Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Big Apple2]

AEG could have been hoping for that fact and thinking tarnishing Michael's reputation would make them less likely to want to give a molester's family money.

The Jacksons are doing the same thing as far as tarnishing Michael's reputation goes. Making Michael out to be some raving drug addict, unable to make decisions on his own.

The jury might not want to give money to the "molester's" family, they also might not want to give money to the "raving drug addict's" family either. Know what I mean.

 

[AngieJ]

The jury is not supposed to be looking at media but in this information age of cell phones, tv, radios, ipads, email, facebook, twitter, instagram, its a hope they are doing the right thing. AEG could have been hoping for that fact and thinking tarnishing Michael's reputation would make them less likely to want to give a molester's family money. Or if they're really stupid, they could think the Jackson family cares about Michael's reputation and would maybe back down which they don't and we all know they won't. All in all, AEG handled this whole thing dumbly.

Still don't get how have they not gone all out to make Katherine and the family look horrible. Forget about MJ, put heat on the family and bring attention to family's scumbagness. I assume they're still going to bring it up during the trial, but you'd think they would have already exposed through the media just how trifling the family is.

As crappy as the Jacksons image is, you'd be surprised at the amount of people that don't know just how bad they are. Like most folks have no clue that the kids have been used in contract negotiations and all the Howard Mann stuff. It's like only us die hards that know the nitty gritty about the family. But when you talk to those few that have read the Vanity Fair piece for example, they always express how horrified they are and how they feel sympathy towards MJ after reading just how much the family bled him dry.

If they just drove it home about the family, no way the jury is going to want to reward Katherine some money. Instead so far the family is putting themselves on this big ass pedestal, while poor MJ is just being thrown under the bus.

 

[ivy]

Karen Faye testimony from court transcripts is posted

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...on-AEG-Trial?p=3826824&viewfull=1#post3826824

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, please see post #14 in the daily trial summaries.

Shades, agreed. I find the argument tends to be the plaintiffs should receive an unfavorable verdict only because the Jackson family members are not likeable to some. This is not a legal reason for an unfavorable verdict to be rendered.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are doing a very good job, in a very brief time, showing the defendants most likely hired the doctor negligently. The defendants’ opening statements shows deflection as a defense.

The jurors are supposed to do the “right thing” and not view the news, etc. However, this is not monitored and it is fairly easy for any juror to access the “court of public opinion.” Regardless, the defendants will most likely bring the recent, false allegation into the courtroom when their defense begins.

The defendants benefit from the recent, false allegations because it deflects attention from their alleged wrongdoing and again, puts blame on Michael.

 

[bouee]

Bouee, please see post #14 in the daily trial summaries.

.

Post 14 is today's testimony. I'm asking about something you posted 3 days ago.

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, post #14 is: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 12 – May 16 2013 – Summary

 

[bouee]

Bouee, post #14 is: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 12 – May 16 2013 – Summary

oh, ok sorry.
but still I can't find it.

 

[bouee]

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are doing a very good job, in a very brief time, showing the defendants most likely hired the doctor negligently. The defendants’ opening statements shows deflection as a defense.

I have the same impression, BUT it's way too early in the trial. Whe need to wait for more testimonies, espccially Gongaware, Phillips, Kenny Ortega and see what comes out of the e mails from Frank DiLeo's computer.
AEG's defense may sound weak now, and turn out to be convincing.
As somebody else said "it's not over yet..."

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, paragraphs 5, 7, and 11 under Jacksons Direct.

Bouee, I am waiting for Gongaware and Phillips' testimony. Should be very interesting indeed.

To be honest, what AEG could have done differently given circumstances?
Order MJ not to take CM , and what would have Michael told to AEG then?
He possibly could have told AEG the deal is off, and have gone to other concert promoter, but CM still would have been there giving propofol for Michael. No matter who was the concert promoter, the end result would have been the same as long as Michael wanted CM.

I disagree. Michael could not have the doctor if there was no payment for the doctor. The doctor remained with Michael because he expected payment from AEG. AEG witnesses have already testified it is not custom for there to be an agreement between promoters/producers and a doctor.

If Michael had signed with AllGood for example, they may not have been inclined to hire the doctor. Michael would have to pay the doctor himself or accept a local doctor.

 

[bouee]

Bouee, paragraphs 5, 7, and 11 under Jacksons Direct.

Ok, I will look it up later.

