Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[bouee]

i'm not sure I will have the time today to put all the e mails together to show you, I can only take short breaks from what I'm doing, I'll definitely try to do that later, maybe tomorriw..

Yes, I understand some people would not react the same way. That's why, at least for now, I am only suspecting Phillips, not Gongaware, not Ortega, not Karen or anybody else in TII. This is why I asked if Phillips could be found liable , and not AEG, because, at least until yesterday, now I'm not so sure, I thought he made his decsion on his own.
I don't understand why Branca would have contacted him about that. I think someone, (Phillips ? ) contacted Branca first to ask for help.

I mean, re read the emails of june 19th -20th : there was a process, Phillips tried to understand, he did wonder if it was chemical, he tried to see what he could do to help, THEN decided to side with Murray.

I don't see any other explanation than "I was conviced by Murray", though, as I said, i don't think it would fly, and according to what we know of AEG's defense, he will be hiding behind Michael ("Michael said he was fine, why should I doubt him ?", when it was obvious he was not, and that should have been another red flag) . We'll see what Phillips has to say, he still has a chance to change my mind, you never know,

As for other people's attitude with Michael's past addiction problems, i understand, but I don't share Karen's point of view. I think "avoiding the subject like the plague" is selfish. If she thought she was in a priviledged position with him, and really cared for him, she would have tried something. I much prefer someone, maybe like LMP or Debbie, leaving - if that was one of the reasons they left- , and being honest. I think at the end of the day, when he finally got rid of this, Michael knew who his true friends were.

 

[Big Apple2]

Also, not all people are ready or willing to step in or get involve that kind of situations, especially if the person in trouble is someone you know, but at the same time, you are not friend or family member.

I could say that if I was in RP or Gonga's shoes, I would definately had done something or told MJ to stop seeing CM, but deep down and being honest to myself, I just cannot see doing so. Just like Karen F, M Bush or any other people who knew MJ and were concidered as "friends" of his, none of them went directly to MJ and say something, and those "friends" have seen all that before. If they couldn't say anything MJ to stop seeing his doc or warn him about CM, I think your chances with MJ would have been slim to none.

And for that reason, I have certain understanding that perhaps AEG people might have been thinking the same way (see how carefully worded sentence. Perhaps they just didn't want to get involved that aspect of Michael life and turned blind eye?

I totally agree with you on this bubs.

I mean, folks can SUGGEST this, that and the other thing, but at the end of the day they are only suggestions. It's up to the person whether or not they will heed any of your suggestions.

We also have to keep in mind that Michael, himself, said that "I know you're worried, but I'm fine." Did Michael REALLY believe that he was fine? When he looked in the mirror, did he not see what everybody else "CLAIMED" they saw? I guess we will never know.

Ms. Faye and the rest of them, didn't want to say anything, because they knew Michael would kick them to the curb, in my opinion. I don't believe her answer as to why she didn't approach Michael about her concerns. Homegirl knew what time it was! She was so happy to be back with Michael, she definitely was not going to rock that boat, in my opinion.

On another note: I "thought" that SOME of those folks had concerns with Michael seeing Klein. Did anybody ever approach Michael about his visits to Arnold Klein?

Me, personally, I just don't see how anybody, including Mother, could DEMAND that Michael stop seeing a particular doctor and/or person. We're talking about a 50 year-old man after all.

 

[Tygger]

I think we have to be careful with this....

What would be a valid argument is to show Gongaware knew there were unethical doctors, or that he started to have doubts, so that would be asking him how Finkelstein was brought on the Dangerous tour (if he was involved in bringing him on the tour? i'm not sure right now and don't have the time to re read Karen's testimony).

I do not understand your response. I am unsure of what I must be careful of.

The plaintiffs' lawyer has been asking Gongaware questions for two days and he has been evading those questions with memory loss and confusion as often possible. He has already said he does not remember much about Dr. Finklestein during the Dangerous tour yet this is his long time friend.

This evasion method may hurt him more than he believes. Debbie Rowe still has to testify and she has already admitted to witnessing what some doctors have done to temporarily correct Michael's issues on tour.

