Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Justthefacts]

I disagree nothing has shown they hired Murray or should have known what he was doing

 

[StellaJackson]

I disagree nothing has shown they hired Murray or should have known what he was doing

Well they did show a video of Randy Phillips in an interview with Sky tv saying they hired him but I guess the jury will have to decide what the truth is. I just mean they have been shown in a bad light in the way they spoke about Michael.

 

[ivy]

Well they did show a video of Randy Phillips in an interview with Sky tv saying they hired him but I guess the jury will have to decide what the truth is. I just mean they have been shown in a bad light in the way they spoke about Michael.

Trell had a good point today. As a CEO Phillips probably did not know the specifics. He and Gongaware wasn't involved in the contract phase. It was all Jorrie, Trell and Wooley.

The testimony so far in my opinion has been pretty damning for them.

well it should be damning for them because we are watching Jacksons present their case. We should see the final balance only after the defense presents their case.

 

[marebear]

I have to say that the email about calling Michael a freak and creepy threw me off. You knew from the leaked emails we saw before the trial that they were not kind to Michael with the way they spoke of him. I feel sad that Michael was excited and hopefully looking forward to the shows and yet people are calling him names like that. I know it's like a distraction but I can't help by being bothered by it.

 

[serendipity]

The Jacksons so far have shown them to be assholes, but who hired Murray is still murky IMO. But Jacksons are likely hoping if the jury thinks AEG are assholes they will rule in their favor.

 

[Aquarius]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 33m
Trell said Dr. Murray's expenses were included in the expenses DiLeo and Tohme approved.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 33m
Panish: You took the position, to satisfy the contract, that DiLeo and Tohme could sign after MJ was dead, yes or no?
Trell: Yes

I don't understand the statement. Does that mean Dileo & Tohme could sign docs after MJ died?

 

[ivy]

as Michael was dead, they asked Dileo and Tohme to approve the expenses before they send it to Estate.

I think the argument here is did AEG try to scam MJ Estate by sending them a high bill. AEG is denying that by saying they asked MJ's managers to approve the production costs -probably because they were there and aware that MJ gave oral approval for them

 

[Mechi]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 33m
Trell said Dr. Murray's expenses were included in the expenses DiLeo and Tohme approved.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 33m
Panish: You took the position, to satisfy the contract, that DiLeo and Tohme could sign after MJ was dead, yes or no?
Trell: Yes

I don't understand the statement. Does that mean Dileo & Tohme could sign docs after MJ died?

do not understand this either. I mean DiLeo okay... but they had the letter of Michaels reactivation of POA for Thome in May (the letter even was from April!)... so he can still give validity to whatever business after Michaels death in the end of june?????
In my business understanding he could/should have given every business stuff (papers, knowledge about agreement etc.) to DiLeo and DiLeo only could have acted in Michaels business stuff???
At least I'm suprised by this and would really love to hear some questions answered by Thome... then again would he tell the truth when it could be for his own disadvantage... well we'll see what will be presented.

 

[ivy]

let me remind this

Paris says within 2 days before his death Michael said to her Tohme was back on board because he had helped Michael with a house in Las Vegas.

 

[bouee]

It was tough to read today's testimony. I think I'll just take a break for a while, because this is too much.

Don't read what I've quoted below if you are on the sensitive side.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 28m
Email cont'd: He was able to do multiple 360 spins back in April. He'd fall on his ass if he tried it now."
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 28m
Email cont'd: I have watched him deteriorated in front of my eyes over the last 8 weeks.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 28m
Email cont'd: prepared to get on stage and then a trained to get him in physical shape... (Kobe's should be available)
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 29m
Email on 6/19/09 from John Hougdahl to Randy Phillips:
My laymen's degree tells me he needs a shrink to get him mentally
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 29m

BC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 16m
"Meaning MJ showed up whenever MJ wanted to," Trell opined.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 16m
"Timm Wooley's statement is inaccurate, in my opinion," Trell said, but agreed he never spoke with Wooley about it, never saw it before.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 17m
Email cont'd: Looks like there might have been an issue in KO either not being demanding enough.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 18m
Email cont'd: Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray are responsible for MJ rehearsal and attendance schedule.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 18m
Email on 6/23/09 from Timm Wooley to Bob Taylor (insurance broker):
Kenny Ortega has responsibility only for the show content and structure
Expand

So no one ever suspected Murray .....(except, maybe, Ortega). Murray even got a "promotion" after that june 19th thing, Murray became responsible for rehearsal attendance (talk about a conflict of interest !) , and Kenny was not "demanding" enough with Michael.

