Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Tygger]

Debra Opri, a former Jackson family attorney said the below on CNN, 05/30/13. We may hear something surprising during Phillips' testimony.

OPRI: Yes. Well, videotaped depositions are very strong, powerful discovery tools in a courtroom because it basically makes a fool of the person on the witness stand. And they're usually used to challenge what they're saying on the stand.

So this was embarrassing for them, the co-chairman, and that taken into consideration his statements as to the contract and I don't recall and the amount, I just negotiated and I don't recall. In my opinion, he made a fool of himself and I think this was the sealing piece of testimony for the Jackson family who I've said from day one are going to win big in this case.

BERMAN: And that e-mail, you believe it is the smoking gun of the family, clearly thinks it is?

OPRI: That's one of the smoking guns. Just sit, stay tuned.

****

BERMAN: If this case is the slam dunk you think it is, and I'm not sure you're totally impartial on this case, but if it is the slam dunk is, who what should AEG be trying to do right now? Should they be trying to settle? Could they settle it if they wanted to?

OPRI: Well, first off, I don't think it's a slam dunk, per se. You have a lot more witnesses and testimony. It's only the plaintiff's case. I'm not really impartial because when I do this -- these interviews I try to be a litigation attorney. But I do know the Jackson family and I did have conversations during that preparation for the tour and I can tell you, AEG is not going to leave this trial looking good.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/30/sp.02.html

 

[LastTear]

Opri\Oxman Same difference. Why say we 'may' hear, why not we will hear if she is so confident? I don't know what the outcome of this trial will be but it leaves a bad taste to hear 'will win big', why not simply say 'win', if it's about justice as is claimed.

 

[gerryevans]

Opri\Oxman Same difference. Why say we 'may' hear, why not we will hear if she is so confident? I don't know what the outcome of this trial will be but it leaves a bad taste to hear 'will win big', why not simply say 'win', if it's about justice as is claimed.

That's all this case is about. The big win. Making big bucks off of MJ. AEG and Murray didn't care how they did it in his life. And his family isn't caring how they do it in his death. It's all sickening IMO. Can't wait til this thing is over. Which won't be for years. Because whoever wins, the case will be appealed and appealed. The only loser will be as usual, MJ.

 

[LastTear]

Panish tried 'impeaching' Gongaware, which is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who's testifying. Yesterday and today the plaintiffs' attorney would ask a question then play parts of the deposition to catch Gongaware in contradiction. (ABC7)

At one point, a portion of Gongaware’s deposition was played in which he discussed a meeting at Michael Jackson’s house with Conrad Murray. At depo, Paul Gongaware said the meeting “was about Dr. Murray and engaging him.” Gongaware later changed testimony to state “him” meant MJ. That change was read to the jury, leading attorney Brian Panish to question Gongaware about what he meant by word “engage.” “Here I think we were talking about making sure Michael Jackson was engaged and focused,” Gongaware said. (AP) Gongaware told the jury he was concerned in getting MJ involved and focused, engaged mentally. "I believe that was Kenny's concern, that he wanted him to be focus," Gongaware explained. MJ had gone before without rehearsing, Gongaware recalled. "When he got to London, MJ was going to be sensational." (ABC7) Gongaware said he thought at the meeting they discussed Jackson’s nutrition, not his health (i.e. sleep issues.) (AP)

So was he impeached or did he simply clarify who 'him' was?

Gongaware said he did not have a general concern with MJ having a drug addiction. After shows ended in Hawaii, Michael had lost $27 million, was in debt $11 million to lighting and sound, Gongaware testified. He switched managers to fixed things up in yhe second half of the tour, Gongaware explained. Gongaware said he had to cut lot of expenses. They wanted to give Michael the same show, but he said there was so much excess to be trimmed. Second half of the tour, Gongaware was the tour executive and he worked directly for MJ. It netted $14 million, $11 million paid vendors. We got the tour to break even, Gongaware testified, saying he worked closely with Jackson on the second half of the tour.(ABC7)

I was shocked to learn that Michael only broke even at the end of History tour! No wonder Michael hated touring.