Posting from Ivy's summaries:

Panish said Dr. Finkelstein testified under oath that Gongaware knew MJ had problems w/ painkillers before the end of Dangerous tour ended. Panish: Do you dispute that? (Finkelstein testimony) Gongaware: I knew that he had pain. (ABC7)

Gongaware said Dr. Finkelstein is his doctor and friend and that they talk off and on, but he doesn't know specifics of the doctor's deposition. Dr. Finkelstein said he gave MJ painkillers after concert in Bangkok after Michael had scalp surgery. In Gongaware's video deposition: Did you ever ask Dr. Finkelstein if he treated MJ during the Dangerous tour? He wouldn't take about that stuff. Another part of Gongaware's video depo: He said yes, he occasionally treated Michael Jackson on the Dangerous tour. (ABC7)

Dr. Finkelstein and Gongaware have been friends for 35-plus years. Gongaware said he never offered Dr. Finkelstein the job of being MJ's doctor and said the doctor would be mistaken if he testified otherwise. Gongaware told the jury he called Dr. Finkelstein to ask what a fair price for a tour doctor would be. Doc told him it was $10,000/week. As to Dr. Finkelstein wanting to be the tour doctor, Gongaware said he didn't recall specifically, but knew he wanted it."After his death we may have talked, but I don't recall specifics," Gongaware said. Gongaware said he sees Dr. Finkelstein a few times a year, but MJ's subject never came up. Panish asked Gongaware if Dr. Finkelstein wanted to know if MJ was clean and using drugs. Gongaware said he didn't recall the conversation . (ABC7)

 

[ivy]

It is direct. That's why I took the electrician example. Crappy electrecian = burnt house.
Beating up clients is not related to delivering stuff, anyone can beat up someone.

Translated into Michael's situation :
1) Electrician = issue directly related to the job

Murray killed Michael because of the way he gave propofol. He was playing russian roulette with him, other doctors would have given it properly , and nothing would have happened. Murray was crappy at his job , another dr would have been better. Murray was working as a doctor when he gave Michael propofol.

2) delivery guy beating up a client = not related to his job.

In this case, it would be Murray accidently hitting Michael with his car, and killing him. That would be Murray doing something NOT related to his job.

Example 1 = there were signs Murray was a crappy doctor.
Example 2 = impossible to foresee, could happen to anyone

while electrician is direct, your delivery guy example is not direct. And as you said the second one "impossible to foresee, could happen to anyone" that would not be a negligent hiring.

Please do not forget Gongaware here. He was on the Dangerous and History tour, he conversed with the doctors, he was aware of Michael’s sleep issues on those tours and what may have been done to temporarily correct them. He was also aware Michael had sleep issues during the TII tour preparations.

there's nothing to suggest he knew Michael's sleep issues. He knew Michael taken pain medicine but did not realize he had a dependency problem until later. Also think about his interaction with Finkelstein, Finkelstein warned him about Michael's dependency. So in his experience regardless of Michael's issues, the doctor (Finkelstein) was ethical and doing the right thing. So if you go with this experience, he could have trusted the doctor - whomever they might be - to do the right thing.

Also another thing that disturbs me with this kind of logic is that you and Jacksons assume "once an addict, always an addict". That's a disservice to everyone with a dependency issues and try their best to turn their lives around.

 

[Diplomate]

If Karen Faye, was really worried about Michael, she would have spoken BEFORE 25 June 2009 about these problems, but as you know, if she has spoken, no more salary for her.... so let's go on!

Like a wise man said " you will do anything for money "

 

[Big Apple2]

If Karen Faye, was really worried about Michael, she would have spoken BEFORE 25 June 2009 about these problems, but as you know, if she has spoken, no more salary for her.... so let's go on!

Like a wise man said " you will do anything for money "

Ms. Faye was more interested in keeping that paycheck, but, in my opinion, it was even more than that, she ALSO wanted the bragging rights that came along with going on tour with a Super-Duper-Star like Mr. Michael Jackson.

I remember when Mike had first died and she was telling all sorts of stories about Mike on her Facebook page, and some of those stories were not so nice, in my opinion. She was acting like she was the closest thing to Michael and "some" of the fans were just eating it up.

 

[bouee]

while electrician is direct, your delivery guy example is not direct. And as you said the second one "impossible to foresee, could happen to anyone" that would not be a negligent hiring.

we agree. But the delivery guy is your example, the electrician is mine.

Murray is the electrician that does multiple mistakes until the big mistake happens, and Jack's house burns down.
There were signs he was not doing his job correctly. Bigger problems (though not specific, but including Michael's death) were foreseeable.
This is negligent hiring & supervising.

