Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Tygger]

Just a reminder, at the end of the day: this is what is left to this trial:
Claim 2 - Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Training

AEG argues they did not hire Murray and could not foresee the risks Murray posed.

Judge states there are triable issues.

Judge states that even though the contract was not signed, a jury must decide if Murray and AEG had a oral or implied in fact contract. Communications, Murray's expenses being budgeted and so on is listed as evidence. Judge makes a note that Michael retaining services of Murray before AEG hired him could be a factor in determining proportional damages and liability.

AEG had argued that Murray was a licensed doctor and was not disciplined and Katherine argued they should have done a more detailed background check. Judge thinks this is a triable issue given that Gongaware had experience and knowledge about "tour doctors" and Michael's previous tours and "tour doctors".

Judge also thinks whether Murray's debt could have been a reason to foresee if such doctor under strong financial pressure may compromise his oath. This is another triable issue.

Thanks for reposting.

however there's not much new information in regards to negligent hiring

for example

AEG have said they have never did a background check on an independent contractor and they did not do a background check for anyone on TII - Jacksons did not show an explanation why Murray is an exemption.

yes people started working without a written contract but they did not got paid until it was signed.

murray's contract was a special contract (different than everyone else) that said "artists request" and needed Michael's signature. So it never got executed.

Murray's contract had an indemnity clause.

I disagree.

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 52m
Doc is used for employment, promotion, retention, contingent or the rate staffing, consulting, sub-contract work, or volunteer work.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 52m
Panish showed a document used by AEG entitled "Disclosure and Authorization to Conduct Background Check”

Trell said there was no background check on the doctor regardless of Phillips claim “we check everybody.” According to Trell, no independent contractor had a background check yet he could not explain the request for a background check on Tohme by Jorrie. Trell, the Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) for AEG, refused to define Tohme as an employee or independent contractor when he testified everyone working on the tour was either an employee or independent contractor. We do not know what testimony followed after Panish revealed AEG’s "Disclosure and Authorization to Conduct Background Check.”

I agree the other employees/independent contractors did not receive payment until their contracts were executed. Although Michael was to allegedly hire the doctor, the doctor’s contract was never submitted to Michael’s lawyer(s) or Michael for drafting or review. AEG went about creating this contract and included the indemnity clause to protect themselves against the doctor’s negligence IF the contract was executed. This would not be necessary if Michael solely hired the doctor himself.

As to independent contractors, Trell said the indemnity provision is always included in the agreements. Panish: That's because it's your job to protect the financial interested of the company, rights? Trell: It's part of my responsibility, yes

We know the contract was never executed. However, the jury will determine if the doctor was working under an implied contract. The indemnity clause will not be effective with an implied or oral contract.

If this trial has a favorable verdict, the plaintiffs’ lawyers may be eligible to receive their fee and court costs directly from AEG, not the plaintiffs’ damages or the estate. We shall see.

 

[ivy]

Trell said there was no background check on the doctor regardless of Phillips claim “we check everybody.”

He also said as a CEO Phillips probably is not aware of everything. He might have thought there was a background check being done.

This is normal in real business life. For example I buy stuff for work and then have the secretary fill a form and ask for reimbursement of the vendor from the people who arrange payments. I just buy, I have no idea how the process works, which form to fill, how and when the vendor is paid. When you work in an organization with multiple people, everyone does their own job and the others do not necessarily know what the other person does or does not do.

According to Trell, no independent contractor had a background check yet he could not explain the request for a background check on Tohme by Jorrie.

My understanding is that Jorrie was having doubts if Tohme was actually Michael's manager and she wanted that to be checked. Her doubts does not seem to be an issue of a regular background check but it is more likely to be an issue of "is this person really who they say they are" and Trell said no background check was done on Tohme.

Although Michael was to allegedly hire the doctor, the doctor’s contract was never submitted to Michael’s lawyer(s) or Michael for drafting or review.

From business wise not that odd. Again in my own work there are tasks that are done by a team of small number of people. This team will do the work, multiple drafts and the rest of the management will only see the final version and approve it as it is or with minor changes. So if the argument was AEG helping Michael with the contract of Murray, he would be shown the final version, read and sign it or ask for changes if he's not happy with it.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I’m not against your reasoning but, we must see how the jury views it.

Will the jury be suspicious that Phillips and Jorrie were not aware of AEG’s policy regarding background checks on independent contractors as Trell portrayed it? AEG’s "Disclosure and Authorization to Conduct Background Check” has been admitted into evidence and the jurors will be able to see if AEG truly does not do background checks on independent contractors as Trell testified.

It is odd that AEG created a contract for a person who should have been Michael’s employee without having Michael or his lawyers review it before handing it to the employee to sign. It also did not need to include a clause to safeguard AEG if the person was hired by Michael.