It's no longer a red flag, it's a huge red banner.

I know Murray is persuasive, but how is it possible not to suspect him at this stage ? These e mails are right before and after june 20th meeting, before Michael goes back to rehearsal on 23rd.

I'm upset, I think I'll come back later.

 

[HIStory]

What do you mean by 'don't even go there'? It was in response to greeneyedone posting she didn't like the emails and wondering how fans can support aeg. Perfectly valid point. No one was saying that this type of namecalling meant murray was hired, people were just criticising aeg's hurtful attitude towards aeg - is that not allowed? Every other person/media org/company gets called out on this forum for saying anything remotely negative about mj, but somehow aeg gets a pass and has people making excuses for them.

I don't get it either.

So far I think the Jacksons do have a pretty good case against AEG - and before the trial I didn't think that was the case.

 

[marc_vivien]

the trial is about hiring ans supervision. But the J lawyers talk a lot about others subjects. If the Jacksons have a good case, why offer two settlements ? They are hiding something

I don't think that the jurors liked the fact that Panish forgot the footnote about the Murray's expenses.

They present their doc, their witnesses & their questions. But it will be a different story when it will be AEG's turn.

 

[Soundmind]

my only hope after the jacksons take the stand the jury will be so disgusted by them and AEG that they would dictate in their verdict all money goes to the kids and Katherine is awarded nothing.That's the only justice in this case. AEG has to take responsibility for what they did . They were very much aware MJ was far from being OK. However, Randy , Rebbie and the rest of the Jackson gang don't deserve a penny. If they were in AEG's shoes they would have done the same, indeed they did the same in 2001. He had to preform regardless of his physical or mental state.

They thought Murray was a good doctor and decided he should be in control , then take responsibility for your decision.

 

[christy]

I hope Katherine Jackson and her cubs can sleep soundly at night.
As if labelling him "drug addict"is not enuff,
the whole world now knows Ted Fikre of AEG calls Michael a freak!
What's left of his legacy?
I forgot! they didn't care.
Oh $$$ money makes great theraphy!
It helps them sleep, it wipes out any form of
guilty conscience selling Michael down the river.. and all of these for what?
Predicated ONLY on WISH-FULL thinking, a probability of a pay day???
I too can dream.....
Madly SMDH....:wtf:

 

[sweet princess]

I have to say that the email about calling Michael a freak and creepy threw me off. You knew from the leaked emails we saw before the trial that they were not kind to Michael with the way they spoke of him. I feel sad that Michael was excited and hopefully looking forward to the shows and yet people are calling him names like that. I know it's like a distraction but I can't help by being bothered by it.

that comment made my blood boil errin:

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, Gerryevans, I agree to disagree. I cannot assume that Live Nation and All Good would behave badly to secure Michael just because AEG has but, I understand you feel differently. If it was true, what would be the purpose of the trial if every promoter/producer would negligently hire the doctor? It would make it a customary practice and AEG employees have already testified that hiring a doctor for an artist is not customary. As Panish said, AEG could have just advance Michael the monies for the doctor. Instead they decided to allegedly hire him and include him as a preproduction cost without a background check to their own peril.

Ivy, it is fine to disagree with me regarding settlements. The “truth” is already known to the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and whoever they shared that truth with. Only the public, including fans are learning the truth through this trial. Settlement requests in civil trials are INDEED customary in the United States. I agree with you that defendants mostly offer settlements. This situation however, is different.

By the plaintiffs’ lawyers offering a settlement, twice, the plaintiffs’ lawyers may be eligible for court cost and attorney fees from the defendants for unreasonable, stubborn rejections with a favorable verdict. This applies if the damages awarded are higher than the settlement amount by a certain percentage. To collect the court cost and attorney fees from the defendants (as well as damages), the plaintiffs must continue the trial through to verdict with no chance for the defendants to settle during the proceedings.

I personally have no idea why AEG is second to Live Nation. Will be interesting to see who continues to work with AEG. I thought it was interesting as well that Dileo and Thome were signing forms together, almost as a preventive measure. It does not make sense to me.

It seems Michael did not "sign" for 50 shows, only 31.

 

[bouee]

the trial is about hiring ans supervision. But the J lawyers talk a lot about others subjects. If the Jacksons have a good case, why offer two settlements ? They are hiding something

I don't understand the bolded part..??