 

[Tygger]

there's nothing to suggest he knew Michael's sleep issues. He knew Michael taken pain medicine but did not realize he had a dependency problem until later. Also think about his interaction with Finkelstein, Finkelstein warned him about Michael's dependency. So in his experience regardless of Michael's issues, the doctor (Finkelstein) was ethical and doing the right thing. So if you go with this experience, he could have trusted the doctor - whomever they might be - to do the right thing.

Also another thing that disturbs me with this kind of logic is that you and Jacksons assume "once an addict, always an addict". That's a disservice to everyone with a dependency issues and try their best to turn their lives around.

Will Dr. Ratner testify? He and Dr. Finkelstein will testify to what they specifically told Gongaware. Gongaware in turn may be recalled to testify if he remembers what these doctors said and if any of the terms were confusing in hindsight. Gongaware has already had experience with artists on tour who had dependency issues (Elvis and Rick James).

Your last two sentences disturb me as well. I did not suggest that and I do not see where the plaintiffs, or the plaintiffs' lawyers, or the defendants' lawyers who agreed in their opening statements that the family did try unsuccessfully to help their son/brother suggested this either.

However, those with dependency issues and those who love them indeed understand it is an issue that must be managed everyday.

 

[Big Apple2]

Will Dr. Ratner testify? He and Dr. Finkelstein will testify to what they specifically told Gongaware.

Dr. Ratner's name sounds a wee bit familiar, never heard of Dr. Finkelstein before.

Will either one of them be "claiming" that they gave Mike propofol before?

 

[ivy]

Both Ratner and Finkelstein is on witness lists and probably will be called to testify. It's hard to say what they will claim. Finkelstein should be about opiates I believe.

@Tygger - that's the implied assumption of the Jacksons and you. You are implying that as Gongaware knew Michael's 93 opiate dependency he should have approached to every doctor as a Dr. Feelgood. Why? Why couldn't he assume that Michael kicked his dependency issues and were clean and every doctor was ethical?

@bouee - you changed my delivery guy example in your posts. That I don't agree with. The way I wrote it is a classic textbook example of negligent hiring and an actual lawsuit.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, the plaintiffs and defendants lawyers both agree that the Jackson family tried unsuccessfully to help Michael with his issues.

As for Gongaware, he worked with two other artists with dependency issues. As I said, those with dependency issues and those who love them understand it is an issue that must be managed everyday.

 

[bouee]

I do not understand your response. I am unsure of what I must be careful of.

The plaintiffs' lawyer has been asking Gongaware questions for two days and he has been evading those questions with memory loss and confusion as often possible. He has already said he does not remember much about Dr. Finklestein during the Dangerous tour yet this is his long time friend.

This evasion method may hurt him more than he believes. Debbie Rowe still has to testify and she has already admitted to witnessing what some doctors have done to temporarily correct Michael's issues on tour.

I'll try to explain in a different way.

The way the questions were asked yesterday , or the way they were reported, were just to know what Gongaware knew and when. That's not very interesting, the fact that he knew is enough.

If Gongaware was involved in hiring Finkelstein in 93, then it would be interesting to know how it happened. How was his friend called on this tour, by whom, and why. Was he involved ? If so, why ? Why did he have doubts at the time (if he had any), was he asked to call a doctor, was Finkelstein there from the beginning of the tour... In one word, how come Finkelstein, his 35 years long friend, was there ?

Maybe it's a tactic from Panish to get a lot of "I don't remember" from Gongaware , to later catch him in a lie.

I don't know what to think of his memory loss. I agree with you it's strange, + the answers seem "arranged" to fit a general idea that is not the truth.

I don't know what to think of it, because sometimes his answers sound illogical and show something else, that he might not have agreed with everything that was going on at the time. Emphasis on might.

I don't want to have an opinion about him now, I'll just wait for more info to come in.

Also another thing that disturbs me with this kind of logic is that you and Jacksons assume "once an addict, always an addict". That's a disservice to everyone with a dependency issues and try their best to turn their lives around.

Totally agree on this. Though it will certainly be AEG's logic, in amuch worse way than the Jacksons.

I think Panish wants to keep it simple for the jury and show it was logical to consider the drug problem (and they did), though sometimed it makes me grrrrr.

 

[Big Apple2]

Ivy, the plaintiffs and defendants lawyers both agree that the Jackson family tried unsuccessfully to help Michael with his issues.