 

[Petrarose]

every business starts with CONTRACT and lawsuit arises from breach fo that contract. Putting aside how AEG called MJ or what was their intention, I don't see here wrong doing by AEG for wrongful death case, not even breach of contract. Attorney Panish Shea simply making money out of cleint Katherine Jackson. They filed wrongful death lawsuit but all is happening on trial is interpretation of contract AEG had with Michael/Murray and same details of MJ's death that was already discussed on Murray's trial.
So, are they trying to establish/prove breach of contract or tort-two different wings of law? I doubt if Panish knows what he is doing.

I agree with parts of this too. I see most of the evidence showing what nasty human being some AEG staff are. At least their e-mails show that. I expect AEG will put some of these e-mails into context when they put on their side. As Bina showed by her cross of Treel, thinness, etc., did not cause Michael's death & in no e-mail so far did any evidence show that AEG told Muarry to give Michael drugs.

I don't understand why Katherine cried when she heard the evidence about his Michael's condition, when she saw him before he died, looking the same way, and did not cry then. In fact, after he died she is on record saying that she saw him and he was fine. Why now his condition is a crying matter? I wonder what impact this crying will have on the jury, if any?

 

[serendipity]

I agree with parts of this too. I see most of the evidence showing what nasty human being some AEG staff are. At least their e-mails show that. I expect AEG will put some of these e-mails into context when they put on their side. As Bina showed by her cross of Treel, thinness, etc., did not cause Michael's death & in no e-mail so far did any evidence show that AEG told Muarry to give Michael drugs.

I don't understand why Katherine cried when she heard the evidence about his Michael's condition, when she saw him before he died, looking the same way, and did not cry then. In fact, after he died she is on record saying that she saw him and he was fine. Why now his condition is a crying matter? I wonder what impact this crying will have on the jury, if any?

I agree. It's odd how she saw him 11 days before he died and said she didn't notice anything wrong, but now is crying and saying others should have noticed something.

I do wonder if she said the same in her deposition or did she change her story. Wouldn't surprise me if she has forgotten about that interview and said something different. ..

 

[ivy]

Ivy, I’m not against your reasoning but, we must see how the jury views it.

well that's true for everything including your reasoning as well

 

[AliCat]

Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware both had worked with Michael Jackson since at least the early 1990's. In the working relationships that Paul Gongaware and Michael Jackson professionally worked together, it was always respectful. The same with Randy Phillips when he worked with Michael Jackson on the LA Gear Campaign. To say now that both Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware weren't that way with Michael Jackson previously, in a professional capacity, there probably would not have been any Shows at the 02 Arena for Michael Jackson's "This Is It."

September 24, 1989

L.A. Gear's $20-Million Poster Boy

One morning, Michael Jackson awoke and decided he was tired of wearing his black loafers.

That's the real story behind the eccentric pop superstar's $20 million contract with L.A. Gear, which is being billed as the largest corporate endorsement deal in show biz history.

So far, media coverage has focused on Jackson's bizarre behavior at last week's press conference ("Protect me," he whispered to a top L.A. Gear exec. "Don't let them ask me any questions."), the fog 'n flood-light filled conference's price tag ($50,000) and Jackson's creative input into his new shoe (he'll help design the "Unstoppable" line of footwear).

But Jackson's L.A. Gear signing isn't a typical bottom-line corporate endorsement, said Randy Phillips, a prominent rock manager who served as one of the deal's key middlemen. The ball started rolling when RockBill's Jay Coleman got a phone call from Jackson's attorney, John Branca. Since RockBill is the industry's top corporate-sponsorship brokerage firm, this was no ordinary phone call.

"John said that Michael was thinking of wearing sneakers instead of his black loafers when he made his new videos for his upcoming greatest-hits album," said Phillips, who co-manages Rod Stewart and the Bangles. "It was obvious that the switch to sneakers was a pretty radical image change for Michael. So I told Jay not to go anywhere till I had a chance to talk to (L.A. Gear chairman) Robert Greenberg, who's a good friend."

Though L.A. Gear is one of America's fast-growing companies (its sales are expected to top $1 billion this year) it had been eager to establish a corporate link with a brand-name pop superstar as a weapon in its high-stakes battle with athletic-shoe rivals Nike and Reebok. With Jackson suddenly available, L.A. Gear sprang into action, sending Phillips and L.A. Gear exec Sandy Saemann to meet with Jackson while he was recording one of the three new songs that will appear on his hits collection.

"The L.A. Gear guys were desperate to get involved, no matter what the cost, with someone of Michael's stature," said Phillips, who said he received a "healthy" pre-negotiated fee for his role in the deal. "We spent two hours with him in the studio, showing him L.A. Gear ads and telling him about the shoe business. He was the opposite of what I expected--he was very warm and conversational, and asked very sharp questions about marketing and promotion."

After financial agreements were made, Jackson was also granted unprecedented involvement in the design of his L.A. Gear products. "He's really into it--he's going to be at the factory, with his sleeves rolled up, working on everything," says Phillips.

