Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Beshlie]

that's possible too especially if he asks her probing questions. I would really like to know her opinion on how MJ looked to her when she saw him June 2009.. Did she think he was too thin and looked frail?

There is no evidence that she noticed - either that or she ignored it. I haven't heard that she was worried about him, unless I have missed something!

 

[HIStory]

Btw, John Lennon was bashed in the media, not when he died, but prior. He too got his share of bad press.

Not comparable to the crap that Michael got.

 

[mjchris]

last week there was only court on wednesday, thursday and friday?
is there no sumary for this days or is ivy still working on it?

 

[ivy]

last week there was only court on wednesday, thursday and friday?
is there no sumary for this days or is ivy still working on it?

there was no court last week due to family member illness of a juror. Testimony will resume this wednesday. the summary thread is up to date.

 

[mjchris]

okitoki. thanks
and thank you for still updating the thread! i appreciate that very much.

 

[KaReEnA88]

So is this trial still going to end by end of Sep? Or are they gonna drag it out till October?

 

[ivy]

AEG Live backs down on calling Michael Jackson's mom

By Alan Duke, CNN updated 7:36 PM EDT, Mon September 16, 2013

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Instead of Katherine Jackson, AEG Live may play clips of Prince Jackson's deposition
AEG Live lawyer said he intended to question her "about the absurdity of the damages"
Closing arguments in the 5-month-long trial could be heard Monday
Michael Jackson's mom and kids are suing his last concert promoter for liability in his death

Los Angeles (CNN) -- AEG Live lawyers changed their mind about calling Katherine Jackson as their last witness in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial.

Instead, lawyers for the concert promoter may play a portion of Prince Jackson's video deposition before resting its defense case Wednesday.

The five-month-long trial in Los Angeles is nearing an end, an closing arguments could be delivered on Monday. Testimony, which has been on hold for more than a week because of an illness in one juror's family, resumes Wednesday.

Jackson's mother and three children are suing AEG Live, contending that the concert promoter was liable for the pop icon's death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
AEG Live argues that Jackson chose and controlled Dr. Conrad Murray and that its executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments he was giving the star in his bedroom.

Jackson died of an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol, which Murray told investigators he used to treat the singer's insomnia so he could rest for comeback concert rehearsals in the summer of 2009.

AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam announced in court last week that he intended to call Michael Jackson's elderly mother to question her "about the absurdity of the damages" she wants the jury to award if they decide the company is liable. Putnam informed the court and Jackson's lawyers Monday that he had decided not to call her again.

A Jackson lawyer argued that AEG Live's "intent is to show the lawsuit's purpose is greed," while the judge suggested that any mother could be expected to say "there is no amount of money that would substitute for the loss of her son."

Putnam has frequently cited in interviews a "statement of damages" letter sent to him by a Jackson lawyer last year capping possible damages at $40 billion, but the judge ruled that he could not refer to it in court because it was not a sworn filing in the case.

Jackson lawyer Kevin Boyle pointed out that the lawsuit complaint only says that damages would be "according to proof at trial," based on testimony by several expert witnesses who have testified.

Jackson expert Arthur Erk -- a certified public accountant who has managed and audited the business affairs of many top artists -- testified that he was "reasonably certain" that Jackson would have earned at least $1.5 billion from touring, endorsements and sponsorships had he not died from a propofol overdose preparing for his "This Is It" tour.

"It is very difficult to assess the value of the King of Pop," Jackson lawyer Deborah Chang told the judge Wednesday. "How do you even do that?"

The non-economic damages suffered because of Michael Jackson's death could be enormous considering "what happened to Paris Jackson," she said. Jackson's 15-year-old daughter attempted suicide in June and remains in a treatment program.

Jackson lawyers seemed to welcome the prospect of AEG Live calling their client as their final witness, considering how jurors reacted when she was on the stand in July. Jurors leaned forward and paid close attention during her two days of testimony as the last witness in their case.

"Why are you here?" Jackson lawyer Brian Panish asked her.
"Because I want to know what really happened to my son," she said. "And that's why I am here."

Panish asked Jackson how it made her feel to be asked probing and personal questions about her family by AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam.

"It makes me feel real bad, because my son was a very good person," she said. "He loved everybody. He gave to charity. He was in the Guinness Book of World Records for giving to charity."

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.

After AEG Live rests its case -- which lawyers indicated would happen Wednesday -- the Jackson lawyers would have a chance to call several rebuttal witnesses.

 

[Petrarose]

The judge keeps giving a lot of personal opinions about this case, and Duke and plaintiffs always quote her. Many mothers will find money can replace the loss of a child, so I don't know why she makes these statements.

A Jackson lawyer argued that AEG Live's "intent is to show the lawsuit's purpose is greed," while the judge suggested that any mother could be expected to say "there is no amount of money that would substitute for the loss of her son."