It will be interesting to see just how the Jacksons handle that particular claim. Since, in my opinion, when they claimed to be helping Michael with his "problem," they were also BEGGING him to join them on stage again. Yes Sirree Bob, I can't want to hear that testimony.

 

[bouee]

@bouee - you changed my delivery guy example in your posts. That I don't agree with. The way I wrote it is a classic textbook example of negligent hiring and an actual lawsuit.

i did NOT change anything, that is a lie, so don't accuse me of things I don't do.

Your example was Joe, delivery guy, beating up a client, you , as the employer, did not check his background.

I started from that, which IMO does not reflect the situation.

very sorry if you don't like it. This is a forum, so I state my opinion.

 

[ivy]

@ Tygger

you don't get it. Michael very well might had problems all through his life and this might be a fact that's discovered through this lawsuit. Go before that and I'm asking why would anyone make an assumption that was the case?

In other words Michael had opiate dependency issues in 1993. When Ratner was on tour with him during History should the people make the assumption "oh he's an addict and that's a Dr.Feelgood" or could they have given him the benefit of the doubt and say "he's clean and that's the doctor to make sure that he stays clean". Do you get what I'm saying?

When Jacksons or you say "Gongaware knew 93 and should have known TII", you are operating on the basis thatGongaware's thought process was "oh he's an addict and that's a Dr.Feelgood". I call that as a disservice to every recovering addict out there.

 

[ivy]

i did NOT change anything, that is a lie, so don't accuse me of things I don't do.

Your example was Joe, delivery guy, beating up a client, you , as the employer, did not check his background.

I started from that, which IMO does not reflect the situation.

very sorry if you don't like it. This is a forum, so I state my opinion.

there's no need to be defensive about it also at no times I did not say you cannot write your opinion. You wrote about how it not being related to the job and not being negligent hiring. You wrote about a delivery guy being late, going to wrong places and so on. That's changing my example and that made it confusing. I wanted to correct that. In negligent hiring there's no requirement the action needs to be limited to be in regards to the duties job. All that is required it that the company exposed the other party to a foreseeable risk.

If I hired a convicted killer to be a delivery guy and if he kills a customer that's a foreseeable risk and textbook negligent hiring in USA. Company by hiring a known killer exposes the customers to the risk of being killed. It's foreseeable and it could be avoided. Negligent hiring or the risk or the damage does not require to be limited to the task of delivering products.

Also let me point out that I did not give the delivery guy example as a direct equivalent of the issue here. I gave the example to explain the legal meaning of negligent hiring, direct causation between the act and knowledge and "knew or should have known" part.

 

[Bubs]

I mean, folks can SUGGEST this, that and the other thing, but at the end of the day they are only suggestions. It's up to the person whether or not they will heed any of your suggestions.

We also have to keep in mind that Michael, himself, said that "I know you're worried, but I'm fine." Did Michael REALLY believe that he was fine? When he looked in the mirror, did he not see what everybody else "CLAIMED" they saw? I guess we will never know.

Ms. Faye and the rest of them, didn't want to say anything, because they knew Michael would kick them to the curb, in my opinion. I don't believe her answer as to why she didn't approach Michael about her concerns. Homegirl knew what time it was! She was so happy to be back with Michael, she definitely was not going to rock that boat, in my opinion.

On another note: I "thought" that SOME of those folks had concerns with Michael seeing Klein. Did anybody ever approach Michael about his visits to Arnold Klein?

Me, personally, I just don't see how anybody, including Mother, could DEMAND that Michael stop seeing a particular doctor and/or person. We're talking about a 50 year-old man after all.

I didn't mean to draw attention to only on KF, but everyone else around MJ.
M Bush was there but he didn't say anything to MJ, Payne was there, he didn't say anything either, and Kenny O was there, and I'm not sure did he say anything directly to MJ? None of them had a guts to go on MJ directly and say something, some of them complained to AEG bosses and told them to do something, but maybe they too were stuck on that practice that dont talk to MJ?

I was thinking what if AEG had done a proper background check on CM, then what?
They take their information to MJ and tells him that he had loans and was has money problems, and he is behind child support, and we think it raises a red flag as to how he treats you, and you should take a doctor from UK that we select for you.
I can imagine (althought not sure) Mj telling them:
I have over $ 200 million debt, my brothers are behind their child supports which I have to pay on their behalf, and you do not tell me who I want to be my doctor.
It would've been useless AEG tell MJ that CM debts and child support raises red flag, because MJ already knew that when CM agreed to give propofol to him to help to sleep.