So why is the Gloved One, who after all, is being hired as a corporate spokesman, so shy about meeting the press that he fled the mike after mumbling for 10 seconds? "Michael may have only said two sentences, but he spoke more at our press conference than he did at Pepsi's press conference--or when he visited the White House, for that matter," said Phillips. "What's important is that he's enthusiastic about the product. He came to the press conference \o7 wearing \f7 L.A. Gear's hottest shoes. You didn't see him ever drinking a Pepsi at their press conference."


Still, Jackson has complete freedom from any corporate interference in his work. When Pepsi came under fire from religious groups over Madonna's controversial video this spring, it backed out of its endorsement deal with the pop starlet. That won't happen with Jackson. "L.A. Gear has nothing to say about the songs or videos he makes," Phillips says. "We're prepared to live with anything he does."

Unlike Pepsi, which debuted its Madonna ad before her new single came out, L.A. Gear has no plans to release any Jackson commercials before his hits collection, which isn't due till spring of next year--at the earliest. "We're not going to scoop his album," Phillips says. "The spots we use, which will probably feature segments of his new songs and clips from his videos, will not air till after the album is released."

The bottom line remains: is an oddball pop star who has sworn off concert touring and who's creative peak may be at least five years behind him really worth the $20 million?

"Absolutely," insists Phillips. "L.A. Gear's stock has gone up almost 10 points since the day before the press conference. (On Wednesday, the firm's stock was at 73, up from 64 the day before the Jackson announcement) And you have to give Michael Jackson credit for a huge part of that swing. We think he's going to make a big difference."
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-24/entertainment/ca-218_1_press-conference

 

[bouee]

It is odd that AEG created a contract for a person who should have been Michael’s employee without having Michael or his lawyers review it before handing it to the employee to sign. It also did not need to include a clause to safeguard AEG if the person was hired by Michael.

this can maybe explain a part of it :


from this post :
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...mony-Summary?p=3827792&viewfull=1#post3827792

Email on 6/2/09 from Randy Phillips to Jeff Wald: "Jeff, remember getting MJ to focus is not the easiest thing in the world and we still have no lawyer, business manager, or, even real manager in place. It is a nightmare!" (ABC7)

I'm not sure they meant to show it to Michael, or his lawyers when he had one at the end, during the negociations with Murray. But Michael would have had to to see it to sign it, he could have asked his people at the time to review the contract for him. I don't see the point Panish is trying to make.

I think AEG made a mistake, maybe an honest mistake, as they took a regular independeant contractor contract, changed a few things to adapt it to Murray's situation. To me it shows they understood the situation was unusual, but they didn't go far enough: they should have given an advance to Michael, and let him deal with his doctor, the way he did with Kai Chase, housekeeping, etc..

______

I agree. It's odd how she saw him 11 days before he died and said she didn't notice anything wrong, but now is crying and saying others should have noticed something.

I do wonder if she said the same in her deposition or did she change her story. Wouldn't surprise me if she has forgotten about that interview and said something different. ..

I don't understand why Katherine cried when she heard the evidence about his Michael's condition, when she saw him before he died, looking the same way, and did not cry then. In fact, after he died she is on record saying that she saw him and he was fine. Why now his condition is a crying matter? I wonder what impact this crying will have on the jury, if any?

For once, I'll defend Katherine on this :

11 days before was on 14th june, it's right before /almost the same time as things became really obvious. Until that time, it was Michael getting thinner, being slow, etc things that would be seen by professionals (dancers for ex) or people who would see him everyday, not necessarily by others.
Among those "other people" , some people probably noticed, others didn't, it would be a question of personnal perception.

I don't doubt that Katherine loved Michael, and still does. As many people here, I don't like the way she's been treating him and the kids, but I wouldn't doubt her feelings.

Sometimes , even if you know the situation, one detail will paint the situation too vividly , and you will react strongly.
I can understand, because that's what happened to me when I read Hougdahl's e mail, about the 360° spins. This particular detail + specifically saying it had been going on for 8 weeks- ecaxtly when Murray started- made me go crazy : how is it possible that Phillips never came to suspect Murray ? How could he be convinced it was only pyschological ?

 

[Tygger]

well that's true for everything including your reasoning as well

Ivy, agreed but, I would like the jurors to side with my reasoning. laughs

Bouee, yes, Phillips thought Michael was scattered somewhat (we see there are reasons for that) but, he could not have thought his lawyers were scattered as well? Here's an example of what Panish is saying:

Let us say, I am to be your employee. Ivy drafts the contract which includes a clause to protect herself and you and then, gives it to me to sign. I give you this signed contract and ask for your signature.

Would your first reaction be: what is this?

You have never seen it before and neither have your lawyers but, I have already signed it and it will protect you and Ivy who I am not working for. Why would Ivy need to protect herself if I am working for you?

 

[bouee]

^^ Tygger, yes it is weird. I think Michael didn't see other independent contractor's contracts, so that one being a special one, unusual, was not dealt with correctly. Michael didn't have a lawyer during some of the negociation with Murray, which probably didn't help. What I meant is that I don't think it is important, because including Michael's signature, which was not on other contracts, showed that AEG made sure Michael would see and review the contract anyway.