 

[bouee]

bouee, I feel like we are going in circles in this regard. It's not what I "think" , it's how the law defines negligent hiring.

Let me try once more in legal definitions

"Negligent hiring is a claim made by an injured party against an employer based on the theory that the employer knew or should have known about the employee's background which, if known, indicates a dangerous or untrustworthy character."

"A negligent hiring claim is made when the filer believes that the employer should have known about the employee’s background. In these claims, the filer attempts to prove that the injurious behavior was to be expected based on past behavior that demonstrated that the employee was dangerous, untrustworthy, a sexual predator, or a thief, to name a few possible claims."


"As with all negligence claims, the claimant must prove:
- That the defendant (in this case, the employer) owed them a duty of care;
- That this duty was breached; and
- That the claimant was injured as a result of the breach.

......

In this post you explain the legal definition of negligent hiring. What would be the legal definition of "supervising"? and how do you think it applies in this case ? The claim is negligent hiring and supervising.

My understanding of what you're saying about Gongaware is that you think he is personally sued because of his background with Michael and artists with drug issues, such as Elvis, he "should have known".

What about Phillips then ? Phillips had very little experience with Michael, he can not be put in the "should have known" category.

 

[bouee]

So was he impeached or did he simply clarify who 'him' was?

My understanding is that the contradiction is not solved.

Panish says the depo says "engage Murray"
Pg on the stand says it means "engage Michael", explains that engaged means focus, and that it was Ortega's request, PG was not worried .

 

[ivy]

In this post you explain the legal definition of negligent hiring. What would be the legal definition of "supervising"? and how do you think it applies in this case ? The claim is negligent hiring and supervising.

My understanding of what you're saying about Gongaware is that you think he is personally sued because of his background with Michael and artists with drug issues, such as Elvis, he "should have known".

What about Phillips then ? Phillips had very little experience with Michael, he can not be put in the "should have known" category.

It's negligent hiring, supervision and retaining. So it has 3 parts to it.

supervision (and training) is the employers responsibility to train and monitor the actions of the employer. For example in your electrician example the company would train him and then need to follow up with what he does, the mistakes he does and so on.

retention is still keeping the employee after you learn the unfitness of him. again for example in your example if the electrician has made mistakes in 8 out of 10 homes he has been into, this shows that he's unfit for the job standards and he's a risk.

I'm not focusing much on these because

- the verdict form will probably start with "was Muray hired / who hired him" so negligent hiring is the most important part

- he's an independent contractor as the law of the case , I don't think - but did not check- supervision is relevant.

- retention is far fetched. I don't think there's anything to show they even suspected Murray, also depending on the contract they might not have grounds to fire him or could not fire him if they did not hire him.

As for Phillips and Gongaware, they were involved in TII, they are high level executives, they are the ones that were involved in Murray's hiring. Phillips not only talked to Murray but also he stopped some concerns. So that's his role .


and unrelated but I found this about your question about AEG and Murray responsibility. Hope this makes it a lot clearer why AEG would not admit or try to put fault on Murray.

“f an employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving in the scope of employment, ‘the damages attributable to both employer and employee will be coextensive.’ Thus, when a plaintiff alleges a negligent entrustment or hiring cause of action against the employer and the employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving, the universe of defendants who can be held responsible for plaintiff’s damages is reduced by one—the employer—for purposes of apportioning fault under Proposition 51. Consequently, the employer would not be mentioned on the special verdict form. The jury must divide fault for the accident among the listed tortfeasors, and the employer is liable only for whatever share of fault the jury assigns to the employee.” (Diaz, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1159, internal citations omitted.)

 

[Big Apple2]

supervision (and training) is the employers responsibility to train and monitor the actions of the employer. For example in your electrician example the company would train him and then need to follow up with what he does, the mistakes he does and so on.

Thanks for the breakdown ivy.

That supervision (and training) thing I always gave the "side-eye" to.

I mean, how does an entertainment company SUPERVISE a doctor? That's not their speciality. Do they bring in ANOTHER doctor to supervise the doctor - how exactly is that supposed to work?

