cortical neurophysiologist Michael Gazzaniga has labeled the "Interpreter" kicks in to analyze the action. "You deserve a drink," it whispers. The interpreter tries, in retrospect, to make sense of the action triggered by the midbrain and carried out by the motor cortex.

Such an assessment mechanism is doomed to fail because of the discrepancy between the raw drive for a drug and the individual's rational functioning. Errors in interpretation multiply, entrenching the person in denial. These misperceptions and rationalizations are the hallmark of addictive thinking.


Implications for Treatment

For treatment to be effective, the brain must be educated about the errors in circuitry by which it has been baffled. From our current understanding of the subtle changes in chemistry that occur in the brain during addiction, two important corollaries emerge:

1) You Can't Think Your Way Out of Addiction

Treatment helps the addicted person reconcile the basic conflict between the cortex and the midbrain, or the old brain and the new brain. The critical role of the midbrain in preserving the organism, Homo sapiens, underscores why even the most sophisticated analytical thinking cannot lead a person out of his addiction. Instead, one needs the retraining and cooperation of the midbrain, which is the common denominator not only of our humanity but also our relation with the rest of humanity.

A tragic error in addiction treatment early in the 20th century was the mistaken belief that if the addict could develop enough insight into his problems and feel better about himself through psychoanalysis or another form of psychotherapy, he could stop the addictive behavior. Sadly, the relapse histories of countless patients proved this type of approach to be a critical and often fatal error. To the addict, no amount of insight about underlying causes is enough to overcome the craving for chemical relief that occurs when one is actively using drugs and alcohol. In order to recover, the addict needs to stop the behavior first.



2) Recovery Takes Time

When a drug is introduced to the body of a person who will become addicted, it leads to a surge of euphoria that is quicker and more intense than any "high" the body can produce through natural means. This artificial activation of the brain's reward system increases the release of chemical substances that mediate the euphoria, however, this surge of euphoria does not last. After the body develops tolerance, larger quantities are needed; the addict begins to need the drug not to feel high but to feel normal. The brain's chemistry develops tolerance for the artificial surge produced by addiction. When the drugs and behaviors are withdrawn in treatment, it takes the body a while to resume production of substances that make the person feel a sense of calm and well-being. This process of detoxification and normalization of thought takes time, meaning months or years.

Once detoxified, the individual in recovery must hack through the thicket of excuses and rationalizations by which his brain has attempted to make sense of his bizarre behavior. This also takes time. When the addict finally and deeply understands the havoc wrought by drug use in the brain's natural chemistry, the midbrain essentially gives up. When treatment occurs and the addict or alcoholic engages in a specific set of actions (called working a program of recovery), the individual is set free from the compulsion to drink or use drugs.


The Nature of Treatment Today

Based on our current scientific knowledge about addiction, the treatment process at all recovery centers occurs in four distinct phases:

1. Behavioral Intervention: The first step in treatment involves behavioral containment, stopping the drug from entering the body. Once the individual feels the tug of addiction as a primitive drive, no further improvement can occur until he stops taking the drug. Acute detoxification usually takes several weeks; it may take months before the brain's chemistry returns to normal. During this early phase, alcoholics and other addicts often feel like they have lost their best friend or lover and experience enormous grief and/or anger, as well as depression.

2. Cognitive Insight: The phase of cognitive insight is the "Aha!" phase, during which the recovering person begins to recognize and make sense of his formerly perplexing behavior. This usually occurs in a series of fits and starts over a period of about a week.

3. Emotional Integration: During the phase of emotional integration, the recovering person begins to rediscover his feelings. This process takes weeks; feelings may have been buried for a long time, and they are usually covered in shame. Among the most destructive cultural attitudes toward alcoholism and drug addiction is the notion that the addicted person is morally weak and lacks self-discipline. When internalized, this attitude interferes with the alcoholic's realization that he has a disease and with his understanding of the insidious disease process. We sometimes call the phase of emotional integration the "Ugh" phase because it is difficult work-work that requires courage and perseverance. Most people who do not recover from chemical dependence give up or attempt to sidestep this painful phase.