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, Michael did not have a lawyer?

I think it would have served AEG better to have Michael (and his lawyers) review, approve, and sign the document before the doctor ever saw it. Michael also should have handed it to the doctor, not AEG.

The doctor should have been the last signature needed. Also, there should not have been any reference to AEG in the contract if the doctor was to work solely for Michael.

I truly do not understand many of the actions of AEG.

 

[bouee]

Bouee, Michael did not have a lawyer?

I think it would have served AEG better to have Michael (and his lawyers) review, approve, and sign the document before the doctor ever saw it. Michael also should have handed it to the doctor, not AEG.

The doctor should have been the last signature needed. Also, there should not have been any reference to AEG in the contract if the doctor was to work solely for Michael.

I truly do not understand many of the actions of AEG.

I'm not sure about did he have a lawyer or not, but it sounds like for some time , AEG didn't know who to turn to.

 

[Petrarose]

Bouee then how come Joe claims that Michael was not looking well & he told Katherine? If you say when she saw him he looked good, then shouldn't Joe find him looking well too? Something is not adding up.

I don't doubt her love for her son and her sad feelings of her son's loss either. However, hearing about the drug addiction should make you cry too & a few other things which brought no tears from her eyes. This has been about 14 days of trial and sitting in there hearing all this did not make her cry a little in court every day? What was it about that particular day that drove her to tears? Then, Panish claims to the reporters that she did not know about these things. How could this be if Randy claimed that there were worse e-mails. This shows that Randy knows the evidence & he is not a "party" to the suite. In fact, Panish stressed that non of the siblings were part of the suite, so how come Randy knows & Katherine does not? Isn't this fishy? Lawyers usually sit you down & generally go over the documents and facts they are going to show, to prepare you. I am not forgetting that when Michael died she claimed how well he was & once she filed the suite she claimed how shakey, disorientated, etc., he was, so your comment about her not knowing I cannot accept. She knew. We have her statements & discussed all this while it was going on in the appropriate threads in 2010.

Let's see if AEG uses all the contradictory statements that family members made when they cross-examine them.

I guess people were told AEG would settle, so they did not prepare themselves for what a trial would really do to their energy, emotions, & credibility.

 

[bouee]

Bouee then how come Joe claims that Michael was not looking well & he told Katherine? If you say when she saw him he looked good, then shouldn't Joe find him looking well too? Something is not adding up.

true, or maybe Joe had this perception, Katherine had not, or it didn't worry her at the time, etc... honestly I think the truly weird stuff appeared in the last 10 days.
Before that, at least so far, it's a question of perception, or people who saw him every day, who could come up with facts (like travis saying he was lossing weight : it's normal Travis would see that since he was observing Michael very regularly), Depending upon how Michael was dressed, Katherine might not have noticed it, or might have noticed but was not worried. We'll see what she says.

In other words, it's what I understand from everybody's testimonies so far : you have a a variety of opinions about Michael's health, generally saying he was either not improving, or more or less slowly spiraling down, until the the very last week /10 days , when everybody describes exactly the same facts/ symptoms, and you can see that everybody's reaction, except Travis so far, is more or less the same : they all see it, they all worry- except again, Travis, who said he thought it was a flu.

Given what Ortega wrote saying it reminded him of what him, Karen, and Travis saw before the HBO collapse, I'm a little surprised at that aspect of Travis' testimony. He must have thought about it. Maybe it was not repeorted correctly, and I find it suprising that Panish didn't ask Karen about that either. It would have been more useful than her telling all the details about LMP filing for divorce.

 

[Diplomate]

I don't understand why Katherine cried when she heard the evidence about his Michael's condition, when she saw him before he died, looking the same way, and did not cry then. In fact, after he died she is on record saying that she saw him and he was fine. Why now his condition is a crying matter? I wonder what impact this crying will have on the jury, if any?

She gonna regret these fake tears I think when she will testify and AEG wil be very happy to ask some questions to her about the AllGood concert , when she was pressuring her son, who according to HER, was a drug addict, lost and not ready at all to do the TII concerts.

So Mike was not good for TII, but was in great shape to do the concert with his siblings, between the break of the TII concerts, and was ready as well, according to Jermaine do do several concerts with his siblings after TII....

Oh we gonna laugh when the Jacksons will testify, I think AEG's lawyers gonna be in heaven with their questions, and I can't wait to see that.

 

[bouee]

I am not forgetting that when Michael died she claimed how well he was & once she filed the suite she claimed how shakey, disorientated, etc., he was, so your comment about her not knowing I cannot accept. She knew. We have her statements & discussed all this while it was going on in the appropriate threads in 2010.

Let's see if AEG uses all the contradictory statements that family members made when they cross-examine them.

I guess people were told AEG would settle, so they did not prepare themselves for what a trial would really do to their energy, emotions, & credibility.

I have just seen you edited your post.