The Electrician is being trained and supervised by an ELECTRICAL COMPANY, I assume. So that sounds about right. But AEG "supervising" Murray doesn't sound doable, in my opinion.

Another question, how does an entertainment company supervise a doctor, without compromising the doctor/patient priviledge?

I mean, Murray says: "Michael has a headache, I'm going to prescribe 2-Tylenol." And AEG says: "No give him 2-Advil instead." I really don't get how that works and if it's even feasable.

 

[ivy]

^^

I don't think (but as I said I haven't checked) supervision is possible in the case of Murray. Not only he's an independent contractor but he's a doctor and AEG has nothing to do with medical care. I don't think they were in a position to supervise Murray.

also let me copy judge's order from summary judgment

Claim 5 Respondeat Superior

Judge states that AEG's evidence established that Murray was an independent contractor and not an employee and AEG had no control over "means and manner" of Murray's work. Judge cites case law that doctors are considered independent contractors.

Katherine claims that AEG hired Murray in part to ensure that Michael attended rehearsals. Judge says even this claim might be true, there's no evidence that AEG had any control over how Murray did that.

Judge also mentions secondary factors that AEG Live had nothing to do with medical care, medical work performed by a specialist without supervision, medicines were provided by Murray and the contract and the parties clearly understood that the agreement was for an independent contractor.

Therefore judge states there's no triable issue whether Murray was an employee and determines that Murray was an independent contractor.

To me the above one demonstrates supervision probably is not going to be a part of the trial.

 

[bouee]

It's negligent hiring, supervision and retaining. So it has 3 parts to it.

supervision (and training) is the employers responsibility to train and monitor the actions of the employer. For example in your electrician example the company would train him and then need to follow up with what he does, the mistakes he does and so on.

retention is still keeping the employee after you learn the unfitness of him. again for example in your example if the electrician has made mistakes in 8 out of 10 homes he has been into, this shows that he's unfit for the job standards and he's a risk.

I'm not focusing much on these because

- the verdict form will probably start with "was Muray hired / who hired him" so negligent hiring is the most important part

- he's an independent contractor as the law of the case , I don't think - but did not check- supervision is relevant.

- retention is far fetched. I don't think there's anything to show they even suspected Murray, also depending on the contract they might not have grounds to fire him or could not fire him if they did not hire him.

Thanks for the answer.

I don't think retention is far fetched, because the contract with Murray was not signed by AEG yet.

Lets's go back to the example I gave yesterday : you hire Joe, who seems to be a nice guy, you check he has no criminal record, his previous employers were happy with him. Joe, for some reason, becomes aggressive and threatening with clients, you get complaints from the clients. His contract with you is not signed yet. You keep Joe anyway. He ends up beating up Jack.
What is your liability to Jack ?

The point of suspecting Murray, or not, is one of the issues of the trial, I guess. in the sense of the example I quoted above.

As for Phillips and Gongaware, they were involved in TII, they are high level executives, they are the ones that were involved in Murray's hiring. Phillips not only talked to Murray but also he stopped some concerns. So that's his role .


and unrelated but I found this about your question about AEG and Murray responsibility. Hope this makes it a lot clearer why AEG would not admit or try to put fault on Murray.

“f an employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving in the scope of employment, ‘the damages attributable to both employer and employee will be coextensive.’ Thus, when a plaintiff alleges a negligent entrustment or hiring cause of action against the employer and the employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving, the universe of defendants who can be held responsible for plaintiff’s damages is reduced by one—the employer—for purposes of apportioning fault under Proposition 51. Consequently, the employer would not be mentioned on the special verdict form. The jury must divide fault for the accident among the listed tortfeasors, and the employer is liable only for whatever share of fault the jury assigns to the employee.” (Diaz, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1159, internal citations omitted.)

I'm sorry, i don't undestand, the language is a bit complicated for me.