4. Transformation: Transformation is the last stage of change-the transition into recovery. Transformation does not mean changing one's mind about using drugs. It means nothing less than seeing the world in a different way. The transformation phase is what recovering addicts often describe as a spiritual experience. Some patients describe the increasingly unfamiliar way they were before, as if they had been looking at life from atop a strange mountain. Others discover a new or rediscover a past spiritual or religious practice. To the individual entering this phase everything and everybody looks different, though it is in fact he who has changed. People who make it to the transformation phase generally lock in their recovery and go on to live life free of drugs and filled with an inner peace that often surprises them and those around them.

Effective treatment is based upon the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. We add individual and group therapy, training in intra and interpersonal skills and family components to produce a good outcome. Treatment is matched with long term monitoring; the marriage of treatment and continuing care produces excellent remission rates for this chronic disease.



Conclusion

Our society provides us with an increased exposure to addiction though the media. Despite this exposure, many people still do not understand the complex nature of the brain disease called addiction. Addiction affects so many aspects of a person's life and our culture and, as such, is difficult to tease out from the fabric of that culture. Recent science has clearly established this is a disease of the brain that affects the emotions, heart and soul of the afflicted and his or her family. The recovery process is slow and occurs in phases, each one helping the addict or alcoholic transition into a life of meaning and peace. Despite this, treatment is remarkably effective-as effective or more so than any other chronic disease.

http://paulearley.net/Articles-abou.../chemical-dependence-and-treatment-today.html
 
So I guess we wont know who the box came from, well not from Van Valin anyway.

Well if no one knew that Michael brought a box to Van Valin but Van Valin himself, why did he have to volunteer that information to AEG? He claims to be such a good friend to Michael, so does he think this information is helping Michael in anyway. It helps AEG only. We will find out today.

Lastear maybe a bodyguard would know which dr Michael saw in Florida?

Bonnie I have to say I agree with your assessment of Earley's writing above. We could go on and pull out some more pieces to dissect. Even though he hints of Prof addiction in that writing, on cross he admits there is no evidence of prof addiction. He says one thing there and something else over here. I am still irritated by Boyle's inadequate cross of Earley. However, I am going to leave that issue alone to avoid going around in a circle.

Bubs thanks I knew the almost bald one was Putnam, but the other one is a mystery to me. I wonder if he is one of the other AEG lawyers?

On another note, I am waiting expectantly for the video testimony to come out.
 
So I guess we wont know who the box came from, well not from Van Valin anyway.

Interesting!

This might NOT be the doctor in question, but as of now, which doctors that we do know of, come from Florida?

Again, not saying that would be the doctor who gave Michael "a box of propofol," but it is a starting point, and MIGHT give us some ideas.
 
and Van Valin wasn't concerned enough to find out who was doling out anesthesia in boxes??:bugeyed
 
Last edited:
^^^^ I thought that as well. I just wish someone in Michael life could be 'normal' with him.

I don't know the questions AEG asked Van Valin for him to tell them about the box, or whether he just volunteered the information.
 
^^Well I think the most likely question is for AEG to ask him if Michael even requested prof. Van could say yes for a procedure/to sleep, or say no & give the context. This thing about a box seems to be something he added as extra detail. What could AEG ask for him to HAVE to say that? I am just thinking in my own life and being questioned about something, and I instinctively know what to hold back, if it is not asked specifically, especially if you know someone would get into trouble.

It is just like the great ethical doc, who would not give Michael "one for the road." (actually I see him as a great doc.) No one asked him anything for him to give that extra bit of information. Why did he have to do it to Michael? He was not asked anything about that. He was there with his wife, I think. There were no nurses or office assistants who could squeal and say Michael asked. I say, just answer AEG's questions by giving information that is directly connected to the questions. However, all these doctors were getting money for their depositions, so they gave more information. If they were a little less talkative, there would be less of Michael's issues out there.
 