I disagree. Michael could not have the doctor if there was no payment for the doctor. The doctor remained with Michael because he expected payment from AEG. AEG witnesses have already testified it is not custom for there to be an agreement between promoters/producers and a doctor.

What I don't like so far, though I understand it can be explained later:

-AEG not acknowledging Murray's role- though I understand the strategy. If I was on the jury, I definitely would not like that, because it will become obvious at some point that Murray lied to AEG, and that he had a central role in what happend. At the very least, the jury will wonder about Murray's role, and wonder why AEG is downplayin it. I think the tough love thing could even have been started or encouraged by Murray.

- Not usual to have a dr on tour, especially pre tour : they should not have put Murray in production costs, if they disagreed with hiring such an expensive doctor. They should have let Michael deal with this, and not get invoved.

- they interfered with Murray and Michael's health problems : "remind him of who's paying his salary", June 20th meeting, maybe other meetings. I would have expected them to just say "let us know when you think he/you will be better so we can get things organised" and not go any further. There was obviously a money problem that led them to put pressure on both Michael and Murray. If there were money problems , AEG shares the responsability of creating that situation.

- Difference of visions / way to deal with the situation between Kenny Ortega and Gongaware/Phillips.

-It should have sounded weird that Michael was not improving in spite of Murray being there full time, it's also weird that other healthcare professionals were rejected (such as the physical therapist/ nutritionnist). Murray should have been happy to get some help, and should have encouraged that. I don't see how a nutritionnist and a physical therapist could have done any harm. The worse thing that could have happened is them being useless. It's obvious now why Murray, and so Michael, did not want them around.
The way Murray treated Kenny Ortega at the june 20th meeting is weird too, it's suspicious. He should have tried to reassure Ortega, the way Michael did, not be aggressive/defensive.

To sum it up, it makes it sound like AEG got too far in a dangerous situation that they contributed to create, and then did not react properly, even if they did not mean it, and could not foresee what would happen.

 

[Bubs]

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are doing a very good job, in a very brief time, showing the defendants most likely hired the doctor negligently. The defendants’ opening statements shows deflection as a defense.

The jurors are supposed to do the “right thing” and not view the news, etc. However, this is not monitored and it is fairly easy for any juror to access the “court of public opinion.” Regardless, the defendants will most likely bring the recent, false allegation into the courtroom when their defense begins.

The defendants benefit from the recent, false allegations because it deflects attention from their alleged wrongdoing and again, puts blame on Michael.

So far we have only heard from plaintiffs side of the story, and few from defendants so it is obvious why it looks like plaintiffs are doing good job.

About jurors doing the right thing. Well, they did the right thing @ CM trial, and they did the right thing @ 2005 trial, didn't they? No one checked whether those jurors were reading or watching news, and if they read or saw any news during the trial, that didn't effect on their sense of right or wrong.

I disagree. Michael could not have the doctor if there was no payment for the doctor. The doctor remained with Michael because he expected payment from AEG. AEG witnesses have already testified it is not custom for there to be an agreement between promoters/producers and a doctor.

If Michael had signed with AllGood for example, they may not have been inclined to hire the doctor. Michael would have to pay the doctor himself or accept a local doctor.

I don't think MJ would have needed a doctor for Allgood as it was only 1 or two concerts (if I remember correctly). But if MJ was to go on tour with ANY concert promoter, he would have wanted to have his own doctor with him. We know Michael had a problem when he went on tour he couldn't sleep. Some idiot doctor intruduced propofol to him that help him to "sleep", and Michael propably mentally put his faith on propofol that it was the only way to get sleep.
My point is that whether it was AEG, Live Nation or any other promoter, the outcome would have been the same as long as MJ wanted CM, and we know he wanted CM.


I'm sure if there was situation that concert promoter refused to hire doctor, Michael would have hired and paid CM by himself. If that had happened, who would you blame then?

 

[bouee]

^^ I agree Bubs, it wouldn't have changed anything if AEG had stayed out of it, same thing would have happened, since it was Murray's negilgence that killed Michael.

But, we're talking about AEG's potential liavility

Murray would maybe not have been influenced by AEG if he had been employed directly by Michael, and maybe he would have asked to postpone the shows, for example. It sounds like maybe he went along with the money source.

If AEG gets involved, then maybe they could / should have imposed those healthcare professionals (ie supervising Murray), even if they had let Michael choose them. Those people would probably have picked up that something was wrong with Murray. I agree, though, maybe not quickly enough.

 

[Vici]

So Shawn Trell said that Ortega and Murray were both considered independent contractors.. Kenny was paid but Murray was not. Is that because Murrays agreement was not signed?