It starts by "IF an employer admits vicarious liability ... the damages are coextensive"

So what if the employer does NOT admit vicarious liability ? Murray is a doctor, AEG are in show business, how are they going to anticipate the doctor's mistakes ? (speaking fom AEG's point of view)

 

[bouee]

^^

I don't think (but as I said I haven't checked) supervision is possible in the case of Murray. Not only he's an independent contractor but he's a doctor and AEG has nothing to do with medical care. I don't think they were in a position to supervise Murray.

also let me copy judge's order from summary judgment

Claim 5 Respondeat Superior

Judge states that AEG's evidence established that Murray was an independent contractor and not an employee and AEG had no control over "means and manner" of Murray's work. Judge cites case law that doctors are considered independent contractors.

Katherine claims that AEG hired Murray in part to ensure that Michael attended rehearsals. Judge says even this claim might be true, there's no evidence that AEG had any control over how Murray did that.

Judge also mentions secondary factors that AEG Live had nothing to do with medical care, medical work performed by a specialist without supervision, medicines were provided by Murray and the contract and the parties clearly understood that the agreement was for an independent contractor.

Therefore judge states there's no triable issue whether Murray was an employee and determines that Murray was an independent contractor.

To me the above one demonstrates supervision probably is not going to be a part of the trial.

Each to his own , I guess. ..

To me it says AEG could add Murray on the verdict form.

 

[Big Apple2]

And look at Debra Opri.

Bigging up the so-called Smoking Gun emails. I don't know how Smoking they are, but to each his own I guess.

She's funny, first she says "it's a SEALING piece of testimony for the Jackson family," then she has to sort of backtrack and say "I don't think it's a slam dunk, per se." She's so silly! LOL!

She's just one more person who is put out there as an "undercover" Jackson spokesperson. Yeah, Ms. Opri, we get it.

Me personally, I'd rather hear from somebody in the legal field, who is not speaking on behalf of the Jackson family and not speaking on behalf of AEG. In my opinion, if you don't have a dog in this race, you tend to give a more meanful and truthful assessment as to how things are going and how things are presently looking.

Oh and one more thing, why in the world would she bring up the words "big win in this case." I mean, in my opinion that just belittles any positive comments she may make. Because as we all know, this case is NOT about money, it's about justice. I guess she didn't get the memo.

 

[bouee]

^^


Therefore judge states there's no triable issue whether Murray was an employee and determines that Murray was an independent contractor.

To me the above one demonstrates supervision probably is not going to be a part of the trial.

I'm lost... then what's left of the claim ? Why did the judge send this to trial ? If hiring is not an issue, then there's "negligent" "supervision" and "retaining" .

Supervision can be left out, because AEG could not "technically" supervise Murray (choice of medication, the way he gave it, ie reason for his conviction).
Would a conflict of interest (Murray's contract terminated if the tour was cancelled+ potential pressures on Murray) fall under "supervision" ?

Which makes sense about why is Phillips personnally sued , since he "stopped some concerns" (retaining part+ lying about background checks and Murray being a successful dr).

 

[ivy]

Lets's go back to the example I gave yesterday : you hire Joe, who seems to be a nice guy, you check he has no criminal record, his previous employers were happy with him. Joe, for some reason, becomes aggressive and threatening with clients, you get complaints from the clients. His contract with you is not signed yet. You keep Joe anyway. He ends up beating up Jack. What is your liability to Jack ?

this is a question to the jury. there's no negligent hiring as there's nothing to "know" and "reasonably to conclude". getting aggressive is a retention issue but the main question becomes the same as in this case - was he hired , was there an oral contract or not etc.. so it cannot be answered as easily as you want.

The point of suspecting Murray, or not, is one of the issues of the trial, I guess. in the sense of the example I quoted above.

retention yes but as I said there's no evidence to show that AEG knew "means and manner" of what Murray did. So if they did not know he was incompetent how can you argue retention?

I'm sorry, i don't undestand, the language is a bit complicated for me.

It starts by "IF an employer admits vicarious liability ... the damages are coextensive"

So what if the employer does NOT admit vicarious liability ? Murray is a doctor, AEG are in show business, how are they going to anticipate the doctor's mistakes ? (speaking fom AEG's point of view)

Each to his own , I guess. ..

To me it says AEG could add Murray on the verdict form.

I'm going to skip this because we are getting too technical and it doesn't seem to matter anyway.