^^^^ I thought that as well. I just wish someone in Michael life could be 'normal' with him.

In my opinion, SOME (not all) of those folks were too interested in staying on Michael's good side, instead of doing AND saying what needed to be said and/or done.
 
Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 55m

AEG Live now says it will likely rest without calling any more live witnesses. Jackson lawyers set to start rebuttal witnesses next week.
Details
 
@Petrarose I honestly don't know the answer, he would have been under oath for his deposition and I don't know what was asked or if he simply did just offered up the information.
 
Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 55m

AEG Live now says it will likely rest without calling any more live witnesses. Jackson lawyers set to start rebuttal witnesses next week.
Details


Yeahhhhhhhhhhh.

AEG is right. You can't keep over killing. The jury got it.

Monday arguments about dismissal and rebuttal begins. I hope Panish is not going to make this very long again.
 
Dr. Van Valin said that he read a book to Michael, and waited until he thought Michael was asleep, then he would slip away.

That was sweet, and heartbreaking at the same time. I wonder if Mother ever read her baby boy a book before he went to sleep.

I know there was testimony about this, but did Mother say that she knew Michael had issues getting a good night sleep?
 
Last edited:
I truly appreciate the defense reassessing and ending their case today. We are not in the courtroom and we do not know how the jurors are reacting. I could only view another 7 witnesses testifying to either minimize damages or speak to Michael's so-called secretive addiction as a guaranteed failure.

It is not the addict's fault when a doctor is irresponsible, unethical, and careless to their addiction as Valin was. I truly hope no one purchased his book. He hurt Michael enough.

Now the plaintiffs can reassess their rebuttal. I believe they will call at least one or two witnesses so they have the last word in the jurors' minds. I do not predict a long deliberation however, again, I cannot see the jurors and cannot feel their confidence regarding certain issues raised in this case.

Bonnie Blue, amazing post regarding Earley's distasteful and judgmental blogs.

Last Tear, please tell me which witness said it was Michael's wish that AEG hire the doctor. My understanding is that the doctor was Michael's choice. AEG was intent on hiring a doctor for Michael as they were to HIRE Finkelstein (another mistake) but, Michael insisted on the doctor he wanted. For AEG it was another way to control.
 
Dr. Van Valin said that he read a book to Michael, and waited until he thought Michael was asleep, then he would slip away.

That was sweet, and heartbreaking at the same time. I wonder if Mother ever read her baby boy a book before he went to sleep.

I know there was testimony about this, but did Mother say that she knew Michael had issues getting a good night sleep?

Yes that was so sweet. He tried a natural remedy first. I wonder if it was a story about The Three Bears, Beauty & the Beast....

I am confused about something. Van is saying that he talked to Michael about taking too much but then he keeps saying he gave him the drug. I don't understand why he keep giving him the drug if he sees a problem. He sees a drop of blood and still continues. Then Dr. Shannon sees Michael too and Michael has meds from Van? I am confused here......Is it that they knew each was giving Michael the same thing and pretending?
 
Last Tear, please tell me which witness said it was Michael's wish that AEG hire the doctor. My understanding is that the doctor was Michael's choice. AEG was intent on hiring a doctor for Michael as they were to HIRE Finkelstein (another mistake) but, Michael insisted on the doctor he wanted. For AEG it was another way to control.

Off the top of my head, Philips.

Where is your understanding that AEG was intent on hiring a doctor coming from? Do you believe that they simply told Michael he was having a doctor?
 
Here are the tweets. I don't understand Dr. Van & Shannon either:

-Shannon injects MJ with demerol for the pain but notes that MJ brought his own medication to the office. Scripted by Van Valin. Odd

^^I think both doctors knew what was going on and are pretending now.

