Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[MJ Fans For Charity]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - News Only (no discussion)

Are you able to have a dedicated Twitter account for what is said in court? if this kind of transcript was available? x

 

[ivy]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Why did the defendants know about the strip clubs the doctor went to after Michael passed? Why would they still have an active interest in the personal activities of the doctor who they did not hire and killed their star?

why wouldn't they know? MJ is the biggest star, media were reporting like crazy after his death and they still had an interest in him as they hold the TII footage and/or was in partnership with MJ Estate / Sony to release it.

Maybe they hired a private detective who followed CM. There were rumors he went before he passed too.

I am unsure the defendants launched an investigation into the doctor after Michael passed. The tone of Phillips email is not serious.

He could be mentioning what TMZ wrote. I don't think there were any PI involved. TMZ reported the strip clubs. It's very possible that Phillips read the TMZ story and emailed someone saying murray is crazy wait until you hear him visiting strip clubs the week MJ died.

Why would a tour doctor tell Gongaware, someone who made travel arrangements and was not a "bigwig" on the Dangerous tour as Putnam said in the opening statements

perhaps to let him know to make travel arrangements to a rehab facility? Who know we will wait and see.

Only read the AEG opening statement summary so a couple of comments on that. firstly they claim they didnt know about mjs debt which is not believable at all seeing as it was pushed down everyones throat since the early 00's

they might have known MJ had debt but it doesn't mean they knew the amount of it.

Well it's a little easier than that. All they need to prove is that AEG brought in the doctor, and that their lack of supervision when they were paying him so much money allowed him play fast and loose, which ended up causing Michael's death, not that he was a killer who set out to do it. The fact that Murray was convicted means half their work is done in that respect.

not that easy. first of all AEG is not accepting this was all Murray's doing. So how MJ died will need to explained and perhaps even proven in this case. Murray's conviction is helping Katherine but it's not done. Furthermore this charge also required Katherine to prove that AEG knew or should have known Murray was a risk.

Basically it is exactly as I thought, Murray is using all the evidence from the AEG trial to help his appeal and either overturn his conviction or to have a re-trial. Heavily focussing that much of the evidence wasn't allowed in his trial such as the great long list of doctors Michael had been treated by and his previous addictions. Wass repeated that Murray believes that Michael's insomnia was caused by the withdrawal symptoms of Demerol.

Even if he is unsuccessful in overturning his conviction I think this trial WILL change the public's opinion of him, and I think the general public will be more sympathetic toward CM and therefore make him more bankable.

I don't think overturning his conviction will be successful but you are right he might want to change public opinion.

- totally unrelated : can somebody explain to me why Panish says he didn't ask for 40 billions, when it is in the legal docs ? Did I miss something ?

Panish is stating that it was just in a document they sent to AEG to protect Jacksons interest but it wasn't in a document filed with the court.

So Jackson's lawyer is trying to say that it wasn't an official request. I think in the opening statements he said their expert would mention $1.5 Billion. Of course there would be also non economic damages.

In my opinion it is just semantics. It doesn't change the fact that they sent AEG a damages statement asking for $40.2 billion in December - long before any expert witness were deposed. AEG could have looked to it and genuinely thought Jacksons would ask for $40.2 billion. We also know that regardless of what they ask, it will be the jury to determine the final amount.

I'm still thinking that $40.2 Billion statement of damages were just to scare AEG into a settlement. Every logical person knows that in reality the damages won't be that high - $1 to $2 Billion is a lot more sensible number.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

The approx amount mj was in debt was well reported though.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

I'm still thinking that $40.2 Billion statement of damages were just to scare AEG into a settlement. Every logical person knows that in reality the damages won't be that high - $1 to $2 Billion is a lot more sensible number.

Still much to much money, except if all of it goes to PPB!

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

The approx amount mj was in debt was well reported though

I agree. Aeg knew full well about mj's debt and the financial problems he was in which would make mj so vulnerable to pressure. The media was packed with stories about the imminent collapse of mj's empire since before the 05 trial. The near defaulting of the loan on neverland in 08 was all over the press and how it was about to be the subject of foreclosure.

Barrack and randy phillips gave an interview to the la times about jackson and tii in may 09.

Jackson needs a comeback to reverse the damage done by years of excessive spending and little work. He has not toured since 1997 or released a new album since 2001, but he has continued to live like a megastar.

