Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[jamba]

The only person who suspected all was not well with Murray, that he was less than a qualified, responsible doctor, was Travis Payne. Everyone else seemed to think he was fine--R. Phillips even saying he was impressive. People who noticed MJ was not well (and some didn't notice it, for example, Stacy Walker), did not think Dr. Murray was the reason. Even Karen Faye (and the other person) who was saying take MJ to the hospital did not suspect Murray was behind his health decline. I think the ones who noticed there was a problem were really trying to understand it and could not. That's why R. Phillips said let's not play amateur doctor of shrink--let's not guess and diagnose what going on when we are not qualified to do so. They relied on MJ and CM when they assured the woriied people all was well.

I agree the MJ did not have the organization to handle all the various arrangements needed to put on this tour. He didn't even really have a manager or a lawyer--Branca was brought in the last days. His organization had completely imploded (Raymone Baine, Tohme both fired). To have AEG say you have to pay for the doctor etc yourself from the advance--that salary is way more than the cook and housekeeper--did MJ even have his own accountants to handle substantial payroll?

There's a lot of hindsight--they should have done this or that--I think they were genuinely confused and scrambling for answers. Even if they had done what is suggested--told MJ pay for Murray out of your advance (assuming he had the funds--he had massive obligations for that advance, remember, and assuming he agreed to do that and didn't argue), it wouldn't really have solved anything--it wouldn't have made CM stop what he was doing, it wouldn't have saved MJ's life, or the show. They would only have done that if they had forseen the problems that did arise--namely that MJ would die and they would have this lawsuit. MJ dying was not what people expected to happen--even Karen Faye--it was a shock to everyone.

 

[ivy]

well if Michael paid Murray directly from his advance, the only difference would be AEG probably could not be sued. But you are right other than that not much would have changed. Murray's treatment and lack of care would not be different. Also the suggested "conflict of interest" would still be there. You know Jacksons argue that Murray's debts put him in a position to not follow his oath. So even though Michael paid/hired Murray directly, Murray's best interest still would be the tour going on so that he can get the $150 K payment. So the if the assumption is Murray was money oriented then he wouldn't have said to Michael "no you can't perform" or "you need to go to rehab".

 

[bouee]

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.

Look at what Phillips received on 19th/20th, and what his answers are. To me it's obvious there is a slight problem with him. But anyway, he gets different information, from different people, that other did not have, that make me say it was easy for him to suspect Murray.

It doesn't take a medical degree to wonder why someone who has a full time personnal doctor keeps losing weight and keeps getting worse. take this out of context, and imagine you witness something like this, and the full time doctor tells you "no, he fine, it's anxiety". I would have doubts.

I never said that Phillips should have diagnosed anything, though that's what he did. He should have asked himself why Michael's problems kept getting worse in spite of a doctor full time with him. No one would have guessed propofol, I agree, probably not even a doctor. But they would have found Murray maybe slightly incompetent , and weird, becasue his behavior as a doctor was weird, any healthcare professional would have noticed that and voiced their concern. They would have found a way to feed Michael, for example.

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.

Of course they did not suspect Murray. It's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying Phillips at least had enough info to suspect Murray on 19th/20th. Not of giving propofol, simply of being dangerously incompetent and lying.
A lot of people on the tour had not met Murray, or met him only once. As far as we know now, Phillips, Gongaware and probably Frank knew Murray was Michael's FULL TIME doctor. We don't know about the others.

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.

They were not worried about the costs ? Really ? Why was the budget revision so urgent ? Why was it for Mr Anschutz ? Weren't they worried that Michael would cancel on them ? You said so yourself. Why would that worry them ?
So Costs WERE a problem. Costs were the reason they wanted Michael to rehearse no matter what. It turned out that Michael missing rehearsal for one day (13th or 14th june) was a huge problem apparently. Kenny sends Michael home once, and it's a huge problem again.

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.

I'm surprised at this answer, it's really a huge exaggeration from what I'm saying, so I guess I must have a point here. I'm not talking about the whole tour costs.
Did Michael have the organisation to hire Kai Chase, housekeeping, a nanny, security ? Does it take a huge organisation to hire a doctor ? Trell said so himself : they could have done a cash advcance. Not for the whole tour. For a personnal doctor.
Did AEG have meetings with Kai Chase to make sure Michael was eating enough ?
So yes, including the doctor in the tour costs is a mistake, having meetings and conversations with him is another mistake, even if I agree, some people probably meant well. Michael was the one they should have talked to about his own health. AEG was not supposed to get involved in the first place.
If you are on a sick leave, does your boss have a meting with your doctor ? Would you like that ?

 

[Mechi]

Well honestly I didn't know that 'clause' in Murrays contract.

To me it looks like proven AEG hired Murray. To me there was a spoken agreement and only some signatures missing on the contract... so to me it looks somewhat that contract has already been valid (of cuz if it would have been signed from everybody it would be more obvious) but everybody was already acting according to this agreement.
Knowing that clause now I'm just wondering what made KJ and MJs kids claims going through at the court.

That AEG ppl might have not treated Michael with lots of respect... well that's might something making them more or less nice ppl but I don't see that really relevant here. Everyone's free to go into business with them or not.

If Michael was more or less showing healthy conduct... that's just a lazy discussion to the parties in this trial honestly... the hard evidence is the coroners report. Michael was generally a pretty healthy 50 years old. Nothing aside of that is proven. What ordinary (not educated in the physical or psychological field) ppl saw or thought or talked about to eachother is simply not relevant in this cuz it always comes back to what is really proven, what is the coroners report... well to me. Honestly isn't that only wasting everybodies time???

There's the coroners report and there's a contract (yep not signed but it's still an agreement cuz everybody acted already accordingling). The last protects AEG a certain way through that clause... so whatelse is to expect?

I don't know... but maybe the Jacksons side will try to show through that 'meeting at Michaels home' that AEG was not interested in Michaels well being and put pressure on Murray and Michael instead of focussing on Michaels health?! Still there's probably ppl on both sides getting into the witness stand proving both sides?! So that would seem as weak as the rest to prove anything...

And let's be honest... there might have been worries before... but Michael performing well at the last rehearsals... it made everybody think now they've got it into the right direction. It would have done that with everybody of us also... execpt maybe those of us who are professionals in the physical and/or psychological health fields but even when you are (like me is) and I wouldn't know about Michael actually not sleeping well... if you see him act and perform like in TII movie... you'd hope you're on the right way.

