Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last Tear, interesting list of character types you observed. Are you able to characterize others correctly simply by reading their posts?

You will have to find where I said I was the only poster with an opposing view. I said and I am repeating: I am the only poster who opposed Ivy stating the general public’s perception without one chart, graph, or survey which was a passionate, days long issue for a group in another thread. I believe you know the one.

I am one of very few vocal Jackson supporters particularly in this subforum and for that alone my views are consistently and constantly challenged. That challenge is often paired with rudeness consistently by the same posters each time as they are not able separate a person from their view. I respond in the manner I am spoken to.

It is also easier to ridicule or besmirch a character of a person when one cannot effectively combat a view or a claim. Can anyone truly say Michael has been established as a secretive addict?

In review of the doctor’s contract, Michael is not characterized as a co-employer. I believe this is correct because, if any wording had him as such, the defense would have used it immediately. As it stands, there is no evidence Michael hired the doctor and the jurors are left to make that decision.
 
Last edited:
Tygger;3902397 said:
I am the only poster who opposed Ivy stating the general public’s perception without one chart, graph, or survey which was a passionate, days long issue for a group in another thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what I saw in this thread was Ivy stating a generalization in cases of dismissal, she was not talking particularly about this case, hence no source was needed to support her opinion. Then, finally the lawyers themselves pronounced about this too and she said so.

In the other thread what I saw was a statement about a specific event that during all the pre-trial hearings and the trial, I only listened to Chernoff and I viewed lots of headlines at the time. Besides, the General DA himself talked about the thousands of letters received to increase the charges. I know you could say those letters were from fans, and don't count as the general opinion. But, as someone else said, if there was no poll or survey, nothing can be said categorically in the name of the "silent majority".

Sorry, I'll stop right now, before I got in trouble for going on derailling; but I just needed to tell you that what I particularly disliked was that particular opinion presented as fact, for the seriousness of the case itself: a homicide, as some other cases in other
states where propofol was involved too and the doctor left the patience unattended, even in a hospital setting.

For the rest of your views, I respect them and they are always interesting to read. I don't usually post, but I read all of you. And thanks to the info and to your different views I can get a better picture and understanding of this trial. ;D

Tygger;3902397 said:
In review of the doctor’s contract, Michael is not characterized as a co-employer. I believe this is correct because, if any wording had him as such, the defense would have used it immediately. As it stands, there is no evidence Michael hired the doctor and the jurors are left to make that decision.
Click to expand...
Interesting too who could fire Murray, according to the contract.
 
Smoothlugar, I cannot control anyone perception of my posts so I cannot speak to you viewing my position(s) as fact. I do not perceive anyone’s view as fact. Just to clarify, in that thread I was discussing the lesser charge of malpractice. As I was not part of the group, I cannot speak to their perception or what was truly behind the days long activity they participated in.

I do appreciate your comment about my posts. I enjoy reading various information and views opposite my own as well which allows me to review the trial from another view.

From what I understand of the contract, AEG could terminate the doctor which is harmful to Michael. As the patient he should have sole termination privileges.
 
Deposition Transcripts


Jeffrey Adams Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167778085/Jeffrey-Adams-Deposition-Transcript


Dr. David Adams Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167778726/Dr-David-Adams-Deposition-Transcript


Dr. Gordon Sasaki Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167779144/Dr-Gordon-Sasaki-Deposition-Transcript


Dr Stephen Gordon Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167779410/Dr-Stephen-Gordon-Deposition-Transcript


Dr David Slavit Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167779761/Dr-David-Slavit-Deposition-Transcript


Dr Neil Ratner Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167780058/Dr-Neil-Ratner-Deposition-Transcript


Dr. William Van Valin Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167780304/Dr-William-Van-Valin-Deposition-Transcript


Randy Jackson Deposition Transcript

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167780511/Randy-Jackson-Deposition-Transcript
 
Jackson side has filed a motion asking judge to prevent AEG from mentioning the dismissal of the defendants as it could "confuse the jury" and they want a jury instruction that tells the jurors not to speculate why a person is no longer involved in the case.

AEG has filed a reply saying they have no intention of mentioning such and according to rules both parties cannot mention successful / unsuccessful motions to the jury.

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

William Wagener made a media request to record closing arguments and verdict reading, judge denied it.