I'm lost... then what's left of the claim ? Why did the judge send this to trial ? If hiring is not an issue, then there's "negligent" "supervision" and "retaining" .

Which makes sense about why is Phillips personnally sued , since he "stopped some concerns".

hiring is still the issue. they can still hire an independent contractor. What that last part says that Murray is an independent contractor and not an employee. There would be differences between the two.

The summary thread has what is left and what is dismissed but here's a short recap

breach of contract - dismissed
- no special relationship between Michael and AEG as there's no evidence that AEG controlled aspects of Michael's life including medical care
- no evidence to show AEG undertook Michael's medical care. medical assistant was for London and to be selected by Murray - not AEG.
- financial interactions did not create a risk

respondeat superior - dismissed
- Murray was an independent contractor not an employee.

negligent hiring, supervision and retention - currently at trial
- even though the contract was not signed, a jury must decide if Murray and AEG had a oral or implied in fact contract
- Judge thinks this is a triable issue given that Gongaware had experience and knowledge about "tour doctors" and Michael's previous tours and "tour doctors".
- Judge also thinks whether Murray's debt could have been a reason to foresee if such doctor under strong financial pressure may compromise his oath. This is another triable issue.

so as you can see the main questions are

- is Murray hired - as an independent contractor? Will the jury think an oral or implied contract enough to demonstrate a work relationship? If yes they continue to deliberate if no - meaning they say Murray wasn't hired - they stop.

- who hired Murray? AEG or Michael? If they say Michael they stop. If they say AEG they continue.

- was the hiring negligent? Did AEG show enough due diligence or should they have done more background checks? Did they "know or should have known"? Could they "reasonably conclude" the risks Murray had? If jury says no (no negligence) they stop, if they say yes they continue.

- the final step is to assign responsibility to the parties (Murray being an independent contractor should come to play here) and determine the damages.

 

[Big Apple2]

was there an oral contract or not etc.

Looks like I'm full of questions today. LOL!

Looking at the words ORAL CONTRACT, isn't that "usually" between 2 people? I mean, like an entity and a person.

I don't know but it just seems like it would be hard to prove an oral contract between three people, that being Michael, AEG, and Murray. Since Michael was part of the written contract, wouldn't he also have to be part of any oral contract as well. In that same vein, could there be an oral contract between Michael and Murray, which AEG was not a party to?

So many questions.

 

[ivy]

Looks like I'm full of questions today. LOL!

Looking at the words ORAL CONTRACT, isn't that "usually" between 2 people? I mean, like an entity and a person.

I don't know but it just seems like it would be hard to prove an oral contract between three people, that being Michael, AEG, and Murray. Since Michael was part of the written contract, wouldn't he also have to be part of any oral contract as well. In that same vein, could there be an oral contract between Michael and Murray, which AEG was not a party to?

So many questions.

oral contract is pretty common and acceptable and legally binding in USA. Such as you can call someone as about their prices for putting fertilizer on your lawn then you say "fine come and do it" it's an oral contract. You agree to pay the landscape company for their services.

I think oral or implied contract is easy in this case. they called Murray, agreed upon a fee, they were negotiating, contract being drafted.

The issue is actually the written contract which actually says it's not valid (executed) until all the parties sign it. So AEG can argue that everyone understood that even though there were negotiations everyone understood that the contract wasn't binding until it was signed.

 

[Big Apple2]

Thanks ivy!

Is there any updates regarding Frank DiLeo's emails?

I thought approval had been granted and the emails just needed to be given to both parties. Seems simple enough. What gives, anybody know?

 

[bouee]

this is a question to the jury. there's no negligent hiring as there's nothing to "know" and "reasonably to conclude". getting aggressive is a retention issue but the main question becomes the same as in this case - was he hired , was there an oral contract or not etc.. so it cannot be answered as easily as you want.

Ok, just to make sure I get it : meaning that if Murray is considered hired, AEG could not terminate him. So my example would be to decide between hiring / retaining, which is quite close I guess.
So in who hired Murray /retained him (Michael or AEG or both).

retention yes but as I said there's no evidence to show that AEG knew "means and manner" of what Murray did. So if they did not know he was incompetent how can you argue retention?