Michael didn't show healthy conduct. Ppl showed concern and AEG hired a doctor. However they are not to be made responsible for the actions of the doctor, see clause in the contract. Also after a meeting at his home Michaels conduct showed improvement. No reason for concern anymore. And let's please not try to be holier than Jesus himself and say they still had to be concerned. I honestly wouldn't have been also... because if there's finally improvement you just always think... ok now you're on the way to go.

Wondering how this will go on really... but to me it looks really clear... *shrugs*

 

[bouee]

well if Michael paid Murray directly from his advance, the only difference would be AEG probably could not be sued. But you are right other than that not much would have changed. Murray's treatment and lack of care would not be different. Also the suggested "conflict of interest" would still be there. You know Jacksons argue that Murray's debts put him in a position to not follow his oath. So even though Michael paid/hired Murray directly, Murray's best interest still would be the tour going on so that he can get the $150 K payment. So the if the assumption is Murray was money oriented then he wouldn't have said to Michael "no you can't perform" or "you need to go to rehab".

Thank you, yes. We're talking about AEG's liability.

Of course it wouldn't hav changed anything about the rest, Murray WAS money orientated, and a liar

That's why i said earlier I didn't mind if AEG were getting involved, from a basic human point of view, because they had the possibility of pulling the plug on Murray in theory. They could have interfered in a postive way, which was still better than nothing. But they did not connect simple dots, and went in the wrong direction. At least Phillips did. I'm not saying it would have changed anything, because there was very little time left, but at least they would have tried something. They probably wouldn't be on trial either if they had.

 

[bouee]

Mechi, the problem is negligent hiring and supervising. So the coroner's report dosn't matter so much, it's just here to say that Michael had no health problem, and died from propofol misuse, ie from Murray's "care".

I agree hiring is proven. Negligent + supervising would be the red flags that AEG overlooked, or misunderstood, red flags that would have told them Murray was not good for this job.

As for indemnification, Qbee said it might not work since Murray was convicted.

I belive it would be a hold harmless Indemnity where one cannot be sued for any damages that may occur. But in case of negligence or a criminal act the indemnity would be void ..

A Hold Harmless Agreement used in a variety of situations, such as when one party is using the property or facilities of another, one party is performing services for another, or one party is participating in an activity hosted by another party. A Hold Harmless Agreement is most commonly used in a business transaction where one party agrees not to hold the other party responsible for any damage or liability that may occur during the transaction. A Hold Harmless Agreement may not be valid if one of the parties performs actions in a negligent or intentionally bad manner, or if one of the parties has committed a fraudulent or criminal act.

And I would add that the Jacksons are not going after Murray, they're going after AEG for negligent hiring & supervising, so I'm not sure it applies here ?

 

[Tygger]

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.

Agreed. If this was a criminal trial, they could accept their responsibility, as you stated above, and plead guilty to a lesser charge. Instead, they are deflecting responsibility with the comments you listed above.

The doctor IS responsible and the plaintiffs’ lawyers are proving AEG (implicitly) hired the doctor negligently without a background check to see if he was even worthy of the position. We will learn more from Gongaware and Phillips as they try to explain how their actions (and emails) were not supervisory in nature towards the doctor.

I understand there are some fans that dislike the Jacksons for whatever their reasons are. Any past transgressions these fans feel the Jacksons committed have NOTHING to do with Michael’s passing. No family member was in Michael’s bedroom. No AEG employee or independent contractor (minus the doctor) was in Michael’s bedroom. AEG developed a relationship with the doctor which made him indebted to them. This is why they are the defendants in the civil trial now.

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).

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"

There is no middleman needed between a patient and their doctor, only in the payment of the doctor. The doctor should not have any responsibility to AEG, only Michael.

If Michael did not have a lawyer and AEG truly wanted to help him, they could have drafted the contract with only two parties and Michael would owe AEG’s lawyers for drafting the contract on his behalf. The letter stating Rowe as “financial overseer” makes sense. Michael’s father may have wanted Rowe to be involved but, he did not insert himself as a party on the document which is correct.

 

[qbee]

Some great points made here for both sides of this issue .. If MJ wanted AEG to advance him money to pay for his personal DR. In hindsight it probably would have been better for AEG to make 2 contracts instead of inserting themselves as a middleman on MJ and Murray contract. They could have drawn up one contract between MJ and Murray and what his services would be and what MJ would pay him and then a separate contract between AEG and MJ for what they would advance him for personal expenses and how that would be recouped. Then there would have been not contract between Murray and AEG.

Now lets say being concerned over MJ's health and him missing rehearsals they calling a meeting to see what was wrong and requesting they get his health back on track so he could perform. Could they still be found negligent and be sued? What claim would that be filed under. being they didn't hire the doc and were not obligated to supervise him. All the events would be exactly the same as they are now, just AEG would not be on the contract .. so is it just a piece a paper that makes their actions right or wrong ??

Now lets say with the above 2 contracts AEG didnn't intervein or get involved with MJ and his and health concerns. Could Jackson's still sue them for them not trying to interviene to find out what was wrong? LOL .. Now Im just confusing myself ..

But even with the 3way contact which was not signed... I just don't think this is as clear cut as people want to make it.

 

[bouee]

Good questions , Qbee.

cash adavace instead of contract, Michael hires Murray directly : I think, yes AEG stays out of it. But the logic would be that they KEEP out of it, and not contact Murray directly, or only for very small stuff, such as "how long is Michael going to be unavailable". The problem with the contract the way they did it, is that since they were paying his salary, they had a certain "power" over Murray, a certain unhealthy relationship.

Now, let's say there's a direct contract bewteen Michael and Murray, AEG interferes anyway, talks to the doctor , has meetings with him. I'm not sure about the USA, over here I'm pretty sure that would be a problem for both AEG and the doctor, BOTH of them are absolutely not supposed to do that.
So here, Michael could sue both AEG and Murray for that, had he lived. He would have had to show that he did not accept that, and asked AEG and/or Murray to stop talking directly to each other I guess. Since Michael died, both Michael and AEG would be in trouble for that, there would be an investigation, and the type of correspondance we have seen would be problematic for AEG, whatever the contractual nature of the relationship with Murray, even if they had none.

But, we also have a law that says that if you see a person is in danger, you have to intervene, except if that would put you in danger yourself. That would be criminal I think. I'm not sure how it would apply in this case, for example, it would be failing to call 911 if you witness an accident.

I think in both countries, interfering would be "tolerated" if you think the person is in danger, based on common sense- we are not all doctors. The question would be what you do, and what you call "common sense", which can not really be rationnal, just like this case : we obviously have different ideas of what the red flags were.