------------------------------------------
 
Proposed Jury Instructions

These are both sides suggested jury instructions. The judge will determine the final jury instructions.

Jackson Proposed Jury Instructions

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167786076/Jackson-Proposed-Jury-Instructions


AEG Proposed Jury Instructions

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167786034/AEG-Proposed-Jury-Instructions

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

Note : I considered typing them, I considered making screenshots. I simply did not have the time to do those so I posted the documents so you can get faster access to them. I guess we can post screenshots if needed during discussion.
 
I'm lost here:

5. What are plaintiff KJ total wrongful death damages for the death of Michael Jackson?

economic damages (past support, contribution gifts/benefits) _______________

I don't remember Katherine giving an specific amount of what Michael gave her. So, how the jury can determined how much should she be awarded?

Also, the "past support" part, since Michael through his estate was supporting her & will continue to do so, isn't that considered a lie?

And this

If jurors decide that AEG Live is liable in Jackson's death, they could award damages based on the loss of the mother's and children's relationship with him and the amount of money he was unable to earn because his life was cut short.

I still don't get how the jury would come with an amount of uncertain earnings and how can they decide what % Katherine should get.
 
Last edited:
Bubs said:
I don't think they will. They are not going to bankruptcy even if they lose. I remember reading that plaintiffs offered settlement (says a lot about their case) to defense, and Panish said that AEG insurance would pay it and they wouldn't lose any money, still they said no. It is not written on stone that AEG lose, imo far from it
Click to expand...

How I wish AEG wins this case and it's not that I like AEG, actually is RP, but his name calling & big mouth didn't kill Michael, Conrad did.

It will be surprising but good if when the Jacksons lose this case, Katherine puts her foot down & says no more. It'll be too late but at least, there'll be no more talking about Michael's medical needs. Hope the jurors use common sense & remember Katherine's demeanor & lies when she was on the stand.
 
Mneme;3902090 said:
/Jamba
your posting makes me sad. Sorry, but please keep your head up again. You know with our writing forwards-backwards and to-fro there are misinterpretation easily. I'm happy you are back here!


Now

to I. In my opinion it was very good that you brought up the L. Rowe book and with this the AllGood theme because both -Rowe in person and AllGood- were a great factor in Michael's last months.
I don't know wheter all people here have their minds made up (I have!) maybe they are user here who have forgotten this Rowe/Allgood thing because there was very much events in the last 4 years.


to II. I have the documents about AllGood on my computer:
- Complaint AllGood versus Michael Jackson/DiLeo/Anschutz/AEG, date: 06.09., 2009
- attachment 2-090610134309
- attachment 2-090630172252
but they are pdf's and so I don't know how they transfer to this forum here.
Maybe there is an Allgood thread here and you can find it there. Or you send me a message with a mail adress so I can send it direct.
By the way: I don't wanted telling you waht to think.
I believe I know what is with this 'summer 2010': 3 days after Allocco sued MJ he was giving a press release who speak about a postponement to 2010:
http://frankpaulgambino.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/allgood-entertainment-makes-jackson’s-an-offer/

Do you remeber Jermaine's press relaise in Sydney from 10.29.2008 (Jackson5 are planing a comeback with Michael and Janet)
an only 1 day late Michael take a press relaise also and refused? Since this time it was going.


to III. Yep! It may be there were concerned about Michael's health but they were MORE concerned about their plan for a reunion.


to IV. I think the user comments were not against you but against Rowe and his twists in the hindsight after Michael's dead.... and against the refusal from the Jacksons to accept the responibility for this AllGood complex.
On the contrary!:
Beverly Hills, CA, May 15, 2009 — In an official statement issued today The Jacksons (Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon and Randy Jackson) have denied they were in any way involved with a proposed Jackson 5 reunion concert in Texas on July 3rd claimed this week by New Jersey concert promoters AllGood Entertainment.
According to The Jackson’s manager, Danny O’Donovan, the original members of the Jackson 5, and younger brother, Randy, who later joined Michael and his older brothers performing as The Jacksons, were never approached about participating in the purported Texas concert event with Michael and sister, Janet.
The Jacksons have said they will support Michael in fighting any legal action brought by AllGood Entertainment with regard to the promoter’s claim about a July 3rd concert in Texas Stadium. O’Donovan said “There is absolutely no merit in this claim, and we had no knowledge of any contract with anyone, for a so-called family tour reunion. In fact, The Jacksons were never even approached about it and no offer was ever made to them.”
All of the Jackson brothers are thrilled that Michael is returning to the live stage this summer and are totally in support of his historic 50 concert run at London’s O2 Arena. They eagerly look forward to seeing and enjoying his “This Is It!” concert event.
Source:http://www.mjjcommunity.com/index.ph...temid=99999999

They really have had leave Michael out in the cold.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Meme, for your post--I agree that when we are writing and trying to get our points across, there are often misinterpretations. Writing is not always the best way to communicate as things are said quickly and sometimes the best word is not chosen, etc.