AEG did not know, and would not have understood the choice of medication + how it was given (which is why Murray was convicted).

But, IMO, they had ways to know that Murray was not doing a good job = Michael's declining health. Anyway that's what they both argue. jacksons are giving plenty of examples, AEG are downplaying them, including with their own witnesses.

To me, that could explain why Phillips is personally sued. He is not involved in the hiring process, he had not worked with Michael before, so far the only thing we know he did is participate in a "planned intervention" (or was supposed to participate) + "stopping some concerns" after receiving a lot of info, ie retaining him in spite of what jacksons call "red flags" that happened during his job.

I'm going to skip this because we are getting too technical and it doesn't seem to matter anyway.

Ok, I think it matters to understand AEG's strategy, but we'll see that later during the trial, anyway.

hiring is still the issue. they can still hire an independent contractor. What that last part says that Murray is an independent contractor and not an employee. There would be differences between the two.

The summary thread has what is left and what is dismissed but here's a short recap

breach of contract - dismissed
- no special relationship between Michael and AEG as there's no evidence that AEG controlled aspects of Michael's life including medical care
- no evidence to show AEG undertook Michael's medical care. medical assistant was for London and to be selected by Murray - not AEG.
- financial interactions did not create a risk

respondeat superior - dismissed
- Murray was an independent contractor not an employee.

negligent hiring, supervision and retention - currently at trial
- even though the contract was not signed, a jury must decide if Murray and AEG had a oral or implied in fact contract
- Judge thinks this is a triable issue given that Gongaware had experience and knowledge about "tour doctors" and Michael's previous tours and "tour doctors".
- Judge also thinks whether Murray's debt could have been a reason to foresee if such doctor under strong financial pressure may compromise his oath. This is another triable issue.

so as you can see the main questions are

- is Murray hired - as an independent contractor? Will the jury think an oral or implied contract enough to demonstrate a work relationship? If yes they continue to deliberate if no - meaning they say Murray wasn't hired - they stop.

- who hired Murray? AEG or Michael? If they say Michael they stop. If they say AEG they continue.

- was the hiring negligent? Did AEG show enough due diligence or should they have done more background checks? Did they "know or should have known"? Could they "reasonably conclude" the risks Murray had? If jury says no (no negligence) they stop, if they say yes they continue.

- the final step is to assign responsibility to the parties (Murray being an independent contractor should come to play here) and determine the damages.

Thanks.

Ok, I see , but it doesn't seem to me that's the way they are doing it. The Jacksons are including all those red flags from murray's "work" with michael, not only "past" issues, and AEG, in spite of Punam saying to the media it's irrelevant, is doing the same thing, and the judge says nothing.

I think they are arguing the retaining part, which is not very different from hiring, and is not included in the above.


a question I added in my previous post (I edited it, you probably din't see it)

Supervision can be left out, because AEG could not "technically" supervise Murray (choice of medication, the way he gave it, ie reason for his conviction). They are not doctors.

Would a conflict of interest (Murray's contract terminated if the tour was cancelled+ supposed pressures on Murray) fall under "supervision" ? Murray being a doctor, there shouldn't be any conflict of interest. So, not from Murray's point of view, but from AEG's point of view (I hope i'm clear), meaning they shouldn't have done the contract this way, they created "dangerous" work conditions for Murray ?

 

[LastTear]

Gonaware's testimony stating that Michael did not have a tour doctor for the History tour is key to the 'should have known' issue.

ETA Just seen this from Alan Duke

AEG LIve Co-CEO Paul Gongaware faces more grilling in Michael Jackson death trialGongaware worked closely with Jackson on "HIStory" tour
He was the top producer of Jackson's comeback tour
Jackson lawyers say Gongaware was aware of Jackson drug use
Los Angeles (CNN) -- Michael Jackson traveled with what amounted to a mini-clinic and an anesthesiologist who used a surgical anesthetic to put the singer to sleep after shows during his "HIStory" tour, sources close to Jackson told CNN just days after his death.
But Paul Gongaware testified Friday that he never saw indications Jackson used drugs or traveled with a doctor when he managed that tour in 1996 and 1997.
What Gongaware knew -- or didn't know -- about Jackson's drug use is a key issue as the Jackson wrongful death trial enters its sixth week Monday in Los Angeles.
The co-CEO of AEG Live -- the concert promotion company being sued by Jackson's mother and children -- returns for a fifth day of testimony Monday.