That's why I said earlier that I thought if AEG had interfered in another way, other healthcare professionals were the least risky things for them to do. They would have stayed out of it in the sense that they wouldn't have "evaluated" Michael's health themselves, they would have left the decision with a professional (Mental problem/Physical problem), they would have taken the proper steps in case Michael was in danger. If they had done that, I don't think they would be on trial now, or their defense would be a lot easier. That could apply with or without a direct contract with Murray : it's based on common sense and seeing Michael's health deteriorating in spite of a full time doctor being there. If michael had survived, what would be done against AEG ? At most they were over reacting, but that would be understandable given those weird symptoms, IMO.

Just an example that happened to me. I was twice a witness to someone threatening suicide. Your first natural reaction, would be to talk to the person and try to dissuade him/her.
The first time it happened, it was a co worker, she was saying this to our boss, she was hysterical. We knew she had mental health issues. I had not seen or heard the scene, so I was very calm, when my boss , of course, came absolutely upset in my office, he didn't know what to do, his first idea was to try and find her usual doctor and call him, ad was looking for someone to watch her while he did that.
Since I was not involved and much "calmer" when he told me the story, I just told him "don't do anything yourself, call 911 immediately, it's not your call to assess her, 911 people are trained for that, & we don't want to waste time".
He did, 911 talked to her, decided there was indeed a risk, sent an ambulance immediately and instructed my boss on how to deal with her in the meantime. Less than 5 minutes after the call , this co worker was at the hospital, reciving proper help.

The other time it happened, the person was talking to me, on the phone, I was a few hundreds kilometers away, it was a different person. So I just told her, Ok, now that you tell me this, I'll get you some help, i don't want to take any chances if you feel that way. I called 911, they talked to her, and as I suspected, they estimated she was not at risk, and did nothing.

Same situation, but professionnals take 2 different decisions where we would probably not see a difference. Neither my boss or I got involved, we sought professionals ASAP, so from a legal point of view, we were "protected".

And both ladies are doing pretty well now, this was years ago.

 

[ivy]

They were not worried about the costs ? Really ? Why was the budget revision so urgent ? Why was it for Mr Anschutz ? Weren't they worried that Michael would cancel on them ? You said so yourself. Why would that worry them ?
So Costs WERE a problem. Costs were the reason they wanted Michael to rehearse no matter what. It turned out that Michael missing rehearsal for one day (13th or 14th june) was a huge problem apparently. Kenny sends Michael home once, and it's a huge problem again.

they were talking about the costs and what would be the exposure if Michael cancelled at the last minute. But I don't think it was an amount that made them shake in their boots. They were going to a meeting with the big boss and they were saying the $30 Million exposure is not something they need to hide from. Like I said sure no one wants a loss, they would want a profit but at least in those emails they did not sound like the $30 Million was the end of the world.

I'm surprised at this answer, it's really a huge exaggeration from what I'm saying, so I guess I must have a point here. I'm not talking about the whole tour costs.
Did Michael have the organisation to hire Kai Chase, housekeeping, a nanny, security ? Does it take a huge organisation to hire a doctor ? Trell said so himself : they could have done a cash advcance. Not for the whole tour. For a personnal doctor.
Did AEG have meetings with Kai Chase to make sure Michael was eating enough ?
So yes, including the doctor in the tour costs is a mistake, having meetings and conversations with him is another mistake, even if I agree, some people probably meant well. Michael was the one they should have talked to about his own health. AEG was not supposed to get involved in the first place.

For this I'm just going to say this. I'm not sure about the details but it seemed like previous tour doctors were hired by the producers. I'm not sure who the producers actually were. But I wonder how much of this was common occurrence.

If you are on a sick leave, does your boss have a meting with your doctor ? Would you like that ?

actually if you are on a sick leave, workplace will require a report from your doctor telling them about the diagnosis and how much time you need to recover. In USA there's "workers compensation" , it's an insurance that the work places have for workplace injuries. If you have a workplace injury you go to the doctors that are part of the workplace's insurance, they treat you and they decide about your injury, notify the bosses and they are being paid the company's work place injury insurance. In other words when you are hurt at workplace, you go to a doctor selected and paid by your employee's insurance that diagnosis your injury and does your treatment and decided any limitations on work. Given that the insurance / work not want to pay for such expenses, don't you see a conflict there as well or does the parties trust the doctors to do the right diagnosis?

As I said before coaches are in a different position. My BF volunteers as a coach and he talks with the doctors mainly about the joints to learn if the players can play, need physical therapy, can they practice or not, if there are any limitations to what they can do and they can't do.

So in my opinion it's not that black or white. I can't go to my workplace and say "my doctor gave me 3 day rest", they would need a note from the doctor explaining why. No one can go to my BF and say "I won't run the laps today because the doctor said don't", he would need a confirmation. So how is that any different than meeting with the doctor?

 

[ivy]

But, we also have a law that says that if you see a person is in danger, you have to intervene, except if that would put you in danger yourself. That would be criminal I think. I'm not sure how it would apply in this case, for example, it would be failing to call 911 if you witness an accident.

there's no such law in USA. Only 10 states require you to call 911 which is rarely enforced, for everywhere it's not illegal to do nothing when you see someone in danger.

The exceptions is that you need to help and be found legally liable if you are the one that caused the danger in the first place. the other requirements is that parents need to help minor children, spouses need to help each other, property owners need to help people on their property, employers need to help employees at work place, public transportation needs to help as well as the emergency people (fire & police & paramedics). As you said these people do not need to help if helping puts them in danger too.

 

[Diplomate]

For me, Karen Faye knew more about the health of Michael than AEG , so if the jury say at the end of the trial, AEG knew so they are guilty, Karen Faye can be sue as well, cause with she worked with Michael on several tours.

It can be hard for some fans to say that, but at the end only Michael and Murray knew about Propofol. So it's Murray alone,the guilty.

And I think everybody, from AEG to the Jacksons and Kenny,Karen thought the problem came from Klein.

 

[Petrarose]

^^ 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

I agree. Even with the e-mail that the family & media are seeing as this big victory--the one about Muarry better know who is paying--once AEG's witnesses showed that yes they advanced Michael the money, yes Muarry's wage expense was in the budget, yes Michael had to repay, then this shows me that Muarry is being paid for Michael and his amount was added to the budget so that all this expense can be given to Michael for repayment (& of course for budgeting purposes). At least that is the way I would view that email with the rest of the evidence so far, if I was on the jury. Michael gets a bill stating Total expense for Muarry = $X. Production Cost = $X, etc., then he sees the grand total of all expenses which he has to pay back. I think Michael only pays part of the production cost? So, if I was AEG I would send Muarry that e-mail, because before Michael pays me back Muarry's wage is coming from me. This is like people who tell the police or other civil workers that I am paying your salary. It does not mean these people hired the police officer, but that their taxes pay the police wages.