Thanks also for the info re the AllGood concerts. I checked the link (Gambino) and was really shocked at the 'deal' offered (according to Gambino):

Let Michael perform in London under conditions that Janet and his siblings do a world tour for AllGood Entertainment starting the summer of July 2010. Assists in Janet’s album and an album for the Jackson’s, let Michael release part one of a two part album for these shows and part two for the world tour.

So MJ was supposed to do 1) a world tour with Janet and sibs.
2) assist in Janet's album (??).
3) assists in Jacksons album (??)
4) release a 2 part album of the shows and tour

wow--that's quite a list. It goes way beyond a pay per view idea that they were talking about--one show on pay per view.

The brothers released that statement after the May 15 meeting with Rowe, KJ, Joe, MJ, RP, PG.

Actually, this all stems from that Feb 07 meeting shortly after MJ returned from Ireland and Rowe and brothers appeared and pressured him and after a few hours of pressure he said "maybe in 08, not now" and that opening was enough to keep pressuring him until at leat May 15 2009.

I would really like it if KJ would be put under oath to talk about this but she would probably lie about it or do a "I don't recall", but it would open up the can of worms re what was going on with all that AllGood pressure, how the family was involved, and many family would have to speak up--including Joe and KJ, etc. IMO it would blow the lid off their "we were so concerned and only wanted to help" story and expose their plan to use him to earn $, whether he wanted to or not. How does AllGood get into the picture? They were encouraged by the Jacksons--has to be.
 
So MJ was supposed to do 1) a world tour with Janet and sibs.
2) assist in Janet's album (??).
3) assists in Jacksons album (??)
Click to expand...

HA! yeh right lol
 
gerryevans said:
Jamba, Petra...great posts and thanks...and I don't want to get OT, but these kinds of posts actually help me rein myself in. I do think it's human nature to get riled up when trying to make a point and veering off into unacceptable behavior. I find that sometimes it's not just making a point that gets us going but actually trying to CONVINCE someone of that viewpoint. I don't even think we realize that's what we're doing, but I do believe that's often the case. At least it has been for me, and I get frustrated that someone just is not getting my brilliant opinion (and that is being said with lots and lots of snark and sarcasm about my opinions).

Anyway, those reminders that we're just here to discuss MJ, and we're a community of support and love for him do need to be said at times. But isn't it amazing how upset we get in just discussing all this, and MJ had to live through it all, and yet all he talked about was L.O.V.E. Maybe that's why he was always saying it. He had to remind himself because of the difficulty of being about L.O.V.E. in the midst of discord. But he did it somehow, and I think most of us try to, but sometimes it's just H.A.R.D. But again, your kind of posts help us get perspective back.

BACK ON TOPIC...so glad this case is winding down. Hope Putnam knows what he's doing putting Mrs. Jackson back on the stand. I think she comes off as one of the most sympathetic characters in the history of real life characters, especially to the truly uninformed of the Jackson dysfunction, which the jurors are suppose to be. Her impact could be just the opposite of whatever Putnam is hoping for.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Gerryevans, for your post. I agree that L.O.V.E. can be H.A.R.D.--Great way to express it :)

Yes, I agree it's when we try and convince or think if we just explain it one more time people will 'get' the concept and agree with us that that buttons get pushed. It's nice when people agree but even if not, it's valuable to express our points and there's a satisfaction in doing that well and without being offensive, losing our cool, etc.

I also wonder what Putnam is doing with putting Mrs. J back on the stand as she has the potential to be very sympathetic. On the other hand, she got pretty testy when asked some tough questions and then needed to go home.

I think there is justice in putting her on the stand and asking her to face the tough questions--not the softball ones she got from her lawyers--b/c the whole reason for this case that has gone on so long is that she made the decision to take it to court. The problem is her age--she can just get befuddled and confused--as well as distraught and emotional. Not sure how the jury will react.