I think they do stick to the subject :

hiring : they show that there's an employer / independent contractor reletionship, or at least that it was the same relationship as with the other people involved. Was AEG talking to Kai Chase or to the housekeepers, or even MAW ? I don't think it compares to the relationship they had with Murray. They ended up having the same relationship with Murray as with Ortega, for example. Today's testimony shows that they could have done things in another way (advance , instead of production cost) :


supervising : it's all the red flags the Jacksons show. Ok, they show too many, it's not always respectful to Michael sometimes, I agree they could do a better job at that. But thy DO show that AEG should have suspected Murray, and at the very least should not have got involved with him. But the opposite happened. The more red flags, the more they get involved with Murray.

edit : when they talk about the contract with Michael, accounting and lack of insurance, they explain AEG's mindset, the urgency , and how AEG came to make such bad decisions.

The only thing I would understand from AEG (though I'm not as sure now ), is if they plead "good faith" : if they say they were trying to help, relied on Murray, Murray lied to them. I'm not even sure it would fly, so that's another reason for them to keep Murray out of it, and put the blame 100% on Michael .

Re the settlement : I think the Jacksons don't care about justice, but they DO care about how they will look on the stand, because AEG is going after them. Too bad for the Jacksons, and not such a good move from AEG IMO, AEG wants to take the focus off themselves and Murray. i'm not sure what a jury will think of that. But I don't think they want to settle because they have a weak case, they want to settle because they're afraid of what's going to happen to them on the stand.

We'll see how AEG present their case, but so far , what has been presented of their cross, and even from their own witnesses (Travis Payne) is not good for them, IMO.

 

[Soundmind]

Re the settlement : I think the Jacksons don't care about justice, but they DO care about how they will look on the stand, because AEG is going after them. Too bad for the Jacksons, and not such a good move from AEG IMO, AEG wants to take the focus off themselves and Murray. i'm not sure what a jury will think of that. But I don't think they want to settle because they have a weak case, they want to settle because they're afraid of what's going to happen to them on the stand

There is no question a new offer for settlement will be sent to AEG before Randy takes the stand .

 

[bouee]

There is no question a new offer for settlement will be sent to AEG before Randy takes the stand .

Do AEG lawyers get to decide when they will take the stand , or is the witness order already decided ?
Do we know when the Jacksons are going to testify ?

Soundmind, AEG know that, they know what's in their depositions. All they need to do is to accept a settlement when /if AEG decide to settle.

Another question : after they testify, do the whole depositions become public, or only the relevant parts used during the trial ?

 

[Big Apple2]

Murray signed his contract the day before Jackson's June 25, 2009, death, but AEG executives and Jackson never put their signatures on it. Jackson lawyers, however, argue he had been already working for two months based on an oral contract. (Sentence from a CNN article, dated May 23, 2013.)

This needs to be explained, in my opinion.

Okay, here Panish is arguing that Murray was ALREADY WORKING for 2-months based on an oral contract. Well if that's true, why wasn't Murray being PAID based on that same oral contract. In my opinion, if, according to Mr. Panish, Murray was taking orders from AEG, he was doing what AEG wanted him to do, then why wasn't AEG paying him?

I also noticed from ivy's write up (thanks ivy), that Mr. Bearden's contract was still being negotiated when MJ died. Does anybody know if Bearden was being paid and/or advanced any payment while his contract was being negotiated?

 

[bouee]

Murray signed his contract the day before Jackson's June 25, 2009, death, but AEG executives and Jackson never put their signatures on it. Jackson lawyers, however, argue he had been already working for two months based on an oral contract. (Sentence from a CNN article, dated May 23, 2013.)

This needs to be explained, in my opinion.

Okay, here Panish is arguing that Murray was ALREADY WORKING for 2-months based on an oral contract. Well if that's true, why wasn't Murray being PAID based on that same oral contract. In my opinion, if, according to Mr. Panish, Murray was taking orders from AEG, he was doing what AEG wanted him to do, then why wasn't AEG paying him?

I also noticed from ivy's write up (thanks ivy), that Mr. Bearden's contract was still being negotiated when MJ died. Does anybody know if Bearden was being paid and/or advanced any payment while his contract was being negotiated?

The answer is in julie Hollander testimony : because the contract was not signed (executed) by everyone: Michael had not signed it, AEG were waiting for Michael's signature. Since the contract was not signed, they did not pay Murray.
The last draft of Murray's contract was done on june 24th

EDIT : she said that it was AEG's policy, they don't pay as long as the contract is not signed.