About Klein thingy, I think RP said something about him. I think it was in smoking gun emails in which RP said to MJ that he has to stop seeing Klein and take only what CM gives him (or something similar).

 

[bouee]

I TRIED to use YOUR example,without changing it, but eventually had to change it the problem was it was not reflecting the situation :

- a criminal record can be obtainable, Murray's supsensions were probably not obtainable by AEG
- it was hugely exagerated : a delivery guy ending up beating up client, with no previous warning signs while he was employed. Warning signs in your example would have been the delivry guy being over aggresive with clients, and you ignoring the clients complaints.
- delivery and beating up a client are not linked. Murray killED Michael doing the job he was hired for : being a "doctor".

while electrician is direct, your delivery guy example is not direct. And as you said the second one "impossible to foresee, could happen to anyone" that would not be a negligent hiring

@bouee - you changed my delivery guy example in your posts. That I don't agree with. The way I wrote it is a classic textbook example of negligent hiring and an actual lawsuit.

That "I don't agree with" in that context is ambiguous. Therefore a reaction that you call defensive.

 

[Big Apple2]

I didn't mean to draw attention to only on KF, but everyone else around MJ.
M Bush was there but he didn't say anything to MJ, Payne was there, he didn't say anything either, and Kenny O was there, and I'm not sure did he say anything directly to MJ? None of them had a guts to go on MJ directly and say something, some of them complained to AEG bosses and told them to do something, but maybe they too were stuck on that practice that dont talk to MJ?

I was thinking what if AEG had done a proper background check on CM, then what?
They take their information to MJ and tells him that he had loans and was has money problems, and he is behind child support, and we think it raises a red flag as to how he treats you, and you should take a doctor from UK that we select for you.
I can imagine (althought not sure) Mj telling them:
I have over $ 200 million debt, my brothers are behind their child supports which I have to pay on their behalf, and you do not tell me who I want to be my doctor.
It would've been useless AEG tell MJ that CM debts and child support raises red flag, because MJ already knew that when CM agreed to give propofol to him to help to sleep.

About Klein thingy, I think RP said something about him. I think it was in smoking gun emails in which RP said to MJ that he has to stop seeing Klein and take only what CM gives him (or something similar).

Oh I definitely hear you bubs. I only used Ms. Faye as an example because she's the one who wants the WORLD to believe that her and Michael were bossom buddies, some how connected at the hip, Best Friend's For Life. And you know, because EVERYBODY AND THEIR MOMMA were jealous of her friendship with Mike. LOL!

In my mind, a background check would be more in line with your job performance, and not much to do about your financial situation. I mean, let's face it, the MAJORITY of Americans are living above their means, and the rest are having a serious problem trying to pay back their massive student loans. Then there are the folks who brought homes that they couldn't afford and are now being threatened with foreclosure.

I also agree with you as far as getting rid of Murray. How could they get rid of Murray, if Michael said: "Murray is not going anywhere, I need him to take care of the machine, which is me."

 

[bouee]

I didn't mean to draw attention to only on KF, but everyone else around MJ.
M Bush was there but he didn't say anything to MJ, Payne was there, he didn't say anything either, and Kenny O was there, and I'm not sure did he say anything directly to MJ? None of them had a guts to go on MJ directly and say something, some of them complained to AEG bosses and told them to do something, but maybe they too were stuck on that practice that dont talk to MJ?

I was thinking what if AEG had done a proper background check on CM, then what?
They take their information to MJ and tells him that he had loans and was has money problems, and he is behind child support, and we think it raises a red flag as to how he treats you, and you should take a doctor from UK that we select for you.
I can imagine (althought not sure) Mj telling them:
I have over $ 200 million debt, my brothers are behind their child supports which I have to pay on their behalf, and you do not tell me who I want to be my doctor.
It would've been useless AEG tell MJ that CM debts and child support raises red flag, because MJ already knew that when CM agreed to give propofol to him to help to sleep.

About Klein thingy, I think RP said something about him. I think it was in smoking gun emails in which RP said to MJ that he has to stop seeing Klein and take only what CM gives him (or something similar).