But Ortegas agreement wasnt a real proper one? I understood it they were emailing specifics about Kennys agreement but they never drafted one for him, is that correct?

 

[Bubs]

"Putnam asks about Taunya Zilkie. She says Taunya was her rep for several years and she had a personal relationship with the Jacksons. Karen testifies that Taunya and Randy Jackson seemed very close. She says Taunya and Randy had a long on and off romantic relationship. "

Pity that Putnam didn't ask Karen F about their scam to release fans of their moneys, just show to the jury what kind of character she is:-(

I have a feeling that they might go for Randy's attemt to take over Michael's catalogue and trying to sell it during 2005.

 

[Annita]

K. Fayes testomy is not over. We don`t know what questions will still come.

 

[Bubs]

^^ I read her testimony so far and shaking my head now.
Someone mentioned that she presents herself like Michael's own modern day Joan of Arc, I have to agree with it.


Different note, I wonder the person who spoke to jury member and might cause mistrial, would the initials start with TM:no:

 

[ivy]

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are doing a very good job, in a very brief time, showing the defendants most likely hired the doctor negligently. The defendants’ opening statements shows deflection as a defense.

So far we have only heard from plaintiffs side of the story, and few from defendants so it is obvious why it looks like plaintiffs are doing good job.

It should look like Jacksons doing a good job because we are listening to their case at the moment. The witnesses they have selected, the questions they are asking. So right now Jacksons should look ahead.

Also the media isn't reporting everything. Look to the Karen Faye cross, Karen has a significant issue with remembering stuff - which can come into play about the statements she make. From AEG's question it looks like Dr. Forecast was personal doctor of Michael and Dr. Finkelstein was the doctor for the crew. Also she doesn't know what the top management people does. She contradicted herself saying she traveled with B group on History tour so did not see doctors around Michael but claimed Gongaware who traveled with B group during Dangerous tour would see and interact with Michael.

The jurors are supposed to do the “right thing” and not view the news, etc. However, this is not monitored and it is fairly easy for any juror to access the “court of public opinion.” Regardless, the defendants will most likely bring the recent, false allegation into the courtroom when their defense begins. The defendants benefit from the recent, false allegations because it deflects attention from their alleged wrongdoing and again, puts blame on Michael.

About jurors doing the right thing. Well, they did the right thing @ CM trial, and they did the right thing @ 2005 trial, didn't they? No one checked whether those jurors were reading or watching news, and if they read or saw any news during the trial, that didn't effect on their sense of right or wrong.

I again agree with Buds. Both 2005 trial and Murray criminal trial was non sequestered jury and they did the right thing. There's nothing to suggest that this time would be any different. Actually during appeal non sequestered jury is almost always mentioned as a reason for appeal but appeal court always never entertains it because there's no evidence to show that jury in any case doesn't follow the instructions. The system, the rules seems to work.

Plus you don't need to wait for the defense turn. The discovery period is over. If they need to present Wade's allegations they need to ask the judge to allow it. With no request and with no approval it can't be introduced.

 

[ivy]

Above is from a Jackson expert deposition, relevant to the current discussions

 

[Bubs]

Also the media isn't reporting everything. Look to the Karen Faye cross, Karen has a significant issue with remembering stuff - which can come into play about the statements she make. From AEG's question it looks like Dr. Forecast was personal doctor of Michael and Dr. Finkelstein was the doctor for the crew. Also she doesn't know what the top management people does. She contradicted herself saying she traveled with B group on History tour so did not see doctors around Michael but claimed Gongaware who traveled with B group during Dangerous tour would see and interact with Michael.

I don't know whether she was coached or maybe she can't keep up with the lies she told to herself.


Karen is such a hypocrite. She is giving out about DiLeo saying to get MJ a bucket of chicken, but she didn't do anything like reminding MJ to eat if he wants to stay healthy. She stayed quiet because she wanted to stay where she was and didn't want MJ to "release" her again.
---------------------------------------------
"Karen doesn’t remember. Putnam asks Karen if she was worried about Michael’s drug use between 1993 to 1996. Karen doesn’t remember what they were doing at that time period and she asks Putnam for help to tell her what Michael was doing at time period. Putnam says he has no idea what Michael was doing."

I burst out laughing when I read that bit.
They did established that Karen's memory is not the most reliable

 

[Big Apple2]

"Karen doesn’t remember. Putnam asks Karen if she was worried about Michael’s drug use between 1993 to 1996. Karen doesn’t remember what they were doing at that time period and she asks Putnam for help to tell her what Michael was doing at time period. Putnam says he has no idea what Michael was doing."

