Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't forget about Nurse Lee.

According to her testimony (and her many television appearances) she said that she spoke to Michael AND WAS ADAMANT(!!!) about the use of propofol and she also schooled him on the effect propofol would have on a person IF they were using that drug for the wrong reasons. In my opinion, she broke it down for him, but Michael elected to trust Murray instead.

Yes, and Debbie might have tod him the same thing, I agree.

But ... I'll keep my suspicions, I don't get what was going on, especially with the benzos. I'm not sure Murray told him about the benzos. A lot of people will probably say they didn't see anything about previous propofol use. Ortega said the situation reminded him of the HBO concerts. So that's conflicting, I don't know.
I want to understand what was different about History, if he used propofol then, and TII. If Michael thought he would be like that, why use propofol ?

EDIT : Shafer said it's not known what long term use of propofol could do. It had only been done once, to his knowledge, with a pregnant lady in an ICU. he said it had no particular effect. Now, this patient in the ICu didn't have the same busy schedule as Michael, unfortunately for her.
So maybe Nurse Lee could not have anticipated everything , in spite of trying.
 
Last edited:
I want to understand what was different about History, if he used propofol then, and TII.

I don't know anything about propofol and the HIStory tour, BUT I will say one thing:

If he were using propofol for sleep during the HIStory tour, the difference would probably be that he wasn't being pumped in his bedroom by a doctor who didn't have the proper equipment, by a HEART doctor who liked talking to his many girlfriends on the telephone while his patient was under the effects of the "sleep" treatment and by a doctor who apparently didn't even know how to administer CPR properly. That's a bunch of differences right there, in my opinion.
 
I don't know anything about propofol and the HIStory tour, BUT I will say one thing:

If he were using propofol for sleep during the HISTory tour, the difference would probably be that he wasn't being pumped in his bedroom by a doctor who didn't have the proper equipment, liked talking to his many girlfriends while his patient was under the effects of the "sleep" treatment and apparently didn't even know how to administer CPR properly. That's a bunch of differences right there, in my opinion.

I agree plus Dr. Ratner is actually an anesthesiologist so he probably knew what he was doing as opposed to Murray who was winging it.
 
I don't know anything about propofol and the HIStory tour, BUT I will say one thing:

If he were using propofol for sleep during the HISTory tour, the difference would probably be that he wasn't being pumped in his bedroom by a doctor who didn't have the proper equipment, by a HEART doctor who liked talking to his many girlfriends while his patient was under the effects of the "sleep" treatment and apparently didn't even know how to administer CPR properly. That's a bunch of differences right there, in my opinion.
Yes, maybe he was reciving too much propofol compared to "potential" previous use.
I edited my previous post while you were answering, you probably didn't see it, with Shafer's remarks.
Still, the use of benzos by Murray was SCARY (what was found/what he bought)
 
And, if there was a difference, ie Michael not expecting the adverse effects, do you think Murray would have told him the truth ?
 
So maybe Nurse Lee could not have anticipated everything , in spite of trying.

She may not have anticipated EVERYTHING, but when you are discussing a drug that should ONLY be used in the proper setting. In my opinion, you don't have to know everything. If I recall correctly, she also came back with some type of medical handbook, so even if she didn't know everything off hand, she had that medical handbook with her as a REFERENCE tool.

We can dance around it all we want, but the bottomline is that propofol should not be used outside of a hospital setting AND it's not supposed to be used to alleviate a person's sleep issues. Period-Pointblank.com.
 
And, if there was a difference, ie Michael not expecting the adverse effects, do you think Murray would have told him the truth ?

I can't speak for Michael, I can only speak for myself and if I walk up groggy and notice that I'm losing weight rapidly, then yeah, I'm gonna think to myself - "what have I been doing lately that is making me feel like this and look this way?" I wouldn't need Murray to tell me anything, because I know my body BETTER than anybody else.

It's really not rocket science, in my opinion.
 
And, if there was a difference, ie Michael not expecting the adverse effects, do you think Murray would have told him the truth ?

Would Murray have even known? Being that it's not his field and also an unusual method of treatment, ie lack of previous cases of propoful being used nightly. Or he guessed and perhaps he really did try to wean him off. Idk

i wonder if any possible propoful use on any other tours weren't as frequent as Murray was giving him.
 