I agree with you, and just to be specific , travis said he didn't see anything that would look alarming to him. The difference is that AEG were in a specific position to do something : they were paying for the doctor, Michael had to go through them to hire Murray. It was like a unique opportunity to stop Murray.

re background checks : I agree money problems were not a warning sign, it would have been Murray's suspensions, that AEG could not get I think. The only way to get around that would have been to ask Murray to fill in a form or something like that, asking him about previous disciplinary problems, malpractice lawsuits, etc.. I think it's understandable they didn't do that, since they thought Murray had been Michael's doctor for 3 years.

 

[Big Apple2]

I agree with you, and just to be specific , travis said he didn't see anything that would look alarming to him. The difference is that AEG were in a specific position to do something : they were paying for the doctor, Michael had to go through them to hire Murray. It was like a unique opportunity to stop Murray.

re background checks : I agree money problems were not a warning sign, it would have been Murray's suspensions, that AEG could not get I think. The only way to get around that would have been to ask Murray to fill in a form or something like that, asking him about previous disciplinary problems, malpractice lawsuits, etc.. I think it's understandable they didn't do that, since they thought Murray had been Michael's doctor for 3 years.

But they weren't paying the doctor. Apparently NOBODY was paying Murray, unless you count what Michael "may" have been giving him under the table, to hold Murray down until the contract was fully executed. Maybe! I just think if Murray was staying with the instrument, he must have been paying her rent and whatever other expenses an instrument requires and/or request.

I agree with you on Murray being Michael's doctor for 3 years as a reason for "maybe" skipping any sort of background check. If I recall correctly, Murray would be the doctor for Mike AND his 3-children while in London. Me, personally, if Mike said Murray would also be taking care of his 3-children, I would definitely not question anything at that point. Believing that no parent would put their own children in danger by securing faulty medical care.

 

[bouee]

@ Tygger

you don't get it. Michael very well might had problems all through his life and this might be a fact that's discovered through this lawsuit. Go before that and I'm asking why would anyone make an assumption that was the case?

In other words Michael had opiate dependency issues in 1993. When Ratner was on tour with him during History should the people make the assumption "oh he's an addict and that's a Dr.Feelgood" or could they have given him the benefit of the doubt and say "he's clean and that's the doctor to make sure that he stays clean". Do you get what I'm saying?

When Jacksons or you say "Gongaware knew 93 and should have known TII", you are operating on the basis thatGongaware's thought process was "oh he's an addict and that's a Dr.Feelgood". I call that as a disservice to every recovering addict out there.

It's true, up to the point when Michael started showing disturbing symptoms, and his health kept getting worse in spite of a full time doctor being there. After that point, the connection should have been made.

 

[Bubs]

I agree with you, and just to be specific , travis said he didn't see anything that would look alarming to him. The difference is that AEG were in a specific position to do something : they were paying for the doctor, Michael had to go through them to hire Murray. It was like a unique opportunity to stop Murray.

re background checks : I agree money problems were not a warning sign, it would have been Murray's suspensions, that AEG could not get I think. The only way to get around that would have been to ask Murray to fill in a form or something like that, asking him about previous disciplinary problems, malpractice lawsuits, etc.. I think it's understandable they didn't do that, since they thought Murray had been Michael's doctor for 3 years.

I'm in disagreement about that paying thingy or at least untill something else comes out in trial to prove otherwise.
To me upfronting CM's salary is like they loaned money for MJ to pay his doc, not that they controlled how MJ used to money.
They couldn't control Mj to take their suggestion of UK doctor either.
The simple fact was that MJ didn't have lose money to pay his doctor so he wanted AEG upfront his salary.

Just a random thought, Tohme had 5 million of MJ money, he said it was resudue of something?
I believe MJ didn't know about that 5 Mil as he could have used that money to pay his doctor himself.

If they had asked CM to fill in the form of malpractices or other issues, do you think he would have been honest with his replies?

 

[Big Apple2]

If they had asked CM to fill in the form of malpractices or other issues, do you think he would have been honest with his replies?

In my opinion, if he had anything really negative on his record, I can definitely see him trying to cover it up, OR, he would have asked Michael to tell AEG: "he's my doctor, he doesn't have to fill out any forms."

But that's only if he had something really horrible on his doctor file.

In my further opinion, Michael trusted Murray and he apparently liked Murray and considered him not only his doctor, but his friend.

 

[bouee]

But they weren't paying the doctor. Apparently NOBODY was paying Murray, unless you count what Michael "may" have been giving him under the table, to hold Murray down until the contract was fully executed. Maybe! I just think if Murray was staying with the instrument, he must have been paying her rent and whatever other expenses an instrument requires and/or request.