 

[Soundmind]

Would it have been ethical of AEG to go to Klien's office to talk to him about Mike? Would it have been acceptable of AEG to call Metzeger to talk about MJ's health ? It's neither ethical nor acceptable , most importantly it's illegal . The same thing apply to Murray , why were they talking to him and giving him instructions? From everything we know they trusted his words much more than they trusted MJ's , they gave him that impression . Blaming Klien and trusting Murray that was their decision , MJ did not force them to think so highly of Murray. The last emails say MJ was doing great in April , his health was going down for the last 8 weeks of his life , that was when Murray entered the picture. How come they did not think for one minute that guy has something to do with what's going on with MJ ?

Whether the contract was signed or not is a technicality issue.However, they were very much involved with Murray .He was killing him slowly , they watched and kept praising him while blaming and mocking MJ in their emails.

 

[Big Apple2]

The answer is in julie Hollander testimony : because the contract was not signed (executed) by everyone: Michael had not signed it, AEG were waiting for Michael's signature. Since the contract was not signed, they did not pay Murray.
The last draft of Murray's contract was done on june 24th

EDIT : she said that it was AEG's policy, they don't pay as long as the contract is not signed.

Yes, I realize that.

But according to Mr. Panish, an oral contract is the same as a written contract. That's how I interpret his words anyway. Where I come from WORKING means you are collecting a PAYCHECK, which Murray clearly was not collecting.

I believe in Paris' declaration, she mentions that Michael gave her some money to give to Murray, but Murray declined. Now I'm wonder if Michael ever gave money to Murray before or after the time period Paris is talking about. Maybe it will come up in testimony when Mr. Putnam presents his case.

My thing is, if Murray was so broke, who the heck was holding him down "financially" while he was tending to MJ?

 

[Aquarius]

do not understand this either. I mean DiLeo okay... but they had the letter of Michaels reactivation of POA for Thome in May (the letter even was from April!)... so he can still give validity to whatever business after Michaels death in the end of june?????
In my business understanding he could/should have given every business stuff (papers, knowledge about agreement etc.) to DiLeo and DiLeo only could have acted in Michaels business stuff???
At least I'm suprised by this and would really love to hear some questions answered by Thome... then again would he tell the truth when it could be for his own disadvantage... well we'll see what will be presented.

Tohme will never tell the truth, is not to his advantage. About Tohme approving the expenses, like Ivy said, it could be that he had the oral acceptance of Michael to approve the expenses, expenses incurred while Tohme was his mgr.

Now I think AEG talk to Conrad only to find out what was going with Michael, not because Conrad had to answer to them. Further I think AEG might have thought that Conrad was an ethical doc and they might have suspected that Klein was the one giving Michael certain meds. Remember Dileo called Murray asking to have some test done. I believe they trusted Conrad but that doesn't equal to hiring.

 

[Soundmind]

Has anyone so far presented an email in which they said they did not like Murray? they did not want Murray on board? They did not trust Murray ? NOPE on the contrary , Nothing but praises . They did trust him, they did want him on board, they did want to pay him , it was MJ who was holding back and did not sign the contract. They only said they did not want him on board after he became suspect in MJ's death. Their internal conversations said otherwise.

Now their defence mj was getting it before , mj was using propofol before , mj was going to die eventually, they shifted the blame from them and mainly from Murray to MJ .

The jurors will get to know that Ratner did not give MJ propofol without monitoring , no one gave MJ propofol without monitoring . It was not the fact that he was getting propofol that killed him , it was the environment Murray created that killed MJ, the benzos , the propofol, the lack of any kind of medical supervision, the standard of medical treatment MJ was receiving at Murray's hands was much less than the one received in the poorest places on this earth, something repeatedly told to jurors in Murray's trial . The standard of care provided by a doctor they praised repeatedly, went to whenever they thought MJ was not doing well, the standrd of care provided by a doctor they TRUSTED .

MJ chose him .However, due to the amount of benzos MJ was being injected with he was no longer in a position to figure out what was Murray doing to him.It was the others responsibility . They had a duty to protect him .

Frank Delio asked Murray of all people to do drug tests on MJ, all of them thought highly of Murray , they believed him and later they blamed Michael for trusting him, not only blamed him for trusting him they say now MJ with or without Murray would have died .

 

[Big Apple2]

Have anyone so far presented an email in which they said they did not like Murray? they did not want Murray on board? They did not trust Murray ? NOPE on the contrary , Nothing but praises . They did trust him, they did want him on board, they did want to pay him , it was MJ who was holding back and did not sign the contract. They only said they did not want him on board after he became suspect in MJ's death. Their internal conversations said otherwise.