Maybe she knew, I don't know. All I'm saying is that it is not contradictory SO FAR . Saying in 2009 Michael was well, and saying in 2010 he was disoriented, if it was after people told her stuff for example , is not contradictory, except if she said she personnally witnessed that disorientation.

You don't like her, I don't like her eitther, I've said that many times. But I try to stay as open as possible.

 

[Petrarose]

Bouee it is not that I don't like Katherine, but I don't like her behavior in relation to Michael's money vs his "humaness." To me his "humaness' incorporates several things including his right to privacy, his right to be loved, his right to have control of his money, his right to make his own decisions regardless of making mistakes, his right to take control of his own destiny, his right to rest in peace and I could go on. The behaviors I do not like in Katherine are the ones that constantly interferes with those rights I listed & more. I like Katherine the human, but I separate Katherine from specific behaviors. I don't want to see her abused, taken advantage of, hurt, in pain, etc., in the same way I would not want any harm directed to another human & myself.

You do not see anything contradictory & want to think that she only changed her story because of what people told her, then that's OK. We will see what happens later.

All I see is some woman filed a case and claimed certain things. Her attorney's are presenting HER case. Now if she says that this is not her case but her children's, then I will apologize. In order to get billions for Michael's death you expose all this about Michael 's last days, showing him when he was in his lowest moment? I have said it before, & I will continue saying that 2 people of they own free will caused Michael to die. One is in jail and the other has passed on. Sure AEG wanted to make money, are ruthless, and despicable people, but I am not going to use that as evidence that they told Muarry to do what he did with Michael. This case if won, would be due to a technicality, which is negligent hiring, & I am still waiting for more evidence of this hiring part.

 

[bouee]

Bouee it is not that I don't like Katherine, but I don't like her behavior in relation to Michael's money vs his "humaness." To me his "humaness' incorporates several things including his right to privacy, his right to be loved, his right to have control of his money, his right to make his own decisions regardless of making mistakes, his right to take control of his own destiny, his right to rest in peace and I could go on. The behaviors I do not like in Katherine are the ones that constantly interferes with those rights I listed & more. I like Katherine the human, but I separate Katherine from specific behaviors. I don't want to see her abused, taken advantage of, hurt, in pain, etc., in the same way I would not want any harm directed to another human & myself.

You do not see anything contradiction & want to think that she only changed her story because of what people told her, then that's OK. We will see what happens later.

We agree on that.

I understand why a lot of people don't like some of the Jacksons, I share that feeling. What I've seen so far from this trial tells me that AEG has their share of responsability as well, maybe as much as some Jacksons do, and personnally, I just can't ignore that.

I can't say my opinion won't change, we'll see , but so far I think that some of the points that have been brought up are very troubling.

 

[Petrarose]

^^Bouee OK. What is the responsibility that you see AEG shares & tell me what the responsibility is in relation to, i.e., Michael's death or what.

 

[bouee]

^^Bouee OK. What is the responsibility that you see AEG shares & tell me what the responsibility is in relation to, i.e., Michael's death or what.

i've said it in earlier posts :

1- Hiring Murray instead of getting Michael a cash adavance, leading them to have a contractual relationship with Murray. Murray should have been considered a personnal employee, not a tour employee/independent contractor. That created an unhealthy relationship with Murray.
2-Losing control of the costs, situation that led them to a certain urgency, and misjudge the situation, put them in position to put pressure on Michael.
3- Getting way too involved with Murray and eventually supporting him in spite of signs that point to Murray's responsability in Michael's health problems. The signs became too obvious in the end, and I think that's why they don't want to point to Murray's responsibility now that they are on trial.

Again, I would understand if their defense was to blame Murray, saying we only wanted to help, and trusted the doctor. But their verdict forms, opening statement, and what we know of their cross make me think they are going to put the blame 95% on Michael, 5% on the Jacksons.

For me, Murray is THE most responsible one, if you can say that. So that doesn't make AEG directly responsible for Michael's death. But they had enough info to at the very least, get away from him and not support him.

AEG chose to interfere with Michael's health problems, which , by itself is OK with me. But instead of playing "amateur psychiatrist or physician" as Phillips himself put it, then if they wanted to interfere, they should have brought in a second doctor or healthcare professionals. Instead they at first, chose to go along with the tough love thing - we'll see who got that bright idea, I'm still suspecting Murray- , and when Michael's health got worse, they (at least Phillips), still chose to continue to support Murray.
Instead of threatening to pull the plug on Michael, they could have pulled the plug on Murray. I believe they had enough info at least on the 19th/20th June to do that : Murray's contract was still not definite, and as I said, the info they had was clear enough to suspect Murray. For example that e mail from Mr Hougdahl is very telling and precise, several things Ortega was saying point in this direction too (when he is wondering if Michael is getting all the help he needs - how come this question comes from the director, when there has been a doctor with Michael full time for 6 weeks).

Now, i'm not saying it would have changed anything as there was very little time left. But at least they would have tried something, and speaking strictly from AEG's point of view, their responsability could not be questionned now.