AEG made a wise decision, because they are not going to get anymore information from Katherine than they already got. She would refuse to answer again, and her attorneys and Duke will just say she was badgered, like they did before. I see they are not going to clarify that issue with Prince, but just play part of his deposition. Let's hope AEG finishes on Wednesday and let the plaintiffs put on their several rebuttal witnesses. The best thing about the trial was that AEG took less time compared to the plaintiffs.

 

[jamba]

Question--if NO amount of $$ would substitute for the death of her son, why ask for the big bucks in the first place? Seems like there's a contradiction here--"no amt will bring back my son, but give me 40 billion."

I agree that this was probably the best decision not to have her back b/c her testimony is useless for the defense.

 

[Tygger]

AEG Live backs down on calling Michael Jackson's mom
By Alan Duke, CNN

More great news! It will be interesting to see if other media outlets will report this as quickly as some outlets reported on the removal of Phillips/Gongaware as defendants and/or the false re-interpretations of Michael's handwritten notes.

The defense would not be able to control Katherine as a witness and any resulting headlines would not be desirable for AEG.

I would suggest not playing Michael’s oldest deposition either however; it will not hurt the defense if they chose to. I do not believe there is anything that young man testified to that would damage the wrongful death suit of his own father.

If this is how AEG truly wants to end their feeble defense, so be it.

 

[8701girl]

Actually I don't know if it a good idea to not call katherine back cuz there is still things I think she needs to say.

 

[serendipity]

^Yes, I'm surprised they didn't ask her about the last time she saw MJ and how she didn't notice anything wrong with him. I'm also wondering why the AllGood tour was never brought up. Personally I feel this is a very impotant part of the puzzle. Ivy, do you know if the judge has disallowed this to be mentioned and if so, can it be used on appeal?

But I think they may still call Katherine. According to Alan Duke she was going to be called, then not called, then called again and now again not called. LOL So we should wait and see what happens tomorrow.

 

[jaydom7]

^Yes, I'm surprised they didn't ask her about the last time she saw MJ and how she didn't notice anything wrong with him. I'm also wondering why the AllGood tour was never brought up. Personally I feel this is a very impotant part of the puzzle. Ivy, do you know if the judge has disallowed this to be mentioned and if so, can it be used on appeal?

But I think they may still call Katherine. According to Alan Duke she was going to be called, then not called, then called again and now again not called. LOL So we should wait and see what happens tomorrow.

yes I found it odd too that Katherine was never questioned by AEG about her meetings with Randy Phillips and the ALLGOOD concert and how MJ looked to her when she saw him in April, May and June 2009

 

[ivy]

They are required to give 48 hr notice about the witnesses they are calling. So if on Monday morning AEG said they aren't calling Katherine, they won't call her. and no, no motion to limine about Allgood as far as I know.

 

[shelly_webster]

They are required to give 48 hr notice about the witnesses they are calling. So if on Monday morning AEG said they aren't calling Katherine, they won't call her. and no, no motion to limine about Allgood as far as I know.

So sad, MJ was the only one on trial here.

 

[jaydom7]

So sad, MJ was the only one on trial here.

well honestly it wasn't that bad.. I think it clarified a lot about MJ's health and why he took meds. I learned a lot about his scalp surgery, and the reconstruction of it which caused much pain to him. I think this trial made MJ look more sympathetic to be honest. His vitiligo was discussed for those who always thought he was lying etc.. I don't think this trial did as much damage as I thought it would.. The one thing I am sure of is that MJ's mother ignored everything and when her son needed help she closed her ears and eyes and looked the other way, in the process always taking his money. And I also learned that the medical profession failed MJ. None of those doctors got him better at all. They continued to 'treat' him but none of them helped to better his health.

 

[LastTear]

Alan Duke really gets my heckles up, 'backs out' why not 'decides not to'!

The non-economic damages suffered because of Michael Jackson's death could be enormous considering "what happened to Paris Jackson," she said. Jackson's 15-year-old daughter attempted suicide in June and remains in a treatment program.

^^^^^ This really gets my blood boiling, by the sounds of this Panish is going to use the pain and suffering of Paris to bump up the payout. Are they that desperate?

 

[sfosteredi]

Alan Duke really gets my heckles up, 'backs out' why not 'decides not to'!



^^^^^ This really gets my blood boiling, by the sounds of this Panish is going to use the pain and suffering of Paris to bump up the payout. Are they that desperate?

Um....Yes.