What ever happened to Rebbie???? Grace??? Not to mention all the movie stars on the witness list??
 
Is it that the plaintiffs think the judge says there was a hiring, so they are not bothering to put that question at the top of the form? I notice in Panish's statements after court that he knows the judge is on Katherine's side. Unfortunately, the judge will not give a verdict.

I was wondering if Putnam made a mistake in strategy in the way he dealt with the drugs and addiction. He was using it so heavily to reduce damages, that I wondered if it would backfire on him.

I see we all wonder about Question 1. If the jury goes by the contract, then I guess the answer will be Yes, but if they think Michael hired him to give prof, the answer will be NO. However, did AEG hire him to give prof? I find #1 to be a difficult question and wish one of the AEG lawyers will explain it.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jamba
What ever happened to Rebbie???? Grace??? Not to mention all the movie stars on the witness list??
Click to expand...


Rebbie be hiding behind her friend stacey brown or whatever his name is lol
 
Now I understand why the AEG expert kept stressing that the future earnings were speculative. I just read in the instructions you can't give speculative damages. So even though the expert might be right that to calculate a figure based on future tours, etc., would be speculative, I also think he was really trying to help AEG out by stressing that point.


About this:
ackson side has filed a motion asking judge to prevent AEG from mentioning the dismissal of the defendants as it could "confuse the jury" and they want a jury instruction that tells the jurors not to speculate why a person is no longer involved in the case.

AEG has filed a reply saying they have no intention of mentioning such and according to rules both parties cannot mention....


This is not the first time that the plaintiffs ran to the judge with a motion wasting the courts time, only to find out that AEG had no intention of doing what the plaintiffs were preventing in the motion. This is so annoying.
 
Last edited:
I just read the Jeffrey Adams deposition--wow--what a series of events that seemed so random and yet ended up with the disastrous meeting of MJ and CM via this guy! This guy formed Knockout Security in December 06 and somehow with just having formed this company, with no proven track record, he gets to 'orchestrate" MJ's security when he arrives fro Ireland. Then in Feb o7 he is asked to recommend a dr for the sick kids and send CM over. The guy who asks for the recommendation is a guy called John or Basheer Mohammed. Now presumabley Jeffry Adamas had something to do with this guy b/c he 'orchestrated" MJ's security, and yet in the depo he says he doesn't know the guy's last name! This seems so unorganized and random and not tight and I wonder who decided to hire these people in the first place? Raymone? Who?

Then why is some random security guy that no one knows his last name calling another security guy for a dr recommendation--I mean doesn't MJ know other people in Vegas? He could have called Jack Wishna, the guy who convinced him to return to USA or any number of people--or even someone in his (gulp) family who after all LIVE in Vegas. It all sounds so completely nuts and weird and disorganized.

And then Jeffrey Adams ends up being with CM from MJ's death til his incarceration b/c his dad wanted him to--what about his job? Does he have a family? What about his Knockout Security company?--yes, it was a knockout all right. I am aghast. And he said he couldn't say how much money he earned as being security for CM.

Just seems so weird that someone like MJ should be getting these medical recommendations from his security guards-WHY???
 
ivy said:
I did not have time to actually evaluate the proposed form, I'm just to busy trying to get stuff out for the rest of the people. The notes then the verdict form, I was just so tired yesterday made a bunch of mistakes and I still have jury instructions to work on. But I thought it was surprising that Jacksons form did not ask if Murray was hired and who hired him questions. Isn't that how the negligent hiring claim supposed to start? was there a hiring and was the hiring negligent?
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, the question is did AEG hired CM is missing! Plaintiffs assumed that is clear as muddy water that AEG hired CM:doh:
This trial has been going on so long that they forgot why they were in court:)
I've said few times in past months that judge has to remind jurors what this trial is about, but obviously she have to remind plaintiffs too :giggle:
 
On page 47 of the AEG Jury forms, 'Implied in fact contract' it states that the jury should look to the conduct and relationship between the parties.

I don't think this would include any communication that took place to draft the contract.

Were AEG aware that Murray was going to attend the meeting with Michael?

By conduct, I would assume this would include any money/payment - Murray was never paid.