Then, we have to wait & see how AEG is going to explain this e-mail. I guess they will put some of the e-mails in context & the rest which show they are evil, they will ignore.

Mechi about this in your comment ^^: Ppl showed concern and AEG hired a doctor.

^^That was not the sequence. Michael brought in his dr who was already working with him. Then, some people became concerned about Michael losing weight.

Bouree about your comment that the coroner's report is not important because this is negligent hiring^^, the report has already been used by AEG to cross examine one of the witnesses. The witness was asked if Michael died because he was thin or words to that effect.

I think the Coroner's report can be used by AEG, since all Panish witnesses focused on how unhealthy & thin michael looked as a factor that told them he was ill. AEG can use the report to show that in fact the body was healthy, so any effects Michael had was due to the prof which Muarry was giving him & which AEG knew nothing about. They could say look the coroner says his weight was ok, while these laypeople said he was too thin. So if we looked at these factors, we would have been incorrect too. Anyway this case is as you say about negligent hiring, but look how much stray testimony was given by witnesses, so it might be premature to say right now that the coroner's report is not important.

 

[bouee]

they were talking about the costs and what would be the exposure if Michael cancelled at the last minute. But I don't think it was an amount that made them shake in their boots. They were going to a meeting with the big boss and they were saying the $30 Million exposure is not something they need to hide from. Like I said sure no one wants a loss, they would want a profit but at least in those emails they did not sound like the $30 Million was the end of the world.

Michael missed at most 5 or 6 rehearsals in June, according to the testimonies. Out of 2 or 3 months. The reaction AEG had sounds disproportionate to me. First he misses several days in a row, they ask him to come back, then he misses june 13 or 14th, huge meeting + intervention, tough love and co, then june 19th starts World War 3.

For this I'm just going to say this. I'm not sure about the details but it seemed like previous tour doctors were hired by the producers. I'm not sure who the producers actually were. But I wonder how much of this was common occurrence.

Yes, but common doesn't make it good. No one is saying (well not me at least) that AEG had bad intentions. I think they involuntarily got caught up in a situation that they could have avoided had they been more careful. If there is anything good to come out of this, it could be they will re think their policies.

actually if you are on a sick leave, workplace will require a report from your doctor telling them about the diagnosis and how much time you need to recover. In USA there's "workers compensation" , it's an insurance that the work places have for workplace injuries. If you have a workplace injury you go to the doctors that are part of the workplace's insurance, they treat you and they decide about your injury, notify the bosses and they are being paid the company's work place injury insurance. In other words when you are hurt at workplace, you go to a doctor selected and paid by your employee's insurance that diagnosis your injury and does your treatment and decided any limitations on work. Given that the insurance / work not want to pay for such expenses, don't you see a conflict there as well or does the parties trust the doctors to do the right diagnosis?

As I said before coaches are in a different position. My BF volunteers as a coach and he talks with the doctors mainly about the joints to learn if the players can play, need physical therapy, can they practice or not, if there are any limitations to what they can do and they can't do.

So in my opinion it's not that black or white. I can't go to my workplace and say "my doctor gave me 3 day rest", they would need a note from the doctor explaining why. No one can go to my BF and say "I won't run the laps today because the doctor said don't", he would need a confirmation. So how is that any different than meeting with the doctor?

We'll here it's basically the same thing, except the insurance is public & mandatory.
For a simple sick leave , you need a paper from the doctor too. The dr will actually give you 3 papers (we do love filling out Lots of complicated forms) : one for the employer with only the dates, no diagnosis, that would be illegal, the 2 other papers for the insurance and the employee mention the diagnosis. The assurance can control, but does not communicate the results to the employer. If the assurance doesn't agree with the sick leave, they will not pay the compensation to the employee, and not say anything to the employer.
Since sick leaves are very easily compensated here, some people and doctors will abuse sick leaves, and it can become a problem for a company. So now we have private doctors who can control sick employees at their homes, and say to the employer "the leave is justified" or "the leave is not justified", that can be transmitted to the public insurance so the public insurance doesn't pay the compensation . Again no diagnosis.
No diagnosis because that's priviledge info, and you don't want the employer to discriminate the employee for an illness.

if it's a workplace related illness or accident - But that wouldn't be Michael's case- employers are asked to pay for it , so they know a little more about the diagnosis. The can contest a workplace accident, but the decision will be made by the insurance , and they won't have to explain their decsion , so basically , that's very little information , and only related to the workplace illness/accident. Same thing for a "private" illness or accident, if the workplace has to be adapted. The doctor will give limited info , such as "can't lift heavy weights, over 20kgs" for example.
Again that's related to doctor-patient priviledged info.

in sports team, it's different , the doctor is employed by the sports team , there is a higher risk of accidents with sports, and you need a lot more prevention. I don't know how it works, but i would assume the players sign some sort of a release with their contract, for their medical info to be shared with the club. I'm going to the doctor tomorrow, that's interesting, i'll ask my doctor about that.

Based on mr Homs testimony, he said what I was saying, he would only ask limited info , as to when a person would be available or not.

I think it's importnt to say that it is the doctor who is not supposed to say anything. Asking would be considered strange, but the situation wouldn't be problematic : the doctor would not answer. Pressuring the doctor is completely different. I can't say AEG pressured Murray, we don't know that yet, my theory so far is that they were misled by Murray. But getting into a direct contract with him is certainly not a wise thing to do : it can be seen as a means of pressure.

Yes, it's not black and white, things are not clear in this trial , it was much clearer in Murray's case. I would say again that I don't get such a fuss for 5 or 6 missed rehearsals. I would understand if he had missed 15/ 20 rehearsals for example. These things happen, you can be sick, it has to taken into account in your schedule. So either they had a problem with costs, or they were seeing something else, ie Michael spiraling downwards. I think it was probably both things together.

 

[Petrarose]

^^Maybe the reason why there was a fuss about the 5 or 6 missed rehearsals has something to do with the fact that he took a while to learn the steps, needed practice with his voice, & on the days he came if he had seen Klien then his work was not the best, so when he also missed some days they started thinking about Money and got pissed. Again there is a lot of behind the scenes things we do not know, which makes the trial even more crazy.