 

[qbee]

I agree somewhat until you get to what AEG should have done
AEG had no rights to bring in a second DR. We know MJ would have rejected that anyway. MJ's personal physician was his choice alone. No one could make the choice for him. Plus It's evident by the documented communication they didn't suspect Murray they suspected outside forces. Even Frank (because he was closest to MJ ) emails Murray asking him to do blood work to make sure.

 

[serendipity]

I don't think they suspected Murray at all it seems. They thought it was possibly Klein and there's even info that Phillips told MJ not to visit Klein anymore, but MJ still continued. So I think if they realized it was Murray they wouldn't have had a problem either telling MJ to drop him or pulling the plug on him like you said.

 

[bouee]

I agree somewhat until you get to what AEG should have done
AEG had no rights to bring in a second DR. MJ's personal physician was his choice alone. No one could make the choice for him. Plus It's evident by the documented communication they didn't suspect Murray they suspected outside forces.

i agree with this, then in this case , they should not have gotten involved with Murray at all. they had no right to get involved at all, in theory.
Maybe I wasn't clear , but the easiest option for AEG was to let Michael deal with the dr himself, and not get involved. In that case there would have been no meeting with Murray, no phone calls between Phillips and Murray ending in "Murray was great again, ", no one would have asked Murray to come to rehearsals, no one would have "reminded him who's paying his salary", etc

Reality is probably Murray himself told them Michael was being lazy/ had unjustified stage fright, and led them to do an "intervention", according to the 17th june e mail. Which is what AEG wanted to hear , given the financial situation, so they probably welcomed the news. It was better to hear that than hear that Michael had a real physical problem, so I can understand it so far. Murray would never have admitted he was doing anything wrong, so from his point of view, Michael was in great health. Of course he was lying, but AEG couldn't know at that point.
So, from a basic human point of view, I can understand it up to that point. I'll assume AEG were trying to help, and believed the doctor, and at that point, they did not have info that would lead them to suspect Murray.

Once they were involved with Murray and did this , the so far supposed intervention, used the tough love therapy, Michael kept getting worse, and there was june 19th. They had enough info with those june 19th/20th e mails to connect the dots, and suspect Murray . So they have 2 options from that point :

1) stay out of it, ie don't send another contract to Murray, and tell Michael that if he wants to go on with Murray, he'll have to do it with his own money, even if it meant a cash advance.

2) stay involved - again, from a basic human point of view, I think that would have scared the hell out of me, and that's what I would have done, just to be on the safe side- impose a a second doctor/ other healthcare professionals. A normal doctor would welcome the help.

How can you believe when you read Ortega's e mail about Michael having the chills again, ortega describing a continuing weakened state , wondering if Michael eats enough (there are ways to feed someone who has a low appetite, obviously muray did not give sh*t about that) after 6 weeks of full time personnal care, or when you read Mr Hougdahl's mail saying Michael had been deterioating for the past 8 weeks , that it is only mental ? I know I would like to be sure. Especially if you have asked the doctor to come to rehearsals and he doesn't, and when you hear that Kenny tried to reach him before sending Michael home, but couldn't and got scolded instead.

So for me, it's both Murray's inefficiency AND behavior that should have raised questions.

The big problem for me, is continuing to support Murray after this. As far as we know now, it's only Phillips.

 

[qbee]

Yes. I see what you are saying. kenny was concerned by all the symptoms .. and how could his DR be letting this go on ?? I think the meeting with MJ and Murray was 2 fold to inquire about his health and warn that things better get better if they want the show to continue. They may have has some concern or suspicion , but couldn't prove it or know it for sure.

In hindsight, Im sure they wish they didnt get involved with helping MJ hire Murray but in the beginning I feel they were just tryingto accomadate Michaels needs , in stating he needs his personal physician. They were trying to help by advancing form his profits so MJ could bring his DR with him. at that time MJ had no way to pay his salary... we can all state what they should have done now .. but at the time I'm sure they didn't even fathom what would or could happen. Its a very hard, sad lesson for all concerned.. IMO

 

[bouee]

Yes. I see what you are saying. kenny was concerned by all the symptoms .. and how could his DR be letting this go on ?? I think the meeting with MJ and Murray was 2 fold to inquire about his health and warn that things better get better if they want the show to continue. They may have has some concern or suspicion , but couldn't prove it or know it for sure.

In hindsight, Im sure they wish they didnt get involved with helping MJ hire Murray but in the beginning I feel they were just tryingto accomadate Michaels needs , in stating he needs his personal physician. They were trying to help by advancing form his profits so MJ could bring his DR with him. at that time MJ had no way to pay his salary... we can all state what they should have done now .. but at the time I'm sure they didn't even fathom what would or could happen. Its a very hard, sad lesson for all concerned.. IMO

I agree, but as Phillips said "it's critical not to become amateur physician /psychiatrist" . They need to take responsability for that.

I would be ready to accept it, if they said "we believed Murray, the situation was confusing, Michael was seeing other Drs, etc.." , but as long as they don't change the verdict forms to include Murray, stick to the 'Michael didn't die because he was thin" "or we couldn't guess it was propofol" kind of arguments, I think it's hopeless. This line of defense is weak IMO.