The Plantiffs instructions on contracts start on page 10
 
This is an interesting bit:
CACI no Special 1 Minor's right to sue: Guardian Ad Litem, submitted by defendands.
Because PPB are under age of 18, and are therefore minors, the law requires that an adult bring the suit on their behalf. The adult is called a guardian. In this case, KJ childrens grand-mother, has been named as th guardian for PPB.

I don't know if it effects on jury but defence got KJ to admit that she didn't ask from PPB anything nor did she told them tthat she is sueing AEG.
--------------------
There are many interesting points in defenses instructions, but this got my extra attention:
Foreseeability
To determine whether AEG knew or should have known CM's unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk of harm to MJ, one test that is helpful is to ask the question whether or not, if a personof ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge as AEG, he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that CM might have harmed MJ in the manner that occured here.

That is a good advice to jurors to put themselves into AEG people shoes and think would they have foreseen the danger of CM.
-------------------------
"In awarding plaintiff's damages, you should consider the amount of money that plaintiffs receive today from MJ companies and MJ's estate in your calculation.Plaintiffs must show that there has been some monetary loss. If plaintiffs are today receiving the same or more money from MJ's estate or MJ companies than they received before his death, there is no monetary loss, and you cannot award them any economic damages. To do so, would result double recovery which is not allowed."

How jurors would be able to determinate if KJ gets more money from MJ's estate now than she got before as AEG wasn't allowed to bring it up during the trial?
----------------
In order for KJ to recover damages, the evidense must establish that she was financially dependent upon MJ for the "necessaries of life"." Necessaries of life are food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment.
If you find KJ wasn't dependent on MJ for the "NOL" you may not award her any economic or non-economic damages.

That should be interesting as Havenhurt going on foreclosure was brought up during the trial.
------------------
"At least nine jurors must agree on a verdict"

Is this true, 9 out of 12 must agree the same verdict?
What is they don't?
-----------------
I see that they put in the last page explanation what General medical needs (as mentioned in CM contract) means.
 
ivy said:
Jackson side has filed a motion asking judge to prevent AEG from mentioning the dismissal of the defendants as it could "confuse the jury" and they want a jury instruction that tells the jurors not to speculate why a person is no longer involved in the case.

AEG has filed a reply saying they have no intention of mentioning such and according to rules both parties cannot mention successful / unsuccessful motions to the jury.
Click to expand...

Plaintiffs are odd punch :ph34r: AEG has it printed in in their jury instructions.
 
marebear said:
I don't get how people say Katherine doesn't want to hear bad things and they don't tell her bad things so she avoids it. Is she a child or something? Nobody likes to hear bad things but she is a grown woman with children and grandchildren. What I have read the last couple of days shows to me that the Jacksons should have had therapy a long time ago. They don't communicate at all only when they want something. I am not trying to sound hateful but you can't be blind to what happens in life. We don't live in a fantasy world where only good things happen. Her children treat her like a fragile child and she treats them the same way back it seems. She says if she had known things she would have done something but you can't help but wonder what when she avoids talking about things and dealing with things. The whole family does that. I am sorry I am just shocked by this logic.
Click to expand...

excellent post! Katherine claims AEG or someone there should've let her and Joe know that MJ was 'deterioriating' and they would've went over there in a heartbeat but I guess she forgot that Randy allegedly had 7 interventions and Joe told her that MJ looked frail and thin to him and she did absolutely nothing... so what would she have done if AEG, Ortega or Karen Faye had called her and said that MJ was sick or being drugged?
 
Some points have called my attention. The first one is from the AEG's proposal of Jury Instructions, page 42:

2ahbi3o.png




This one about the Plaintiffs' proposal, page 10:

n157rr.png


Page 15:

whk1eb.png




Another interesting point is on p. 14 of the Plaintiffs' Jury Instructions:

CACI 401. BASIC STANDARD OF CARE

Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others.
A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonable careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.
You must decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in Defendant AEG Live’s situation.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^ The first paragraph answers a point I raised earlier.

On the negligence part, if AEG are liable based on that explanation then so are other people.
 
Some updates

Partial Shimelman deposition is out. If AEG wants to call him, they need to call him live to the stand.