Then, you have Kenny being concerned for Michael, but when Michael says his doctor gave him a sick day, the same Kenny sends an e-mail to the boss saying do you know Muarry is keeping Michael from rehearsals. So my question is why would a concerned Kenny do something like this? Was it because he felt nothing was wrong with Michael? He sends this e-mail & the bosses get mad & want to know what is going on.

It seems to me that Kenny & bosses were mainly concerned when Michael showed psychological behaviors like disorientation, talking to God, not remembering his steps, so is it that they think that with such problems you can still work? Some people think that if your physical body is OK then there is nothing wrong with you. You can still get a job & go to work.

 

[ivy]

Small addition

In USA, we see the diagnosis. Our secretary was sick last year and couldn't come to work for 10 days. The employee handbook says you can miss work for 3 days but over that you need a doctors report. So she got a report and it said she had an upper respiratory infection and cannot work for 7 days. So as far as I know the diagnosis is disclosed.

Now of course such doctor letters happen with the request of the patient. In other words it's the secretary that's asking the doctor for a letter to give to her workplace. So I guess that could be the verbal authorization to disclose the diagnosis. So then it would become if Michael gave such authorization to Murray.

For example June 14 Michael did not go to rehearsals because Murray did not let him. could it be like the above example? Michael saying to Murray "tell them I can't come today"?

Some people think that if your physical body is OK then there is nothing wrong with you. You can still get a job & go to work.

Not only some people but social security in USA too. Mental illnesses - including depression for example- is the hardest thing to prove and get it accepted as a illness and legit disability. It would require doctor and psychologist notes, it needs to be severe and even then Social Security would reject the claims and you would be required to appeal and fight with them to classify it as an illness.

 

[bouee]

Small addition

In USA, we see the diagnosis. Our secretary was sick last year and couldn't come to work for 10 days. The employee handbook says you can miss work for 3 days but over that you need a doctors report. So she got a report and it said she had an upper respiratory infection and cannot work for 7 days. So as far as I know the diagnosis is disclosed.

Now of course such doctor letters happen with the request of the patient. In other words it's the secretary that's asking the doctor for a letter to give to her workplace. So I guess that could be the verbal authorization to disclose the diagnosis. So then it would become if Michael gave such authorization to Murray.

For example June 14 Michael did not go to rehearsals because Murray did not let him. could it be like the above example? Michael saying to Murray "tell them I can't come today"?




Not only some people but social security in USA too. Mental illnesses - including depression for example- is the hardest thing to prove and get it accepted as a illness and legit disability. It would require doctor and psychologist notes, it needs to be severe and even then Social Security would reject the claims and you would be required to appeal and fight with them to classify it as an illness.

Ok, i already knew that, but it's confirmed : I love the USA but I would never want to live there...

It's legimate i think that an employer gets a confirmation from a doctor if an employe is sick. It's weird to me that the diagnosis is on the note. How does that fit with patient-doctor priviledge ? That would be interesting to ask a US doctor.

Still, the "Murray was great again" "we'll remind him who's paying his salary" "Murray has to come to rehearsals", etc sound a little bit too much so far for me. We'll see how it is explained.

You know what I think could be possible - pure theory so far - is that MAW called in sick for Michael that day. Ortega, knowing there had been problems the week bofore because Michael had missed 2 or 3 days, informed Gongaware and/or Phillips. Then we have this bad reaction from Gongaware "We'll see Murray tomorrow morning, to remind him who's paying his salary , and then he goes on saying "he's been dodging Frank". I don't know who was dodging Frank, if it was Michael or Murray, but something was not right already.
When Gongaware or Frank talked to Murray, Murray knew or sensed that there was trouble, and put the blame on Michael , saying he had never forbidden Michael to go to rehearsal, that it was anxiety, stage fright, whatever, and so they - AEG - needed to push him to rehearse, otherwise anxiety would get worse. Murray became the hero , saved his job, totally discredited Michael, so AEG would talk to him, not to Michael.

Knowing Murray, I would not be surprised if the truth was something like that. I hope it gets explained, but i'm definitely not sure, seeing AEG doesn't want to implicate Murray.

EDIT : just remember the horrible false irrelevant stuff Murray told the police about Michael , and what he said during his "documentary" about Michael.

Michael was probably exhausted from his "treatment" whatever that treatment was, Murray knew that, he was the total SOB in the story.

Yes, the US have a terrible reputation about mental healthcare. In Michael's case, I'm not sure we can talk of mental illness at that point. He was probably physically exhausted from lack of real sleep and/ or too much benzos, not eating enough, etc.. which made his natural anxiety worse. Murray certainly kept his story straight and told him he was fine, it was in his head.

 

[Mneme]

(Yesterday, 10:26 PM #1618)
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.

It is off topic

Sorry ivy, but on this one Point I believe K.F.
Murray t o l d to Officer Martinez he had given Michael every night saline and he t o l d also he had in the night of Michael dead his urine controlled…..
But in the trial there where all things on the table who the police had found of Murrays treatment and there was NO bottle with saline.
If Murray would have given Michael every night enough saline (i.e. 2000 to 3000 ccm) and also in that night police would habe found empty bottles. But there where Nothing.

For me this is an important point because MJ shows all signs and sypmtoms of dehydration.

 

[AliCat]

Some great points made here for both sides of this issue .. If MJ wanted AEG to advance him money to pay for his personal DR. In hindsight it probably would have been better for AEG to make 2 contracts instead of inserting themselves as a middleman on MJ and Murray contract. They could have drawn up one contract between MJ and Murray and what his services would be and what MJ would pay him and then a separate contract between AEG and MJ for what they would advance him for personal expenses and how that would be recouped. Then there would have been not contract between Murray and AEG.

Now lets say being concerned over MJ's health and him missing rehearsals they calling a meeting to see what was wrong and requesting they get his health back on track so he could perform. Could they still be found negligent and be sued? What claim would that be filed under. being they didn't hire the doc and were not obligated to supervise him. All the events would be exactly the same as they are now, just AEG would not be on the contract .. so is it just a piece a paper that makes their actions right or wrong ??

Now lets say with the above 2 contracts AEG didnn't intervein or get involved with MJ and his and health concerns. Could Jackson's still sue them for them not trying to interviene to find out what was wrong? LOL .. Now Im just confusing myself ..

But even with the 3way contact which was not signed... I just don't think this is as clear cut as people want to make it.

Is this what is being played out here, now, on this particular forum, the 'what if's'? I haven't changed my mind on anything so far. Michael Jackson wanted Dr. Conrad Murray no matter what.