To finance his opulent lifestyle, he borrowed heavily against his three main assets: his ranch, his music catalog and a second catalog that includes the music of the Beatles that he co-owns with Sony Corp. By the time of his 2005 criminal trial, he was nearly $300 million in debt and, according to testimony, spending $30 million more annually than he was taking in.

...The concerts Philliips acknowledge are a do or die moment for Jackson. If it doesn't happen it would be a major problem for him careerwise in a way that it hasn't been in the past, he said.

Aeg knew the pressure mj was under from a whole host of factors, so they can't deny it.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

^^ I wouldn't mind if AEG loses and PPB is awarded 1-40 billion, and Katherine (=cubs) big fat zero.
Kids can use the money for Neverland and opening children's hospital, but K and cubs will use the money for flashy cars and indugements, and nothing to charity as usual.




@Ivy, thanks very much for your Daily Trial Testimony Summary, what a great job you did collecting and putting all the information in one easy read summary.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Yeah dito bubs. thanks ivy for the summary thread. thats all i can pretty much cope with.

agree wiv bubs but if they win kj will get something even if its far smaller than the kids. and one dime is to much for her

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Could the aeg lawyer squeeze in any more refs to mj's 'deepest, darkest secrets' if he tried? We all know what people think of when he says that about mj, and it isn't about trying to use propofol to sleep. And what did he mean when he said 'mj knew very well the cost of being exposed'? When was he 'exposed', i just know about when he was lied upon and blackmailed and exploited by nearly everyone that knew him. It's only the opening statements, and i'm already sick of aeg's innuendos against mj.

They say he concealed his drug addiction - what's he meant to do, hold a press conference about it all everytime he overdid the painkillers, and resisted all attempts to get help. I guess aeg are referring to those concertventions the jacksons organised - but he went to rehab in 93, i read rumours of a rehab in the years before the 05 trial, he had that narcan implant etc.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Just by-the-by, why was T Mez there yesterday?

 

[goldiee]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Maybe to get his share of the money? I can't explain why else he's involved in this farce.

 

[gerryevans]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Could the aeg lawyer squeeze in any more refs to mj's 'deepest, darkest secrets' if he tried? We all know what people think of when he says that about mj, and it isn't about trying to use propofol to sleep. And what did he mean when he said 'mj knew very well the cost of being exposed'? When was he 'exposed', i just know about when he was lied upon and blackmailed and exploited by nearly everyone that knew him. It's only the opening statements, and i'm already sick of aeg's innuendos against mj. .

ITA...the words were purposely chosen to spur thoughts beyond drug usage. It's all part of the strategy to cast MJ in the worst possible light.

 

[Tony R]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

I think the only positive thing to say is that if you want to avoid this farce you can. Stay away from this part of the forum, switch the news over when it comes on and just kick back & stick on your favourite MJ album.

Nothing makes me forget the darker side of human nature quicker than listening to and losing myself in Dangerous.

That's what music & Michael Jackson were made for.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Totally agree bonnie and gerry. it could have been sneddon saying that. the jacksons are the ones who started this.arg should go after them not the victim

 

[Member Service]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

Please try and control yourselves and nix on the onliner insults and name calling of the parties involved in this lawsuit, from either side. If that is all you have to contribute, then please don't, it doesn't add anything constructive or of value to the discussion and is against the policies, rules and guidelines posted in this forum. Any such posts will be deleted with out notice. (as always, constructive criticism is welcome) please know the difference.

 

[christy]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

I'm still thinking that $40.2 Billion statement of damages were just to scare AEG into a settlement. Every logical person knows that in reality the damages won't be that high - $1 to $2 Billion is a lot more sensible number.

Still much to much money....!

In a civil lawsuit, attorneys normally max it out to
the highest inflatable amount conceivable but that doesn't = reality.

AEG's asking price for it's company for sale is $8M,
found a couple of suitors but NOWHERE in the ball park of the asking price.

40 billion would have bankrupted the company 5 times over!

Precedent civil cases have shown 10% is usually awarded amount ...
so we're looking at a couple of 100 million. (Not that I want KJ and company to win..)
I couldn't care less either way..... all I wish is for all the MJ mud slinging to stop right now

 

[qbee]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

In a civil lawsuit, attorneys normally max it out to
the highest inflatable amount conceivable but that doesn't = reality.