-Dr. continued his concern for MJ demerol use. Several times he would give MJ dose, and MJ would wooooo, sing and dance. Then same dose fine
^^So sometimes he gives him a does and then Michael would become over stimulated and perform. Is he suggesting that this behavior shows Michael got some meds before and when Michael is "fine" he did not have a prior dose? Does Demerol make people extroverted?

-that time he noticed a drop of blood on MJ's shirt and a band aid. He asked MJ if another Dr. was giving him pain meds.
-MJ said no but Dr. Van Valin knew he was lying. He told MJ that more Demerol could kill him. He told MJ he couldn't but did anyway.

^^That is my concern, why would he talk to him about dangers and then still give him more.

Van in 2001. Michael sees Dr. F who gives him the patch and private reharb.
 
Last Tear, Michael wanted a doctor. AEG decided they would hire one instead of using an advance. No one testified Michael wanted AEG to hire the doctor over an advance that I recall. I will review Phillips' testimony. From the summaries:

Dr Finkelstein testified Gongaware called him about two months prior to MJ's death and told him MJ was going to tour in London, wanted a doctor. Dr. Finkelstein said he was excited about it, wanted to be MJ's physician, had 5-10 conversations with Gongaware about it. Dr. Finkelstein said he asked if Gongaware knew whether MJ was clean. The answer was yes. The doctor explained he would not want to go on tour if MJ had drug problems. "I didn't want to be Dr. Nick," Dr. Finkelstein said. Gongaware told him MJ was clean and passed a physical exam for insurance. Dr. Finkelstein said he would charge $40,000/month, $10,000/week. He remembers Dr. Murray asking for a lot of money to go on tour. (ABC7)
 
^^^^Then why was Michael asking AEG to negotiate Murray's fees if he didn't want them involved in the doctors hiring?
 
Dr. Van Valin said that he read a book to Michael, and waited until he thought Michael was asleep, then he would slip away.

That was sweet, and heartbreaking at the same time. I wonder if Mother ever read her baby boy a book before he went to sleep.

I know there was testimony about this, but did Mother say that she knew Michael had issues getting a good night sleep?


Katherine never did anything for MJ but push him to work.. He's been working since he was 5 years old. I doubt she read him any bed time stories. Hell she acts like she didn't know anything about her son or his illnesses. Just sad all the way around. Mike had Kenny Ortega rubbing his cold and aching feet and Dr Valin reading him bed time stories and MJ's own mother who was always asking for money was no where to be found.
 
Big Apple2;3899196 said:
Dr. Van Valin said that he read a book to Michael, and waited until he thought Michael was asleep, then he would slip away.

That was sweet, and heartbreaking at the same time. I wonder if Mother ever read her baby boy a book before he went to sleep.

I know there was testimony about this, but did Mother say that she knew Michael had issues getting a good night sleep?

I’m sure the things Michael endured as a child on the road working like a slave and trying to sleep in strange hotel rooms and in cars was beyond horrid. There was no time or desire on the part of either one of his parents to read him to sleep or tuck him safely in bed. Katherine was able to enjoy the comfort of her own warm bed at night but her young son wasn’t. He was too busy working to support his parents and that is sad. The same thing applies to Michael as an adult. I'm sure it didn't matter to his parents if he slept or not as long as the money kept rolling in.
 
Randy Jackson will be on the Brian Oxman Radio Show this sunday.

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

and Ratner deposition was all about "don't recall". I don't even know why I expected him to admit to anything in the first place.
 
Then why was Michael asking AEG to negotiate Murray's fees if he didn't want them involved in the doctors hiring?

Thats what i wanna know cuz they wouldve needed michael's permission to do that
 
Oh I had a good laugh with Dr. I don't recall. I would like him in my camp. He kept his mouth shut. Certainly a doc that will not volunteer information, unlike Dr. Van with his box, and the ethical Dr. with his one for the road.