It is why Michael Jackson got personally involved with the negotiations, first starting with one figure and negotiating another, which is why it didn't seem to get finalized, the unsigned Contract involving Dr. Conrad Murray going to the UK with Michael Jackson as he performed his Contract with AEG Live.

Kai Chase coming back on board shows AEG Live were very concerned with what was going on with Michael Jackson, from a nutritional standpoint.

As far as I'm concerned this was a win win for everyone involved. Randy Phillips testified that Michael Jackson didn't want to live like a vagabond anymore, transplanting his children here there and everywhere. Michael Jackson just wanted stability for his children, which is why we hear about Las Vegas as a permanent home for the Jackson family. Michael Jackson would have paid off his debt and AEG Live stood to have a substantial profit. Kenny Ortega's impressive resume would have continued in that direction, too. I don't know which make-up artist would have stayed with Michael Jackson, as he did have two at the time of his death. Would Michael Bush have stayed and been replaced, as that is what has happened with the Cirque Show's. No...only person who contributed to Michael Jackson's death was the doctor who agreed with Michael Jackson about administering Propofol.

It's kind of like Michael Jackson buying "Neverland." The realtor who helped Michael Jackson in his negotiation's to buy "Neverland" warned Michael Jackson about how her family lost their land because of the overwhelming financial responsibility of maintaining a property. This had no affect whatsoever upon changing Michael Jackson's mind. The same with the Propofol. Michael Jackson could not be talked out of it, after several medical professionals explained to him the dangers of an intravenous sleep medication!

 

[Tygger]

Qbee, agreed, it would have been better if AEG just advanced the monies to Michael for his doctor and assist Michael with the contract if Michael did not have his own lawyers present to do the task. If this was the case, AEG would still have no right to request anything of the doctor in regards to his treatment of Michael.

In all of these examples of employers and employees given in this thread, the employer does not demand or request anything of the employee’s doctor to ensure the employee returns to work. This is why Gongaware’s infamous email about who is paying and what is expected of the doctor is considered a “smoking gun” email.

This is why I am confused about the “grey” area and why this is not “clear cut” for some. It is not the “paper” that is the problem; it is AEG’s actions. Their actions came across as supervisory to the doctor which should never be allowed as the doctor’s responsibility is only to the patient, not the patient’s employer or business partner.

In the criminal trial, it was obvious that Michael did not cause his own death; the doctor was responsible. However, the defense attempted to make Michael blameworthy. Why in the civil trial, when the defendants use the same defense, that Michael is blameworthy, and if not him, his mother, is this defense now plausible? What changed?

Question please: what happened to Dennis Hawk?

 

[ivy]

This is why Gongaware’s infamous email about who is paying and what is expected of the doctor is considered a “smoking gun” email.

I agree but only if they said it to Murray. How will you know if they said it to Murray or not?

Question please: what happened to Dennis Hawk?

Dennis Hawk is actually the lawyer for Tohme and also represented Michael. I believe there were some issues with that conflict as well.

In the criminal trial, it was obvious that Michael did not cause his own death; the doctor was responsible. However, the defense attempted to make Michael blameworthy. Why in the civil trial, when the defendants use the same defense, that Michael is blameworthy, and if not him, his mother, is this defense now plausible? What changed?

I kinda disagree with this because if you pay attention to the jury instructions the only thing required for Murray to be found guilty was him to be a substantial factor in Michael's death. It wasn't required for him to be solely responsible. In other words even if the jury thought it was Michael that asked for Propofol but it was Murray who left him not monitored and not call 911 soon enough, they had enough to determine Murray to be a substantial factor. Prosecution never argued Murray was the sole reason or they never denied that Michael sought Propofol.

the difference in the criminal trial, defense tried to argue Murray had no responsibility and no fault. Here that's not the case. Even at the opening statements you can see Jackson lawyers argue that this is a 3 part responsibility - Michael, Murray and AEG. Jacksons argument is that Michael is dead, Murray in jail so AEG is the only party left to pay for their actions.

 

[Tygger]

“We want to remind [Murray] that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. We want to remind him what is expected of him.”

This is why I keep referring to supervisory actions. The jury has to decide what was AEG's intentions with the doctor based on their emails and actions.

Apologies if I was unclear above. I am asking: if Michael being blameworthy was not plausible as a defense in the criminal trial, why is Michael and his mother being blameworthy plausible as a defense in the civil trial? What changed?

Thanks for the Dennis Hawk status update.

 

[AliCat]

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.

Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

Even based on this definition, I still don't see how AEG Live is held accountable to Michael Jackson and Dr. Conrad Murray use of propofol!

 

[ivy]

Apologies if I was unclear above. I am asking: if Michael being blameworthy was not plausible as a defense in the criminal trial, why is Michael and his mother being blameworthy plausible as a defense in the civil trial? What changed?

the answer is still the same. Michael being blameworthy was and still is a plausible defense. Like I said neither Walgren nor Jacksons are denying Michael asked for Propofol or wanted Murray.

The difference is that in the criminal trial for the involuntary manslaughter charge all that was required Murray to be a substantial factor in Michael's death. Not the only factor or the sole factor. As Murray's defense was trying to prove Murray wasn't a substantial factor, their defense was tailored as Michael being the only factor by claiming Michael drank, self medicated, self injected. Dr. Shafer did a good job in ruling out Michael probably was not only factor and probably the actions that killed Michael (leaving him on a drip not monitored or not calling 911) came from Murray. Hence Murray was a substantial factor.

But that did not mean jury thought Michael had no role or no responsibility in what happened. They just did not buy Murray's defense of "I did nothing, it was all Michael".

 

[jamba]

well if Michael paid Murray directly from his advance, the only difference would be AEG probably could not be sued. But you are right other than that not much would have changed. Murray's treatment and lack of care would not be different. Also the suggested "conflict of interest" would still be there. You know Jacksons argue that Murray's debts put him in a position to not follow his oath. So even though Michael paid/hired Murray directly, Murray's best interest still would be the tour going on so that he can get the $150 K payment. So the if the assumption is Murray was money oriented then he wouldn't have said to Michael "no you can't perform" or "you need to go to rehab".

Exactly, so no matter what, CM was going to be MJ's doc and was going to continue his criminally negligent treatment. The question seems to me to be could AEG have anticipated what was going on? Should they have suspected the doc--which it is clear to me they did not--having suspected him, should they have intervened? If so, how?

It seems to me the only leverage they had was to 'pull the plug' (cancel the shows) or threaten to do so, otherwise, both CM and Mj could simply have refused. So when Gongaware spoke of 'what we expect of him" was he threatening to fire Murray or at least putting it on the table? Was he saying CM do your job--be good doctor--take care of MJ's health so that MJ can be at rehearsals 100% ready to rock n roll?