So which is it? Duke is clearly saying Gongaware lied under oath.

 

[Big Apple2]

But, IMO, they had ways to know that Murray was not doing a good job = Michael's declining health. Anyway that's what they both argue. jacksons are giving plenty of examples, AEG are downplaying them, including with their own witnesses.

In my opinion, I don't agree that AEG was "downplaying" their concerns regarding Michael's health. The so-called Smoking Gun emails withstanding, but ACTION speaks louder then words, in my opinion.

And, to me, AEG was taking action. They had a meeting or meetings (plural). They were talking about bringing in specialist in one area or another. Even going so far as to bringing in a specialist of some sort, only to have Michael decline at the last minute.

So you really can't say that AEG was "downplaying" their concerns, when their actions clearly say differently.

Another thing to note, is that when the talk of bringing in a particular specialist came up, there was NO mention of a specialist that deals with Sleep Issues.

 

[Big Apple2]

Gonaware's testimony stating that Michael did not have a tour doctor for the History tour is key to the 'should have known' issue.

How long ago was the HIStory Tour and how old was Mike at the time?

I also think it's far to note that back then Michael didn't have any children (or did he?) and that Murray would also be treating Michael's 3-children, if need be.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ He was married to Debbie at the time. Ah.... Ok....... She will testify for Jacksons.

what does this mean?

Searching for the smoking gun AEG exec confronted at Jackson trial Jackson family wants AEG to pay Van Halen on Michael Jackson: Sweet guy

 

[Big Apple2]

^^^^ He was married to Debbie at the time. Ah.... Ok....... She will testify for Jacksons.

She will also be testifying for AEG.

Supposedly she will be testifying as to her part in Michael receiving propofol, for his sleeping issues, from other doctors. Doctors who had the proper equipment, and she watched to ensure that nothing went wrong.

Oh and "maybe" she'll testify as to NOT being jealous of Michael's friendship with Ms. Karen Faye. LOL!

 

[LastTear]

She will also be testifying for AEG.

Supposedly she will be testifying as to her part in Michael receiving propofol, for his sleeping issues, from other doctors. Doctors who had the proper equipment, and she watched to ensure that nothing went wrong.

Oh and "maybe" she'll testify as to NOT being jealous of Michael's friendship with Ms. Karen Faye. LOL!

I have read the whole piece now. I guess what will be key is whether Debbie testifies that Gongaware knew. I know I'm totally speaking out of turn but, timing.... Paris/Debbie....Kai/Jacksons. hmmmmm

 

[Big Apple2]

So which is it? Duke is clearly saying Gongaware lied under oath.

In my opinion, Alan Duke is not the most reliable when it comes to reporting on this story. In my further opinion, he big "Smoking Gun" headline also sort of fizzled.

Now he's saying that Michael traveled with a "mini-clinic" and an anesthesiologist. Is that really supposed to mean that EVERYBODY should have known what was going on? I doubt it, especially when you are talking about a mega private person like Michael Jackson.

Also, as far as anybody knows, did any member of the Jackson family travel with Michael during the HIStory tour? If so, were they also supposed to know about Michael's mini-clinic and anesthesiologist?

How about any members of the Casico family. If so, were they also supposed to know about Michael's mini-clinic and anesthesiologist?

 

[Big Apple2]

I have read the whole piece now. I guess what will be key is whether Debbie testifies that Gongaware knew.

One question, did Mr. Panish mention Debbie Rowe in his opening statements?

 

[LastTear]

In my opinion, Alan Duke is not the most reliable when it comes to reporting on this story. In my further opinion, he big "Smoking Gun" headline also sort of fizzled.