I burst out laughing when I read that bit.
They did established that Karen's memory is not the most reliable

I'm laughing also Bubs. Karen is mad funny!

I guess nobody told her that jurys hate when you can answer all of the questions for one side of the table, but when the other side of the table ask you questions, you all of a sudden have a bad memory. It's an obvious tactic that doesn't play well in a courtroom.

Oh and asking Putnam "for help to tell her what Michael was doing at that time period" is straight up PRICELESS!

 

[christy]

I don't know whether she was coached or maybe she can't keep up with the lies she told to herself.
Karen is such a hypocrite. She is giving out about DiLeo saying to get MJ a bucket of chicken, but she didn't do anything like reminding MJ to eat if he wants to stay healthy. She stayed quiet because she wanted to stay where she was and didn't want MJ to "release" her again.
---------------------------------------------
"Karen doesn’t remember. Putnam asks Karen if she was worried about Michael’s drug use between 1993 to 1996. Karen doesn’t remember what they were doing at that time period and she asks Putnam for help to tell her what Michael was doing at time period. Putnam says he has no idea what Michael was doing."

I burst out laughing when I read that bit.
They did established that Karen's memory is not the most reliable

Actually if KF wasn't bragging how close she was to MJ, instead of keeping to herself, being privvy to MJ needing at least 2 days for his adrenalin to subside, she could've given the heads up to whoever the concert promotor to SAVE Michael.
It's too little too late now but
she could've sounded out alerts to whoever his then manager.. Frank Delio, Thome Thome, Kenny Ortega, Dr Forest, Dr Frankestein (sp) may be even John McClain, John Branca if they were re-hired at that time and hell! even Katherine Jackson, whoever the powers that be
to work through the performance schedule
with the greatest care considering his adrenalin condition.
If it was sparsely and generously spaced out
he may not need CM,
no CM Michael would still be alive!

 

[bouee]

Look to the Karen Faye cross, Karen has a significant issue with remembering stuff - which can come into play about the statements she make.

The bolded part made me laugh ! Don't be harsh, you mean Karen has a little trouble with improvisation on the stand. She definitely needs to practice a little more.

So Shawn Trell said that Ortega and Murray were both considered independent contractors.. Kenny was paid but Murray was not. Is that because Murrays agreement was not signed?

But Ortegas agreement wasnt a real proper one? I understood it they were emailing specifics about Kennys agreement but they never drafted one for him, is that correct?

Yes , that's what I understood too.

 

[goldiee]

The Jacksons are doing the same thing as far as tarnishing Michael's reputation goes. Making Michael out to be some raving drug addict, unable to make decisions on his own.

The jury might not want to give money to the "molester's" family, they also might not want to give money to the "raving drug addict's" family either. Know what I mean.

I know what you mean. Neither side is any good.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

The Jacksons are doing the same thing as far as tarnishing Michael's reputation goes. Making Michael out to be some raving drug addict, unable to make decisions on his own.

Admittedly not following the trial closelyl, but got the impression that the jackson side were presenting mj as being dependent at times on drugs for pain issues, thought they went into detail about the accidents and 'wear and tear' in his life that made him rely on pain killers rather than just paint him as a raving drug addict, and they had witnesses,(was it karen) say he trusted his docs to do the right thing. From opening statements it seems aeg that will be pushing the raving drug addict meme, with mj deceiving his docs, getting double doses by lying to them, collapsing from a drug overdose and having his 4 and 5 year old children forced to call 999. Don't like either approach at this trial, but would have to say it looks like aeg who wd be making mj out to be a 'raving drug addict'

 

[Big Apple2]

Admittedly not following the trial closelyl, but got the impression that the jackson side were presenting mj as being dependent at times on drugs for pain issues, thought they went into detail about the accidents and 'wear and tear' in his life that made him rely on pain killers rather than just paint him as a raving drug addict, and they had witnesses,(was it karen) say he trusted his docs to do the right thing. From opening statements it seems aeg that will be pushing the raving drug addict meme, with mj deceiving his docs, getting double doses by lying to them, collapsing from a drug overdose and having his 4 and 5 year old children forced to call 999. Don't like either approach at this trial, but would have to say it looks like aeg who wd be making mj out to be a 'raving drug addict'

In my opinion, they will be running neck in neck for the "raving drug addict" title.