 

[Mneme]

well honestly it wasn't that bad.. I think it clarified a lot about MJ's health and why he took meds. I learned a lot about his scalp surgery, and the reconstruction of it which caused much pain to him. I think this trial made MJ look more sympathetic to be honest. His vitiligo was discussed for those who always thought he was lying etc.. I don't think this trial did as much damage as I thought it would.. The one thing I am sure of is that MJ's mother ignored everything and when her son needed help she closed her ears and eyes and looked the other way, in the process always taking his money. And I also learned that the medical profession failed MJ. None of those doctors got him better at all. They continued to 'treat' him but none of them helped to better his health.

My train of thought is approximately the same, jaydom.

und I will say: For me from all the witnesses Debbie Rowe was the most effective witness. She showed the reasons for Michael's way of illnesses und put therefore the causality between illness and pain killers and insomania.
She was the onest who spoke in simple and clear words and that was important for the medias an for the public too.
Debbie has given an humane picture from Michael again, and this was in my opinion temporary lost as the experts were spoke.

To me although her testimony in total left some open questions she was the one who made the correlation between pain + drugs understanable on an non academic way.

 

[Veronas]

Do we know when will be the verdict? This month?

 

[Petrarose]

well honestly it wasn't that bad.. I think it clarified a lot about MJ's health and why he took meds. I learned a lot about his scalp surgery, and the reconstruction of it which caused much pain to him. I think this trial made MJ look more sympathetic to be honest. His vitiligo was discussed for those who always thought he was lying etc.. I don't think this trial did as much damage as I thought it would.. The one thing I am sure of is that MJ's mother ignored everything and when her son needed help she closed her ears and eyes and looked the other way, in the process always taking his money. And I also learned that the medical profession failed MJ. None of those doctors got him better at all. They continued to 'treat' him but none of them helped to better his health.

I have to agree. Of course, I am offended by the type of defense AEG decided to put on. However, the other rational part of me see it as just attorneys using the "worst" to win a case, which unfortunately is the way cases are won in the USA. The thing is since the deceased is on the plaintiffs side, they should have been the ones to attack the defense's portrayal of Michael. However, they chose only to attack evidence relating to "should have known," "conflict/non-conflict," & red flag issues. I won't be surprised if this is one of the few cases where the plaintiffs and defense both attack the deceased, even though the plaintiffs are getting money because the person died.

I agree that the doctors failed him in terms of the quality of his medicine, even though they all act clueless--nobody knew anything. It also did show that the burn and its treatment was worst that anyone thought, and Michael never talked about his problems, so no one knew how much he suffered. However, what I did not like with this issue, is that no party sufficiently connected what medical treatment was going on at the same time an addiction was taking place. We did hear a little about the scalp surgery coinciding with the dangerous tour drug problem, but this type of overlap was not shown throughout.

What I find unsatisfying about this case, is that I really did not learn anything more about how Michael died, which is what the Jacksons said they wanted to know. I mean, they are suing because they want to know what happened to their brother/son. I still don't know, because that information is with Muarry, and he was not in the trial. If you want to see how your son/brother died and the person who did it is not in the trial, then the case is not about that at all. You can't even ask Muarry who hired him. So I learned nothing new about the death and its cause. I just found out that some of AEG executives are nasty.

To me, if we go by the oral contract theory, which the judge agrees with, Muarry was hired. I feel Michael hired Muarry in Vegas and told AEG he wanted him as one of his staff. I feel that for their last witness, AEG should refocus on "should have known" issues, but I guess they know what they are doing. I always felt they made a wrong decision in showing too much drug information. Some jurors may think, if all that was happening, you should have known.

Sometimes I wonder if Putnam and company feel they are going to lose, so they focused on the drugs to significantly decrease the damages. I feel they spent about 70% of their case on drugs. I was wondering if AEG's attorneys met with the boss and said something like, listen chances are you are going to lose due to an oral contract, so let's focus on bringing down the damages.

 

[marebear]

I hated this case from the beginning and I hate it now. Sorry but it's how I feel. I don't see what justice for Michael this has given. If the Jacksons win I wish the jury would award damages to his children only. They suffered the most. The only thing I do hope that comes out of this is that if the jury sees Michael as a real person and maybe not the person the media and tabloids like to create. A better understanding of who he was. I feel people like Prince, Debbie and Kenny Ortega did the best in showing the kind of person Michael was.