AEG's asking price for it's company for sale is $8M,
found a couple of suitors but NOWHERE in the ball park of the asking price.

40 billion would have bankrupted the company 5 times over!

Precedent civil cases have shown 10% is usually awarded amount ...
so we're looking at a couple of 100 million. (Not that I want KJ and company to win..)
I couldn't care less either way..... all I wish is for all the MJ mud slinging to stop right now

Actually the asking price for AEG was 8 billion, not million but yes I agree they inflate the damages asked for in civil suits but Jackson's attorney's asking for 40 Billion was astronomical and not even anywhere a reasonable request. It ended up biting them in the end, making them appear greedy. It was not a good move on their part IMO

 

[qbee]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Could the aeg lawyer squeeze in any more refs to mj's 'deepest, darkest secrets' if he tried? We all know what people think of when he says that about mj, and it isn't about trying to use propofol to sleep. And what did he mean when he said 'mj knew very well the cost of being exposed'? When was he 'exposed', i just know about when he was lied upon and blackmailed and exploited by nearly everyone that knew him. It's only the opening statements, and i'm already sick of aeg's innuendos against mj.

They say he concealed his drug addiction - what's he meant to do, hold a press conference about it all everytime he overdid the painkillers, and resisted all attempts to get help. I guess aeg are referring to those concertventions the jacksons organised - but he went to rehab in 93, i read rumours of a rehab in the years before the 05 trial, he had that narcan implant etc.

I think the point they are trying to make or prove with (deepest darkest secrets) is that Michael was very secretive about his drug use, to show there was no way they could be privy to this information. They are not saying he should have announced his drug addictions either, just pointing out he was secretive about them. I'm not defending, just stating the obvious reasons for these statements. I think you are partially right but they were not made for the sole purpose of making MJ appear dark, (which is irrelevant to the case) but they were relevant to the defense of not knowing, not for seeing the events that would unfold . IMO

 

[jaydom7]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

If Murray believed that then he should've inquired about it. He knew MJ was seeing Klein

 

[christy]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 1 - April 29 2013 - Discussion

Actually the asking price for AEG was 8 billion, not million but yes I agree they inflate the damages asked for in civil suits but Jackson's attorney's asking for 40 Billion was astronomical and not even anywhere a reasonable request. It ended up biting them in the end, making them appear greedy. It was not a good move on their part IMO

My Bad!:doh: I meant Billion. Typo!
40 billion divided by 8 = 5. That adds up

 

[LastTear]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP1m
Katherine Jackson has arrived at the courtroom for today's proceedings. Court hasn't started yet.

 

[myosotis]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP 1m Katherine Jackson has arrived at the courtroom for today's proceedings. Court hasn't started yet.


(LOL....Apologies to LastTear! )

 

[LastTear]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion



Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP1m
About to go into court. Will update when I'm able.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts1m
Hello from the courthouse in downtown LA. Katherine Jackson has arrived at the courthouse. We're told Randy and Rebbie coming too.

Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP1m
Randy Jackson has also arrived for court.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts1m
Hallway is filled with reporters again. Everyone is lined up waiting to get in. Our reporter Miriam Hernandez is the number one in the list

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

after she lost her husband, Rebbie is more than ever in need of AEG's money. How many times did she go to Murray trial ?

how many times did she show to support MJ in 2005 ? probably once .

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

This is from previous thread, i posted but the thread was closed.

I think the point they are trying to make or prove with (deepest darkest secrets) is that Michael was very secretive about his drug use, to show there was no way they could be privy to this information. They are not saying he should have announced his drug addictions either, just pointing out he was secretive about them. I'm not defending, just stating the obvious reasons for these statements. I think you are partially right but they were not made for the sole purpose of making MJ appear dark, (which is irrelevant to the case) but they were relevant to the defense of not knowing, not for seeing the events that would unfold . IMO

I know what aeg's 'official' reason is, but i was just making the point that their choice of language is very very telling. You don't need to refer to prescription drug addiction in those terms - dark, ugly. Do you think anyone would refer to eliz taylor's battle with prescription drugs in those terms, or indeed anyone else. MJ wasn't in some crack den, shooting up in squalor surrounded by needles, he was in pain and had doctors ease that pain more than he should have done,perhaps by having too many cosmetic surgeries/dental work by the sounds of things and the drug that killed him was for treating insomnia. It's unfortunate, it's sad and tragic, not dark and ugly.