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

From ABC

Arguments in court have cleared the way for Katherine Jackson to be called back to the witness stand in the Michael Jackson wrongful-death lawsuit. AEG defense attorneys say they want to ask her about her claim for damages. Documents filed by the plaintiffs put the damage amount at $40 billion. AEG attorneys call that figure absurd. The plaintiffs say the number is based on a document expressing a maximum on what Jackson's loss was worth.

The judge told AEG attorneys they cannot ask Katherine Jackson about the damage statement. However, she can be asked about her economic and personal loss.

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

Jacksons filed an opposition about AEG's jury instructions CACI 306 and Special Instructions 4. They are also opposing AEG's request to remove mention of supervision.
 
Tygger;3901902 said:
Ivy, the group will support you right or wrong, deflection and spin; but you know that. Please be kind and do not forget to thank your supporters for their unconditional support. laughs

How many posters in this thread alone immediately stated the removal of Phillips/Gongaware was a blow to the plaintiffs’ case? After learning the removal was customary and Duke’s article stating the defense rejected the removal previously, some realize it was not a blow but, not all.

Panish has to control how the jurors will view the removal of defendants. If you clearly read your own post, Panish is stating he cannot depend on the AEG LAWYERS to clarify that situation for the jurors without taking advantage of that situation for their own benefit. It is better the jurors are not told by the defense or, if they are, it has to be carefully tailored as to not benefit either side.

Try again. wink
Click to expand...

WHAT??? LOL! Not Ivy supporters. Let's get it right ok? MICHAEL JACKSON Not Michael Jackson "FAMILY" supporters! This forum is named the MICHAEL JACKSON COMMUNITY FORUM! Stop trying to minimize people. Ivy is top notch on my respect spectrum but MJ ALONE is why I am here.
 
jaydom7 said:
excellent post! Katherine claims AEG or someone there should've let her and Joe know that MJ was 'deterioriating' and they would've went over there in a heartbeat but I guess she forgot that Randy allegedly had 7 interventions and Joe told her that MJ looked frail and thin to him and she did absolutely nothing... so what would she have done if AEG, Ortega or Karen Faye had called her and said that MJ was sick or being drugged?
Click to expand...

KJ is full of it just like her cubs.
 
I agree Victory she is full of it.. she acts like she was absolutely clueless or nonchalant about all of MJ's medical issues. I am assuming that she wasn't there to take care of him during his scalp surgeries, back pains, and other ailments he was having.
 
jaydom7 said:
I agree Victory she is full of it.. she acts like she was absolutely clueless or nonchalant about all of MJ's medical issues. I am assuming that she wasn't there to take care of him during his scalp surgeries, back pains, and other ailments he was having.
Click to expand...

I believe she didn't wanna know as long as the $$ were rolling in you know.
 
More delays
Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 13h
Michael Jackson death trial testimony delayed again until Wednesday due to juror family emergency.
 
From Randy's depo:
He says he was close to MJ, but couldn't recall whether he talked or saw to MJ in 2009?

From his infamous letter:
Our brother told us, in no uncertain terms and without hesitation in the months prior to his death, that he despised both of you and that he did not want either of you to have anything to do with his life or estate for that matter.

and later when MJ was living in Carolwoord, Joe and him tried to call MJ but they were unsuccesful

Typical Randy, talking out of his a.s. I'd like to know, if he didn't talk or couldn't remember seeing MJ in 2009, when MJ told him that he hates Branca & McCain, and don't want them to be in his life or his estate? Btw, if MJ used the word estate, did MJ knew he was going die?
------------------
Too funny, on page 20 he says he was investigating MJ drug use, and when asked how he was investigating it, he repllied: by talking people around MJ, and that person around MJ was Rebbie! Since when Rebbie is known to spend time with MJ? No wonder Rebbie got sick and couln't testify, as religious as she is, to cooperate with Randy's lies, she would have had to lie on stand and a lot:smilerolleyes:
------------------
Another too funny statement from Randy. At the end of his depo he says while they were trying to figure out how to grieve, and even before MJ was buried, Branca and co went to court about wills etc:rofl:

Randy forgot that, 4 days after MJ's death (MJ still in morgue),KJ was the first one in court telling that MJ died intastate and wanted to be nominated as administrator of the estate. Prior even going to court, there must have had talk within family who would be the most like person to be nominated and according to Randy's infamous letter, they were aware of MJ had will, so there must have been some plotting and talking prior going to court. So I suppose "grieve" in Jacksonese has a different meaning.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top