 

[ivy]

What I find unsatisfying about this case, is that I really did not learn anything more about how Michael died, which is what the Jacksons said they wanted to know. I mean, they are suing because they want to know what happened to their brother/son. I still don't know, because that information is with Muarry, and he was not in the trial. If you want to see how your son/brother died and the person who did it is not in the trial, then the case is not about that at all. You can't even ask Muarry who hired him. So I learned nothing new about the death and its cause. I just found out that some of AEG executives are nasty.

this trial was never about how Michael died or at least not in the way you expected. it never was aimed to examine Murray's negligence. it started with the negligence established at criminal trial. this trial was what jacksons kept saying about Murray being the fall guy etc. They were looking to the people behind Murray. It's also obvious that there was no direct involvement of AEG - as evidence showed that AEG had no way of knowing or controlling means and how Murray did his treatment. this is probably the reason why AEG wasn't included in criminal trial. so all you are left with the hiring part and the conflict part... and if there was no contract with AEG's name on it, we wouldn't have this lawsuit

Sometimes I wonder if Putnam and company feel they are going to lose, so they focused on the drugs to significantly decrease the damages. I feel they spent about 70% of their case on drugs. I was wondering if AEG's attorneys met with the boss and said something like, listen chances are you are going to lose due to an oral contract, so let's focus on bringing down the damages.

well if you ask the question was Murray hired? I would say highly probably the jury would say yes. I know AEG's defense is contract wasn't signed but I believe for the jury oral and/or implied contract, draft contracts saying employment starting by may 2009 would be enough to conclude Murray was hired.

who hired him? I did not read all the jury instructions but technically the contract being between AEG and Murray could be enough for a jury to determine AEG hired Murray. ARG is trying to argue they did it on Michael's request but still it might not be enough.

Negligent hiring part is twofold. One is should they have done a background check on Murray. I believe they presented what they can present in that regard by their one experts. Jackson arguing the position requires full background check, AEG executive saying they don't do background checks on independent contractors and AEG expert testifying credit checks aren't common. This is something that can go either way.

Second part is foreseeability. And AEG has focused on this a lot with secretive addict story line. Their main defense is "even his doctors, friends and family did not know, we could not know". Also they made points about Murray's risk cannot be foreseen as well.

Finally damages. and we all know what each side argues in that regard.

Anyway in short I think both sides have strong and weak points and they tend to focus on the points they are stronger.

 

[jamba]

I think this trial has hurt MJ in the eyes of the average person b/c it has shifted the focus from his achievements and his talents, which people were focusing on after the many tributes, the movie TII, Cirque shows and so on, and instead it brought up a lot about his weaknesses, esp. his dependency/addiction on demerol and propofol. It violated his privacy (now we know he had dental implants, as well as all the other details) and showed he was surrounded by a lot of uncaring incompetents and enablers.

I think it has hurt his legacy and it will take time to recover the ground lost.

I think the defense was very leery of attacking Mrs. J. and that's why they didn't go into AllGood, what she thought of MJ's health, etc. It is a risky strategy to go after her due to her age and cluelessness.

 

[jaydom7]

I think this trial has hurt MJ in the eyes of the average person b/c it has shifted the focus from his achievements and his talents, which people were focusing on after the many tributes, the movie TII, Cirque shows and so on, and instead it brought up a lot about his weaknesses, esp. his dependency/addiction on demerol and propofol. It violated his privacy (now we know he had dental implants, as well as all the other details) and showed he was surrounded by a lot of uncaring incompetents and enablers.

I think it has hurt his legacy and it will take time to recover the ground lost.

I think the defense was very leery of attacking Mrs. J. and that's why they didn't go into AllGood, what she thought of MJ's health, etc. It is a risky strategy to go after her due to her age and cluelessness.

I think you are wrong.. it hasn't hurt anything. Did you see the recent sold out shows at MJ One in Vegas? during his birthday? this trial hasn't hurt anything. Most folks I speak to aren't even following it because the media really doesn't discuss it. Dental implants? are you kidding me??? The majority of my teeth are bridges and crowns so what does that have to do with anything? The coroner said MJ had his own natural teeth remember? so what if he had a crown or implant mostly everyone does if they've had root canals. And how is him being surrounded by bad doctors and enablers hurting him? if anything it garners sympathy that MJ couldn't trust anyone and doctors would violate their oaths for money. That doesn't hurt MJ, that hurts the bad doctors.

 

[ivy]

I think you are wrong.. it hasn't hurt anything. Did you see the recent sold out shows at MJ One in Vegas? during his birthday? this trial hasn't hurt anything.

I would personally separate the general perception from his artistic aspect. For example I know many people who think Michael was an addict but a very talented person. So public perception about him might have been affected by this trial and any other negative story out there. It's just that his artistic legacy is so strong and so established that it doesn't get harmed

 

[soulmum]

AEG haven't shown themselves in the best light but I truly believe it should have been Murray who was pusued for damages regardless of the fact he has no money. That would have been justice to me. There are no real winners here, a most beloved man is dead, nothing can alter that fact.

 

[Bubs]

Is AEG going to finish their side of the case with finishing A Metzger's video deposition and then are finished?

 

[ivy]

Is AEG going to finish their side of the case with finishing A Metzger's video deposition and then are finished?

seems like it. and I think perhaps play deposition of Prince.

 

[Bubs]

Ok, thanks Ivy.