 

[bouee]

Kenny's email from CM's trial :

I'll update the post I made with all the emails.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ct-announced?p=3495236&viewfull=1#post3495236

Text of the email

Randy

I will do whatever I can to be of help with this situation. If you need me to come to the house, just give me a call in the morning. My concern is now that we've brought the doctor into the fold and have played the tough love, now or never card is that the artist may be unable to rise to the occasion due to real emotional stuff. He appeared quite weak and fatigued this evening. He had a terrible case of the chills, was trembling, rambling and obsessing. Everything in me says he should be psychologically evaluated. If we have any chance at all to get him back in the light. It's going to take a strong therapist to help him through this as well as immediate physical nurturing. I was told by our chereographer that during the artists costume fitting with his designer tonight they noticed he's lost more weight. As far as i can tell there is no one taking care responsibility (caring for) for him on a daily basis. Where was his assistant tonight? Tonight I was feeding him, wrapping him in blankets to warm his chills, massaging his feet to calm him and calling his doctor. There were four security guards outside his door, but no one offering him a cup of hot tea. Finally it's important for everyone to know , I believe that he really wants this. I twould shatter him, Break his heart if we pulled the plug. He's terribly frightened it's all going to go away. He asked me repeatedly tonight if i was going to leave him. H e was practically begging for my confidence. It broke my heart. H e was like a lost boy. There still may be a chance he can rise to the occasion if we get him the help he needs

Sincerely,
Kenny

 

[CherubimII]

AEG is a corporation, and; thus, like many other corporations it does not respect or care for its workers;
even when the worker is Michael Jackson.

 

[ivy]

Here's an example of what Panish is saying:

Let us say, I am to be your employee. Ivy drafts the contract which includes a clause to protect herself and you and then, gives it to me to sign. I give you this signed contract and ask for your signature.

Would your first reaction be: what is this?

You have never seen it before and neither have your lawyers but, I have already signed it and it will protect you and Ivy who I am not working for. Why would Ivy need to protect herself if I am working for you?

Well in United States people are sue happy and sues for anything. So any business would want to protect themselves even if it is a very minor chance. So I'm not surprised to see a blanket indemnity clause on any contract especially given that no one denies that AEG was the middleman and advanced the money (even according to AEG's version of events).

I could give you examples of not really needed release forms in regards to liability but they are still pretty much in use. For example years ago my BF got his wisdom teeth removed and they got him to sign a release form that says no one can sue if anything happened. I was not happy with this form and I asked and searched around. There was nothing in regards to anesthesia reported and the most side effect was nerve damage during operation which apparently to the reports was minimal. So this was a very routine and 99% safe thing to do and the dentist did have medical malpractice insurance - hence they were protected. From my point of view it was a totally unneeded release form to sign. So when asked why they wanted for the release form to be signed their answer as simple, a 1 second signature would save them the months / years of headache if one person sues them - even frivolous.

So AEG was very much aware that they were the middleman and they would be paying the money if everyone signed it (as they said in their opening statements), so I'm not that surprised to see them say & do "let's put a clause there that protects us"

Bouee, Michael did not have a lawyer?

I think it would have served AEG better to have Michael (and his lawyers) review, approve, and sign the document before the doctor ever saw it. Michael also should have handed it to the doctor, not AEG.

The doctor should have been the last signature needed. Also, there should not have been any reference to AEG in the contract if the doctor was to work solely for Michael.

I truly do not understand many of the actions of AEG.

While the order you said makes sense, the other way around works as well. the contract needed Michael's signature and assuming that he would not sign without reading he could have made changes or refuse to sign it.

Let me give Leonard Rowe contract as an example. It's safe to assume that this letter was arranged by Rowe and Joe and Michael was asked to sign it, you can see that he made changes before signing it.

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/1029_jackson.pdf

In other words, it's what I understand from everybody's testimonies so far : you have a a variety of opinions about Michael's health, generally saying he was either not improving, or more or less slowly spiraling down, until the the very last week /10 days , when everybody describes exactly the same facts/ symptoms, and you can see that everybody's reaction, except Travis so far, is more or less the same : they all see it, they all worry- except again, Travis, who said he thought it was a flu.

The thing is you have a bunch of lay person who is not qualified to diagnose an illness. Even a doctor might not be aware to understand what is going on given that there's no known info about long term effects of Propofol + given in a incorrect way.

Everyone had different levels of access and everyone had different perceptions which are not necessarily true or false. For example Karen said Michael had dry skin and she said this showed dehydration but we know that Murray was giving Michael saline and he had high amounts of urine. In my lay person knowledge that doesn't show dehydration. To be clear I'm not trying to diagnose anything here, the point is everyone has their own perceptions and they could be wrong or correct.