The jurors will get to know that Ratner did not give MJ propofol without monitoring , no one gave MJ propofol without monitoring . It was not the fact that he was getting propofol that killed him , it was the environment Murray created that killed MJ, the benzos , the propofol, the lack of any kind of medical supervision, the standard of medical treatment MJ was receiving at Murray's hands was much less than the one received in the poorest places on this earth, something repeatedly told to jurors in Murray's trial . The standard of care provided by a doctor they praised repeatedly, went to whenever they thought MJ was not doing well, the standrd of care provided by a doctor they TRUSTED .

I don't think Mr. Panish will be showing any emails wherein anybody is speaking negatively of Murray. LOL! If there are any emails like that, they will most likely be shown during Mr. Putnman's presentation. I have a feeling that there will be some email exchanges which address the fact the Murray was asking for too much money. And that Michael could chose an ON CALL doctor in London instead of bringing Murray and his bag of tricks all the way from the United States to London for such a long period of time. Of course Mr. Panish won't address that, because it doesn't help his case.

As to the jurors getting to know "that Ratner did not give MJ propofol without monitoring, no one gave MJ propofol without monitoring." I personally don't think whether MJ was being monitored or not will be an issue for the jury. In my opinion, they will question WHY Michael was receiving propofol at all, unless he was having some type of surgery IN A HOSPITAL. In my opinion, some will think, if MJ had any issues with sleep, why didn't he seek attention from a Sleep Center, which specializes in such matters. For them it will be a case of "rich people ALWAYS being able to do stuff differently, because they can afford to do so."

DISCLAIMER: I don't know anything about Ratner's work with Michael. I also don't know anything about Michael using propofol for sleep in the past. IF that's even true. The only knowledge I have of Michael's propofol use is that of Murray giving it to him. Any others, I don't have a clue.

 

[Soundmind]

As to the jurors getting to know "that Ratner did not give MJ propofol without monitoring, no one gave MJ propofol without monitoring." I personally don't think whether MJ was being monitored or not will be an issue for the jury. In my opinion, they will question WHY Michael was receiving propofol at all, unless he was having some type of surgery IN A HOSPITAL. In my opinion, some will think, if MJ had any issues with sleep, why didn't he seek attention from a Sleep Center, which specializes in such matters. For them it will be a case of "rich people ALWAYS being able to do stuff differently, because they can afford to do so."

Thank God the jurors at Murray trial did not think that way, this trial like Murray's one is about responsibility . Whether AEG did have a responsibility or not.

 

[Big Apple2]

Thank God the jurors at Murray trial did not think that way, this trial like Murray's one is about responsibility . Whether AEG did have a responsibility or not.

I don't recall, did they discuss Michael receiving propofol from OTHER doctors during Murray's trial?

 

[ivy]

First of all let me remind you that it's law of the case that Murray was at most an independent contractor. I don't think supervising him is a possibility.

Secondly all of those emails are shown to argue "AEG knew or should have known" , yes there were some warnings but nothing that said Propofol. Most of the emails such as the latest one we heard from stage manager Houghdal / Bugsy said "he needs a shrink". It looks like most of the time they thought the problem was psychological. They weren't aware of drugs and this is shown by emails that said "I don't if it's psychological or chemical" or Branca asking "do we know substance involved" or Dileo saying to Murray "give him a test find out what he's taking". As AEG's lawyer asked Michael did not die from being thin or being paranoid.

Third I agree with Trell and Hom, and say that it's okay to ask a doctor in general terms. I have had experiences when coaches ask the doctors when the player can play, or at work place employers asking doctors when the person can come to work, what can they do, what are the limitations and so on, even the diagnosis. BUT don't and can't ask the details of the treatment. In other words I don't see any problems with asking and a doctor telling "she has hurt her ankle, can't play for 2 weeks" without any specifics. (My BF volunteers as a coach and he asks and is told such information). It's no different that insurance doctor saying "other than hay fever he passed with flying colors" and not provide any specifics. So I don't see why it would be a problem for Phillips to ask Murray "is he okay, can he perform?" and Murray replying "yes he can" or "no he needs time off". As long as they don't go into specifics and keep it at the bare minimum it should be okay.

Putnam said at opening statements that Prince will testify that Michael was giving Murray $100 bills

 

[Bubs]

^^They didn't, as the trial was about CM killing Michael, judge didn't allow all sort of nonsense to his court room.
If I remember correctly, the only way the question was allowed during CM trial when procecutor asked other expert witnesses would they had given propofol to their patient.
Judge P should take a leaf out of Partor's book, and keep it tight.