The problem with Gongaware's email is "what we expect of him" is not specified. Also the comment--we are paying is contradicted by the terms of the contract--they were only paying upfront, not in the final result, as we know. I don't see that email as a 'smoking gun.'

 

[jamba]

Good questions , Qbee.

cash adavace instead of contract, Michael hires Murray directly : I think, yes AEG stays out of it. But the logic would be that they KEEP out of it, and not contact Murray directly, or only for very small stuff, such as "how long is Michael going to be unavailable". The problem with the contract the way they did it, is that since they were paying his salary, they had a certain "power" over Murray, a certain unhealthy relationship.

Now, let's say there's a direct contract bewteen Michael and Murray, AEG interferes anyway, talks to the doctor , has meetings with him. I'm not sure about the USA, over here I'm pretty sure that would be a problem for both AEG and the doctor, BOTH of them are absolutely not supposed to do that.
So here, Michael could sue both AEG and Murray for that, had he lived. He would have had to show that he did not accept that, and asked AEG and/or Murray to stop talking directly to each other I guess. Since Michael died, both Michael and AEG would be in trouble for that, there would be an investigation, and the type of correspondance we have seen would be problematic for AEG, whatever the contractual nature of the relationship with Murray, even if they had none.

But, we also have a law that says that if you see a person is in danger, you have to intervene, except if that would put you in danger yourself. That would be criminal I think. I'm not sure how it would apply in this case, for example, it would be failing to call 911 if you witness an accident.

I think in both countries, interfering would be "tolerated" if you think the person is in danger, based on common sense- we are not all doctors. The question would be what you do, and what you call "common sense", which can not really be rationnal, just like this case : we obviously have different ideas of what the red flags were.

That's why I said earlier that I thought if AEG had interfered in another way, other healthcare professionals were the least risky things for them to do. They would have stayed out of it in the sense that they wouldn't have "evaluated" Michael's health themselves, they would have left the decision with a professional (Mental problem/Physical problem), they would have taken the proper steps in case Michael was in danger. If they had done that, I don't think they would be on trial now, or their defense would be a lot easier. That could apply with or without a direct contract with Murray : it's based on common sense and seeing Michael's health deteriorating in spite of a full time doctor being there. If michael had survived, what would be done against AEG ? At most they were over reacting, but that would be understandable given those weird symptoms, IMO.

Just an example that happened to me. I was twice a witness to someone threatening suicide. Your first natural reaction, would be to talk to the person and try to dissuade him/her.
The first time it happened, it was a co worker, she was saying this to our boss, she was hysterical. We knew she had mental health issues. I had not seen or heard the scene, so I was very calm, when my boss , of course, came absolutely upset in my office, he didn't know what to do, his first idea was to try and find her usual doctor and call him, ad was looking for someone to watch her while he did that.
Since I was not involved and much "calmer" when he told me the story, I just told him "don't do anything yourself, call 911 immediately, it's not your call to assess her, 911 people are trained for that, & we don't want to waste time".
He did, 911 talked to her, decided there was indeed a risk, sent an ambulance immediately and instructed my boss on how to deal with her in the meantime. Less than 5 minutes after the call , this co worker was at the hospital, reciving proper help.

The other time it happened, the person was talking to me, on the phone, I was a few hundreds kilometers away, it was a different person. So I just told her, Ok, now that you tell me this, I'll get you some help, i don't want to take any chances if you feel that way. I called 911, they talked to her, and as I suspected, they estimated she was not at risk, and did nothing.

Same situation, but professionnals take 2 different decisions where we would probably not see a difference. Neither my boss or I got involved, we sought professionals ASAP, so from a legal point of view, we were "protected".

And both ladies are doing pretty well now, this was years ago.

Ok, but MJ was not in danger enough that someone should have called 911. He was not suicidal. Are you saying Ortega should have called 911 on the 19th?

I find your argument hard to follow--on the one hand, you say they should not have intervened in a medical relationship of doctor-patient, then you say they should have seen Murray was majorly flawed as a doctor, and they should have hired another doctor to investigate/get involved.

 

[marebear]

To me the problem was that nobody knew that Murray was giving propofol to Michael at night. They had no idea at all. Murray was making Michael sick and nobody knew what was going on. Most people never heard of giving propofol to someone in their house. Even doctors were shocked by that. If people suspected or thought something was off with Michael they were looking at the wrong things. They thought it was Klein's fault or they thought Michael was abusing drugs or they thought different things. I am sure the people that did care about Michael like Kenny Ortega must feel bad that they knew something wasn't right but couldn't figure it out. I blame Murray for what happened. I don't like this trial, I don't like AEG or the Jacksons. I hate Murray so that pretty much sums how I feel right now.

 

[Aquarius]

Exactly, so no matter what, CM was going to be MJ's doc and was going to continue his criminally negligent treatment. The question seems to me to be could AEG have anticipated what was going on? Should they have suspected the doc--which it is clear to me they did not--having suspected him, should they have intervened? If so, how?

It seems to me the only leverage they had was to 'pull the plug' (cancel the shows) or threaten to do so, otherwise, both CM and Mj could simply have refused. So when Gongaware spoke of 'what we expect of him" was he threatening to fire Murray or at least putting it on the table? Was he saying CM do your job--be good doctor--take care of MJ's health so that MJ can be at rehearsals 100% ready to rock n roll?

The problem with Gongaware's email is "what we expect of him" is not specified. Also the comment--we are paying is contradicted by the terms of the contract--they were only paying upfront, not in the final result, as we know. I don't see that email as a 'smoking gun.'

I believe Gongaware was just bluffing, the fear of seeing the tour going down the drain made him talk nonsense. Unless I'm not up to date with the trial, AEG didn't pay Conrad, so his statement of who's paying Conrad is not accurate. And I believe what everyone expected from Murray was to make Michael healthy.

I believe everyone thought Michael was using drugs & that he had some kind of psychological problem. Some of the emails & Dileo phone call show that. I don't think AEG, especially RP, were kind to Michael. I think the problem Gongaware & RP had was that they just said certain things without thinking about the possible consequences. For instance, the email from RP to Ortega of not to play a psychiatrist sounds harsh but probably he said those things to downplay what was going on but RP, on another email, tells Gongaware something like Conrad won't be useful because he's not a psychiatrist.

AEG didn't hire Conrad, AEG didn't pay Conrad. AEG couldn't supervise someone they didn't hire & much less get deeply involved in the doctor/patient relationship. Conrad was Michael's choice, I believe second choice because there was another doc who was interested too. The only boss Conrad had was Michael and Conrad killed Michael.