Now he's saying that Michael traveled with a "mini-clinic" and an anesthesiologist. Is that really supposed to mean that EVERYBODY should have known what was going on? I doubt it, especially when you are talking about a mega private person like Michael Jackson.

Also, as far as anybody knows, did any member of the Jackson family travel with Michael during the HIStory tour? If so, were they also supposed to know about Michael's mini-clinic and anesthesiologist?

How about any members of the Casico family. If so, were they also supposed to know about Michael's mini-clinic and anesthesiologist?

Yes it did. I was working through it as I was quoting and quickly realised he was going nowhere on this dramatic mini clinic statement.

What did the pay Van Halen part mean?

 

[LastTear]

One question, did Mr. Panish mention Debbie Rowe in his opening statements?

Errrr I think so, isn't that where we first heard that Debbie Rowe had been involved in treating MJ with propoful.

 

[bouee]

Gonaware's testimony stating that Michael did not have a tour doctor for the History tour is key to the 'should have known' issue.

ETA Just seen this from Alan Duke

So which is it? Duke is clearly saying Gongaware lied under oath.

I thought of this too when I read that part his testimony. I think Metzger said during CM's trial he was on the history tour. i checked his summary, and it wasn't there, so maybe I dreamt it.

Anyway Putnam said Debbie would testify to propofol, she was on history tour.

BUT : PG didn't do the whole tour, did he ?? he said he did only the 2nd or 3rd leg. We'll see when she testifies if she knew Gongaware, if they were on the same parts of the tour.

Other possible meaning : maybe PG meant that he was not involved with doctors, doctors were not part of the tour, they were hired directly by Michael, so that wouldn't be his business. He can not testify to these persons being doctors or personal friends of Michael, for example.

Pg also said Michael was healthy during History tour, he did not notice anything wrong.

About PG lying under oath, Jacksons lawyers kept doing that with PG. I read part of his testimony from another website, and Panish did that ad nauseam. I'm not sure who the jury was laughing at PG or at Panish honestly, it sounded exagerated and a time waster. The J lawyers kept asking about details that were not important. IMO, it was understandable that PG forgot some of them, or got confused from the way the questions were asked.

however the J lawyers did score a few things :

- the loss of memory about the emails, especially "that" one

- PG made a depo and changed a number of things later , the date of the change is wrong (depo done in dec 12, modifications dated june 12) . They used those changes to say that he remebered after all, and that he changed his story. The J lawyers were convincing in that part, especially when they got Pg to say that he did hose changes himself, without his lawyers. But they didn't specify what changes he made.

- Conversations with Finkelstein : that was another change in his depo, and that sounded suspicious. It was stated in an article I quoted before : it seems that Finkelstein testified in his depo that he talked about Michael's issues with PG. At first PG said Finkelstain would never mention Michael's issues, then he changed it to say that Finkelstein did, but PG did not understand those issues were a problem.
Finkelstein will testify later.
From that other article I quoted some time ago, Finkelstein's depo said that PG told Finkelsetin "not to be a doctor Nick" in reference to Elvis's dr.

There could be other stuff, I'll finnish reading it later. But so far, it has been very very slow, because Panish asked several times the same questions to catch PG in a lie, so I would say that at least the first day seems to be correctly reportd by the media. No need to buy that transcript, from what I've sen so far, IMO.

 

[bouee]

In my opinion, I don't agree that AEG was "downplaying" their concerns regarding Michael's health. The so-called Smoking Gun emails withstanding, but ACTION speaks louder then words, in my opinion.

And, to me, AEG was taking action. They had a meeting or meetings (plural). They were talking about bringing in specialist in one area or another. Even going so far as to bringing in a specialist of some sort, only to have Michael decline at the last minute.

So you really can't say that AEG was "downplaying" their concerns, when their actions clearly say differently.

Another thing to note, is that when the talk of bringing in a particular specialist came up, there was NO mention of a specialist that deals with Sleep Issues.

I think they are , about june 15th part, but my question to Ivy was theory, to understand the legal part . Pg's story is very shaky and does not add up when you read the eamils, but that's my opinion, I understand some may think differently.

re june 19th/20th, Phillips "strongly" misunderstood the situation, his actions look suspicious to me.