1- Hiring Murray instead of getting Michael a cash adavance, leading them to have a contractual relationship with Murray. Murray should have been considered a personnal employee, not a tour employee/independent contractor. That created an unhealthy relationship with Murray.
2-Losing control of the costs, situation that led them to a certain urgency, and misjudge the situation, put them in position to put pressure on Michael.
3- Getting way too involved with Murray and eventually supporting him in spite of signs that point to Murray's responsability in Michael's health problems. The signs became too obvious in the end, and I think that's why they don't want to point to Murray's responsibility now that they are on trial.

I'll address item 1 later but as for item 2, the emails I read they did not seem to worried about the costs. they were aware of the $30 Million expenses and they were saying this is not an amount we should hide from. Money is subjective, while no one wants a loss, it might not be as significant as some makes it to be.

During the possible sale they estimated AEG Inc's revenues to be around $2 billion. Live Nation in the first half of 2010 had $80 Million loss in their concert business. Anyway to cut it short , based on the income capacity $30 Million might not be a significant amount for AEG.

I agree somewhat until you get to what AEG should have done
AEG had no rights to bring in a second DR. We know MJ would have rejected that anyway. MJ's personal physician was his choice alone. No one could make the choice for him. Plus It's evident by the documented communication they didn't suspect Murray they suspected outside forces. Even Frank (because he was closest to MJ ) emails Murray asking him to do blood work to make sure.

I don't think they suspected Murray at all it seems. They thought it was possibly Klein and there's even info that Phillips told MJ not to visit Klein anymore, but MJ still continued. So I think if they realized it was Murray they wouldn't have had a problem either telling MJ to drop him or pulling the plug on him like you said.

I agree with this. I don't think they suspected Murray. They suspected Klein. That's what Dileo's phone message to Murray showed us. If they suspected Murray they wouldn't be asking him to do a blood test.

i agree with this, then in this case , they should not have gotten involved with Murray at all. they had no right to get involved at all, in theory.
Maybe I wasn't clear , but the easiest option for AEG was to let Michael deal with the dr himself, and not get involved. In that case there would have been no meeting with Murray, no phone calls between Phillips and Murray ending in "Murray was great again, ", no one would have asked Murray to come to rehearsals, no one would have "reminded him who's paying his salary", etc

see you are right. The best way for AEG to handle this would be to say to Michael "Here's $30 Million for the tour, use it anyway you want for the tour prep and we will see you at the concerts while we are promoting it" and stay away from all of this. Like the old times MJJ Productions could be the company behind all the hiring and so on.

But there was a big big difference. Michael did not have the man power or the company to do it. Look to what we know, his business managers were useless, his taxes weren't paid for 3 years, mortgages weren't being paid, trademarks weren't being renewed, Tohme wasn't a real manager, he perhaps had a lawyer and a spokesperson - but they got fired too.

So this time around Michael did not have the organization to do it himself. I'm assuming that's why AEG got involved saying "okay we will be the producer as well and handle the business side". That's why AEG not only negotiated deals with Murray but also all of the staff such as Karen, Payne, Ortega as well.

 

[Petrarose]

^^Yeap it makes a lot of sense, especially the part about the manpower. It is so easy to say what AEG should & should not have done in hindsight. I guess this is why Panish was waiting for AEG to hand in the discovery and then give it back to them as their own evidence. They were really building their case on hindsight, so they come up with this Red Flag Theory

Muarry had debts and Muarry gave prof. Therefore, someone with large debts is more likely to take risks & therefore AEG should see this as a Red Flag.
Muarry closed his clinic and Muarry gave Michael prof. Therefore, a dr who will closes his practice to travel with a star should be seen as a Red Flag which AEG ignored.
Muarry asked for millions and Muarry gave Michel prof. Therefore, a person who asks for too much money should be seen as a Red Flag by AEG.

So far basically all the physical evidence are documents received from AEG like the e-mails, so they simple took all AEG's discovery and built a case around it.

 

[qbee]

^^ correct because they had nothing. Thats why every claim Jackson's filed was dropped for lack of evidence to prove the claims, Except negligent hiring and supervision. All they have shown so far is what they got during discovery from AEG.

If they try to bring in the conspiracies they were actually tryign to use to build their case on, it will only work against them IMO. I hope they have something else, to prove AEG hired Murray without MJ's signature on that contract if they want to remain in the race, before AEG takes over to present their case. It doesn't matter if some lame ass attorney called MJ a freak. That doesn't prove AEG Hired Murray without MJ's signature on that contract. All that email proves is that particular attorney was a jerk...

Even Paul Gongaware's email of he better know who's paying him doesn't mean a contract was yet in force or that they were the ones hiring him. It could have implied he better know AEG would be the one paying him on Michael's behalf once the contract was signed. (He didn't go into a full explanation of what he meant) It could also be taken as if he wants to paid then he better take Good care of MJ and keep him healthy. That email IMO was an idle threat so to speak toward Murray to take better care of MJ and not a legal claim that they actually hired Murray yet. This is not a black and white case where anyone is a clear winner yet , there is a lot of grey the jury needs to look at. IMO