It's totally deliberate in them using that type of language -

The truth is mj fooled everyone. He made sure that noone, nobody knew his deepest darkest secrets'.

When you're talking about someone who was accused 3 times of child molestation, who had that massive trial, and who alot in the general public still question what really happened, then they can miss me if aeg try and claim they're just referring to propofol. If the trial is about personal choices as they say it is, then they've got the choice to treat mj with some compassion, rather than unpleasant innuendos.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

Am I right that plaintiffs present their case and calls their witnesses, then it will be defense's turn to do the same, same as criminal trial?

I know what aeg's 'official' reason is, but i was just making the point that their choice of language is very very telling. You don't need to refer to prescription drug addiction in those terms - dark, ugly. Do you think anyone would refer to eliz taylor's battle with prescription drugs in those terms, or indeed anyone else. MJ wasn't in some crack den, shooting up in squalor surrounded by needles, he was in pain and had doctors ease that pain more than he should have done,perhaps by having too many cosmetic surgeries/dental work by the sounds of things and the drug that killed him was for treating insomnia. It's unfortunate, it's sad and tragic, not dark and ugly.

It's totally deliberate in them using that type of language -


When you're talking about someone who was accused 3 times of child molestation, who had that massive trial, and who alot in the general public still question what really happened, then they can miss me if aeg try and claim, we're just referring to propofol. If the trial is about personal choices as they say it is, then they've got the choice to treat mj with some compassion.

I agree with you Bonnie, it is either that or we are getting paranoid.
When media talks about Michael and drugs, they never ever mention that drugs (medication) is for genuine pain and other issues, they make the story sound like Michael was popping pills for the fun.

As for AEG lawyers insinuating something else in his message about Michael's deepest darkest secret. It is not always what they say, but how it is delivered. It is plausible that he tried to plant ideas to juros minds without them realising it.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

This is from previous thread, i posted but the thread was closed.


I know what aeg's 'official' reason is, but i was just making the point that their choice of language is very very telling. You don't need to refer to prescription drug addiction in those terms - dark, ugly. Do you think anyone would refer to eliz taylor's battle with prescription drugs in those terms, or indeed anyone else. MJ wasn't in some crack den, shooting up in squalor surrounded by needles, he was in pain and had doctors ease that pain more than he should have done,perhaps by having too many cosmetic surgeries/dental work by the sounds of things and the drug that killed him was for treating insomnia. It's unfortunate, it's sad and tragic, not dark and ugly.

It's totally deliberate in them using that type of language -


When you're talking about someone who was accused 3 times of child molestation, who had that massive trial, and who alot in the general public still question what really happened, then they can miss me if aeg try and claim, we're just referring to propofol. If the trial is about personal choices as they say it is, then they've got the choice to treat mj with some compassion.

Exactly , it is indeed very apparent .

 

[myosotis]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

Corina Knoll ?@corinaknoll 3m Michael Jackson-AEG: Jury has yet to be called inside for 2nd day of civil trial.


Corina Knoll ?@corinaknoll 3m MJ trial: Jury now seated. First witness called.

Corina Knoll ?@corinaknoll 1m Michael Jackson civil trial's first witness: Richard Senneff, LAFD paramedic

Corina Knoll ?@corinaknoll 41s Richard Senneff was one of several paramedics who attempted to revive Michael Jackson.

Corina Knoll ?@corinaknoll 2m Senneff also testified in the Conrad Murray trial that the doctor never mentioned giving propofol to Michael Jackson.


Corina Knoll ?@corinaknoll 1m Here's a pic of Richard Senneff, taken during the Conrad Murray trial in 2011:
pic.twitter.com/SSix2CFryw

https://twitter.com/corinaknoll/status/329289843471437824/photo/1

 

[LastTear]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

@bubs Yes prosecution puts it's case first.

****

Jeez, they are late, wonder what's going on.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

^^ Prosecution, is there such a thing in civil trial?

 

[jaydom7]

Re: Jacksons vs AEG - Day 2 - April 30 2013 - Discussion

it's the plaintiff that presents their case first in a civil trial