I agree with you on Murray being Michael's doctor for 3 years as a reason for "maybe" skipping any sort of background check. If I recall correctly, Murray would be the doctor for Mike AND his 3-children while in London. Me, personally, if Mike said Murray would also be taking care of his 3-children, I would definitely not question anything at that point. Believing that no parent would put their own children in danger by securing faulty medical care.

yes Big Apple (I love your name, I love NYC ! ) , but Michael was expecting them to pay him, and AEG had agreed to, and issued contracts up until the 24th, Murray was on the budgets.
So, unless there is a magical e mail that comes up saying "put everything on hold, stop the contract with Murray" that wpould have been sent to Ms Jorrie between the 20th and 23rd , when Michael appeared to be better, AEG did not do anything to stop the hiring process.
They did that AFTER Michael died, because they certainly suspected Murray then. so doing it at that point doesn't say anything about AEG's intentions while Michael was alive.

 

[StellaJackson]

If Karen Faye, was really worried about Michael, she would have spoken BEFORE 25 June 2009 about these problems, but as you know, if she has spoken, no more salary for her.... so let's go on!

Like a wise man said " you will do anything for money "

She did speak. In fact she was protesting so much that the shows should be stopped that the higher ups wanted to get rid of her. This was demonstrated in the emails shown in court yesterday.

 

[bouee]

If they had asked CM to fill in the form of malpractices or other issues, do you think he would have been honest with his replies?

NO, no way, I don't think so ! LOL, Murray telling the truth !

It would have been a way to cover their ass, but it's nothing in regards to what I call the warning signs, so it would have been useless anyway. So it's just purely legal, maybe it would have helped if there had been no warning signs at all.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, you do not know me. You can repeat your opinion about what I know and do not know but, it does not make it true. You are aligning me with your negative interpretation of what the Jacksons did for their brother/son. It is interesting how it is being ignored that both the plaintiffs and defendants lawyers have stipulated that the Jacksons tried to help Michael with his issues and that it was unsuccessful. It is truly disappointing this kind of help is being looked upon as a negative.

Anyone who has long term dealings with someone with a dependency issue KNOWS it is a disease and those impulses have to be managed EVERYDAY of that person’s life. If you feel Gongaware innocently thought that Michael was clean, that’s fine but, he never said that on the stand or in any of his emails; that is your assumption.

Gongaware should KNOW that dependency is dealt with everyday and various ways it has been dealt with. He toured with Elvis and Rick James. Ask yourself why he was asked about who he worked with that had a dependency issue on tour. Tours are stressful for everyone, not just Michael.

Anyone truly close to Michael would know that any stressful situation and any unscrupulous person looking to take advantage of him through his issues, including a doctor, could influence Michael to destroy his sobriety that he worked so hard on each and EVERY day to maintain. Anyone who cares about a person with dependency issues knows their hard earned sobriety is too precious to assume anything less.

 

[bouee]

In my opinion, if he had anything really negative on his record, I can definitely see him trying to cover it up, OR, he would have asked Michael to tell AEG: "he's my doctor, he doesn't have to fill out any forms."

But that's only if he had something really horrible on his doctor file.

In my further opinion, Michael trusted Murray and he apparently liked Murray and considered him not only his doctor, but his friend.

He had repeated warnings and suspensions for not answering calls in time when he was on call (1 hour instead of 20mn if I recall correctly) . He was still licenced, so it couldn't have been anything horrible.
That reflected when Kenny tried to call him on 19th. Other than that, no.

 

[Big Apple2]

yes Big Apple (I love your name, I love NYC ! ) , but Michael was expecting them to pay him, and AEG had agreed to, and issued contracts up until the 24th, Murray was on the budgets.

I hear you bouee, but EXPECTING to be paid and actually BEING paid are two completely different things. Expecting payment doesn't pay the bills.

I mean, anything could have happened between expecting to be paid and being paid. What if Michael DID change his mind at the last minute and decided that maybe it would be wise for him to hire an ON-CALL doctor once he got to London.

In my opinion, an actual magical e-mail would show that Murray was in fact paid by AEG, and the attachment to that email would be a copy of a stamped check from AEG's bank.

Aside from that, didn't somebody already testify that Murray was bugging AEG for payment, but AEG wouldn't budge until MJ executed the contract?