We already heard from the hairdresser, that she had to SOBER the poor fellow up with a bunch of bagels, so that he could get on stage and perform.

Before this trial even started the family was ALREADY setting the tone with all of their "we tried to help the poor drug addict, but he didn't want our help." I'm sure once they take the stand they will repeat their MULTIPLE intervention stories, i.e. "we tried and we tried," but as Janet Jackson so eloquently put it "you can't lead a horse to water."

Is Leonard Rowe on the witness list? Maybe he will regale us with his "EVERYBODY knew that Michael was a drug addict" story. If so, his stories will fit in nicely with the family's intervention stories. Multiple interventions, not just one, multiple! So many interventions that none of them can remember the exact number. Oh well, maybe by the time they hit the witness stand they will have tightened up that part of their story. (Teaspoon of sarcasm added.)

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^I was talking about the different approaches that the 2 sides will take to drug addiction - you would certainly expect his own family to be a little more sympathetic in their approach, and yes i do believe that mj had problems with pain killers other than in 93 and would have far preferred that to remain between him and his docs. I read about one intervention at neverland and one in new york (maybe in rebbie's depo?). Mj went to rehab in 02 so maybe that was a result of an intervention, idk.

I wonder why aeg felt the need to ask $300k from mj's estate to pay murray when he was nothng to do with the company and they had no contract with him. I'm sure they'll blame it on some accounting error.

 

[bouee]

. She contradicted herself saying she traveled with B group on History tour so did not see doctors around Michael but claimed Gongaware who traveled with B group during Dangerous tour would see and interact with Michael.

Not necessarily. From my ( little) experience with bands on tour : it's common to split people into different groups. But sometimes, for several reasons, two groups will have to stay in the same hotel. As far as I know, it's due to hotel availability at the time of booking , they might not find enough hotels that have enough availabilty to accommodate 3 big groups in 3 seperate hotels. 350 people is HUGE. I think it's possible that at times group A stayed at the same hotel as group B, or B&C, etc..

 

[serendipity]

What I think happened is they sent all docs to the Estate regarding production costs and at some point they have included Murray as part of production costs in their budget, so they sent it all to the Estate and like the lawyer said it was a mistake and the Estate obviously didn't pay that. Just me speculating here.

 

[Pimboli]

We already heard from the hairdresser, that she had to SOBER the poor fellow up with a bunch of bagels, so that he could get on stage and perform

oh, the power of a bagel .......

 

[bouee]

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A corporate lawyer for concert giant AEG Live LLC on Tuesday revised his testimony and said the tour director of Michael Jackson's ill-fated "This Is It" concerts had a signed contract.

AEG Live General Counsel Shawn Trell told jurors that he had forgotten that Kenny Ortega was working under a signed contract.

He told the panel on Monday that Ortega was working under an agreement reached through a series of emails, not a formalized contract.

Ortega's contract was not shown to jurors. The choreographer and director might testify later in the civil trial.

Trell testified as a witness for AEG Live and is considered the most knowledgeable person on numerous issues, including contracts and Jackson's health. He said he was reminded of Ortega's contract by AEG trial lawyers on Monday night.

Jackson's mother has sued AEG, claiming it was negligent in hiring Conrad Murray, the doctor who was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Jackson.

Katherine Jackson claims AEG failed to properly investigate Murray before hiring him to serve as her son's tour physician, and that the company missed or ignored red flags about the singer's health before his death.

AEG denies it hired Murray, or bears any responsibility for the singer's death.

Attorney Brian Panish, who represents Katherine Jackson, on Monday compared Ortega's emails to messages between the promoter and the singer's personal physician laying out how he would be compensated.

Trell has said the situations of Ortega and Conrad Murray were not similar, and the emails to Murray did not demonstrate an employment relationship — a key element of the case.

Trell was the second AEG executive to testify in the trial, which is entering its fourth week. AEG attorneys have yet to question him.

He also testified that the company obtained an insurance policy that covered the possible cancellation of some of the "This Is It" shows after a physician evaluated the singer.

Trell testified that five days before Jackson's death, top AEG executives were informed the singer was in poor health. By that point, Ortega had sent executives an email titled "Trouble at the front" detailing Jackson's problems.

"There are strong signs of paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive-like behavior," Ortega wrote to AEG Live CEO Randy Phillips. Jackson's symptoms were reminiscent of behavior that led to the cancellation of an HBO concert earlier in the decade. Ortega wrote.

___

Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/lawyer-revises-testimony-it-contract