 

[Petrarose]

It is off topic

Sorry ivy, but on this one Point I believe K.F.
Murray t o l d to Officer Martinez he had given Michael every night saline and he t o l d also he had in the night of Michael dead his urine controlled…..
But in the trial there where all things on the table who the police had found of Murrays treatment and there was NO bottle with saline.
If Murray would have given Michael every night enough saline (i.e. 2000 to 3000 ccm) and also in that night police would habe found empty bottles. But there where Nothing.

For me this is an important point because MJ shows all signs and sypmtoms of dehydration.

but how could he be dehydrated if there was urine in the bottle? We should look back at see how much urine was recovered.

 

[bouee]

Exactly, so no matter what, CM was going to be MJ's doc and was going to continue his criminally negligent treatment. The question seems to me to be could AEG have anticipated what was going on? Should they have suspected the doc--which it is clear to me they did not--having suspected him, should they have intervened? If so, how?

Could have AEG anticipated : not propofol precisely. I'm saying that on 19th/20th Phillips at least had enough info to suspect Murray was incompetent & lying.

Here is what Phillips knew :
- Michael was too thin, kept losing weight- he had been deteriorating for some time, Mr Houghdal says 8 weeks and gives a precise example (360° spin) .
- On the 19th Michael had chills, was unable to perform, getting paranoid, rambling.
- Phillips got at least 3 different e mails from the production people that night, not counting Karen's. It shows people were shocked and worried, all of them.
- The question of substance abuse is there , even Phillips himself wonders about that.
- How come Michael's health is deteriorating in spite of a full time 150 000 $ / month Dr ?
- Mr Houghdal says 8 weeks, Murray had been there for about that same amount of time.
- Murray was the only person who said Michael was "physically equipped to perform". Not one single dancer believed that, at best they thought he was too thin and needed to put on weight. I would think a professional dancer is credible about that.

How can you believe he is "physically equipped" when you read about the 360° spins, that he keeps losing weight ? how can you not wonder when Murray is the ONLY ONE who says that, while Michael keeps getting worse ? How can you still trust the doctor when Michael had been gradually getting worse while Murray was supposedly taking care of him ?

In one word how can you NOT doubt Murray at that point ?

Then we have Murray's attitude : we know that AEG asked him to come to rehearsals (Gongaware's email about why was Murray not there on 19th) , but he didn't come. We know Kenny tried to call him on 19th. But the day after at the meeting, Murray, who apparently hasn't seen Michael at reheasrsals , still scolds Kenny ?? !!!
Well HE was the doctor, HE was supposed to be there, Kenny was NOT supposed to massage Michael's feet, feed him, etc.. Kenny had to make a decision on his own, without the doctor's help, and this is how Murray deals with it ? How come the doctor is so defensive ?

By the way, this reminded me that Murray got suspended from a Las Vegas hospital for failing to answer on time when he was on call.

The equation is simple :
Innefficient+ defensive = there is something wrong. Murray is a doctor, the situation could be dangerous.

After the meeting, Phillips attitude si weird. He's obviously lying when he writes to Ortega "we check everyone". He just wants to shut people who voice their concerns up. "Kenny's hysteria". He goes along with Murray 300%, against Kenny. That's where the biggest mistake is. If there had been further health problems, Phillips would have wanted to know. Remember it was on 20th, at that point in time, Phillips could not know Michael would appear to be better on 23rd.

That's where , IMO , AEG, or at least Phillips, hiring Murray were negligent and failed to supervise him.

That's also why AEG's propofol defense ("we couldn't know it was propofol") is bothering me as much as Jacksons' demerol "obsession". It's not the point , we know they could not have guessed propfol.

Ok, but MJ was not in danger enough that someone should have called 911. He was not suicidal. Are you saying Ortega should have called 911 on the 19th?

I find your argument hard to follow--on the one hand, you say they should not have intervened in a medical relationship of doctor-patient, then you say they should have seen Murray was majorly flawed as a doctor, and they should have hired another doctor to investigate/get involved.

AEG had 2 ways to deal with this, that I can think of :

1- pull the plug on Murray- refuse to pay for him , let Michael deal with him through a cash advance. AEG is no longer part of it, can not be sued, but Michael's problem is not solved, so AEG's problem is not solved.

2-impose other healthcare professionals, to try and really help Michael get better, keep an eye on Murray, check what the "dr is doing". Translated into diplomatic language : "help" Murray with other healthcare professionals. Letting Murray know, tactfully, "we're wondering about you".

I would have chosen solution number 2

The post that you quoted (911 thing) is just an example to say that if AEG had imposed a healthcare professional, they were not really at risk, it was understandable given the symptoms Michael was showing + dr's inefficiency.

3- Then would have been a right time to think about background checks- Murray's contract was still not definite.

It seems to me the only leverage they had was to 'pull the plug' (cancel the shows) or threaten to do so, otherwise, both CM and Mj could simply have refused. So when Gongaware spoke of 'what we expect of him" was he threatening to fire Murray or at least putting it on the table? Was he saying CM do your job--be good doctor--take care of MJ's health so that MJ can be at rehearsals 100% ready to rock n roll?'

The problem with Gongaware's email is "what we expect of him" is not specified. Also the comment--we are paying is contradicted by the terms of the contract--they were only paying upfront, not in the final result, as we know. I don't see that email as a 'smoking gun.'

that e mail shows an attitude towards Murray. I agree it's possible Gongaware meant well , and just wanted Michael to get better, we need to know how those meetings went.

If Gongaware is threatening to fire, if he has that power, then Gongaware is saying that AEG hired Murray, and he is saying that they tried to influence the doctor, even pressure him.

The thing is that this e mail+ asking him to come to reharsals+ having meetings with him + calling him on the phone : all put together show that Murray was considered as an "employee" he was part of the tour, as much as Kenny for example. This goes to prove hiring + unhealthy relationship because Murray was Michael's personnal doctor, so a possible conflict of interest.

EDIT : what I think can be confusing about what I'm saying, is that I don't think you need to prove an intention to be liable.
I don't believe AEG meant to harm Michael in any way. I believe they got caught up in a situation and did not deal with it perfectly, and some things can be understandable.

So far the only person I would be angry with, apart from Murray, is Phillips. I have to say, don't count on me to marry him, I'm beginning to dislike him very very very much.

Now AEG contributed to create that situation, they had a role, even if they did not mean it to on a personnal level. That's why I think they have their share of responsability.