I guess AEG finishes with that video on Wednesday. I don't see why they could not finish all today. Ratner said basically nothing, so what took 2 and a half videos so long?
 
Oh I had a good laugh with Dr. I don't recall. I would like him in my camp. He kept his mouth shut. Certainly a doc that will not volunteer information, unlike Dr. Van with his box, and the ethical Dr. with his one for the road.

normally on a deposition you would expect people to honestly answer questions and not withhold any information. the other doctors might not have felt the need to hide anything if they felt they did not do anything wrong. Ratner on the other hand suddenly became suspicious. I believe Metzger will mention him in his deposition and when he does Ratner would like the anesthesiologist who gave Michael propofol on tours and now lying about it - regardless of whether it is true or not.

think what the jury is presented. an anesthesiologist. went overseas with Michael. got paid money to go overseas with Michael because he had to leave his practice. the rest is all a bunch of "don't recall". if this was all you knew, what would be the conclusion you came to about Ratner and what he did?
 
^Yeah I know the jury will think that he gave Michael something--prof or some type of drug. I still find him funny and want him on my side to keep his mouth shut. He does not squeal. The others, even though they feel they did not do anything wrong, should not divulge extra information about the patient. They should just answer the questions. No one knew about a box until Van told it. He gave Michael the drug even though he knew something was off, but he is quick to tell extra stuff about Michael.
 
LastTear;3899222 said:
^^^^Then why was Michael asking AEG to negotiate Murray's fees if he didn't want them involved in the doctors hiring?

8701girl;3899308 said:
Thats what i wanna know cuz they wouldve needed michael's permission to do that

Michael helped negotiate the rate the doctor was to be paid. There is no testimony or evidence that supports Michael requesting AEG hire the doctor at $150K/month as opposed to an advance.

ivy;3899317 said:
normally on a deposition you would expect people to honestly answer questions and not withhold any information. the other doctors might not have felt the need to hide anything if they felt they did not do anything wrong. Ratner on the other hand suddenly became suspicious. I believe Metzger will mention him in his deposition and when he does Ratner would like the anesthesiologist who gave Michael propofol on tours and now lying about it - regardless of whether it is true or not.

think what the jury is presented. an anesthesiologist. went overseas with Michael. got paid money to go overseas with Michael because he had to leave his practice. the rest is all a bunch of "don't recall". if this was all you knew, what would be the conclusion you came to about Ratner and what he did?

Interesting view. I cannot recall one AEG employee who did not responded the same as Ratner on several occasions particularly Phillips/Gongaware. The defense should hope the jurors do not believe because one does not recall, they are suspicious and may be hiding the truth.

I believe Valin’s testimony was outrageous! He expressed judgment of the doctor who killed Michael while Valin himself was nothing short of a pusher to me. He did say he knew about Michael's implant as did Klein and Farshchian who implanted it. Is it a secret only because Fournier did not know?

Personally I felt Ratner’s testimony was a risk for the defense for the very reason you suggested Ivy and it may very well haunt them. Ratner most likely gave Michael propofol outside of a medical setting as a sleep aid. Michael lived, however; it did not make the administration ethical. The defense will continue with Metzger and I am unsure what the benefit will be for them to even complete it. Each of these doctors is one in a long line of medical professionals who failed Michael.
 
Last edited:
^Yeah I know the jury will think that he gave Michael something--prof or some type of drug. I still find him funny and want him on my side to keep his mouth shut. He does not squeal. The others, even though they feel they did not do anything wrong, should not divulge extra information about the patient. They should just answer the questions. No one knew about a box until Van told it. He gave Michael the drug even though he knew something was off, but he is quick to tell extra stuff about Michael.

They are under oath. A deposition is the same as court testimony, so if they do not tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God," and it is discovered that they did not, it means possible jail time. The "extra information" is IMO part of "the whole truth."

I have to keep in mind too that these are just snippits we are getting. Is all the testimony going to be available later on --on the court website?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top