I can't speak for Michael, I can only speak for myself and if I walk up groggy and notice that I'm losing weight rapidly, then yeah, I'm gonna think to myself - "what have I been doing lately that is making me feel like this and look this way?" I wouldn't need Murray to tell me anything, because I know my body BETTER than anybody else.

It's really not rocket science, in my opinion.

Murray was giving him highly addictive drugs like lorazepam and midazolam in unthinkable quantities, Mj probably became addicted to them very fast , you recover from propofol within seconds .However, I would not expect him to recover from the insane amounts of lorazepam he was being injected with to think to himself "what I have been lately doing ....." By that time he became addicted to benzos and needed intervention .
 
Would Murray have even known? Being that it's not his field and also an unusual method of treatment, ie lack of previous cases of propoful being used nightly. Or he guessed and perhaps he really did try to wean him off. Idk

i wonder if any possible propoful use on any other tours weren't as frequent as Murray was giving him.

People in intensive care remains 24/7 wfor eeks on propofol drip , it's a great drug if administered by someone who knows what he's doing unlike Murray .
 
People in intensive care remains 24/7 wfor eeks on propofol drip , it's a great drug if administered by someone who knows what he's doing unlike Murray .

Yes that's true, good point. I wonder what the difference in this case is then, in terms of the effects it had on Michael.
 
Yes that's true, good point. I wonder what the difference in this case is then, in terms of the effects it had on Michael.

iI agree with Soundmind, re benzos. It's a possibility. The amounts Murray was buying were insane if that was for one person , plus buying boatloads of the antidote to benzos makes you wonder. It's one thing to have some just in case, it's another thing to buy lots of it. What for ? Was he expecting to bring him close to an oversose on a regular basis ?

How do we go from what was prescribed orally in march-april (2mg lorazepam per day, orally), to a minimum of 11mg of lorazepam IV (found at autopsy) + midazolam + valium up to 30 mg/day during the day... ? it's really suspicious.

Benzos given IV are more addictive, and faster than orally.

The symptoms Michael was showing look like withdrawal from benzos. Shafer said it was a possibility, not the only one though. It makes sense with giving valium during the day (prescribed on june 20t th) to calm withdrawal symmptoms.

I'm not sure Michael knew about that, his request was for propofol. So an intervention, I don't know if he needed that. Murray needed one, that's for sure.

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that's what happened, just explaining why I'm not sure Michael knew everything.
 
Yes that's true, good point. I wonder what the difference in this case is then, in terms of the effects it had on Michael.

To be honest, people in ICU are not as active as Michael was. That could be another difference.
 
And, if there was a difference, ie Michael not expecting the adverse effects, do you think Murray would have told him the truth ?

I don't think there was any precedent in the medical journals for the administration of that much propofol over a six-week period, so Murray clearly had no idea whatsoever what to expect. That he continued ordering propofol & administering it to Michael after the side effects became obvious even to a lay person, makes his behavior all the more heinous.
 
iI agree with Soundmind, re benzos. It's a possibility. The amounts Murray was buying were insane if that was for one person , plus buying boatloads of the antidote to benzos makes you wonder. It's one thing to have some just in case, it's another thing to buy lots of it. What for ? Was he expecting to bring him close to an oversose on a regular basis ?

How do we go from what was prescribed orally in march-april (2mg lorazepam per day, orally), to a minimum of 11mg of lorazepam IV (found at autopsy) + midazolam + valium up to 30 mg/day during the day... ? it's really suspicious.

Benzos given IV are more addictive, and faster than orally.

The symptoms Michael was showing look like withdrawal from benzos. Shafer said it was a possibility, not the only one though. It makes sense with giving valium during the day (prescribed on june 20t th) to calm withdrawal symmptoms.

I'm not sure Michael knew about that, his request was for propofol. So an intervention, I don't know if he needed that. Murray needed one, that's for sure.

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that's what happened, just explaining why I'm not sure Michael knew everything.

please bare with me going a little OT. Isn't that what Murray is claiming? That Mchael was suffering withdrawal symptoms, except he claims from Michaels secret addiction.
 
yes, he said from demerol. If my scenario is true, it was him.
 
And during the trial, Dr White mentionned flumaznil, the antidote. The camera was on Murray, I clearly saw him say "f*ck". I'm 250% positive I saw that.
 
Sometimes it's difficult working out what was actually said, for example I saw yesterday two tweets fairly close together from ABC, on the subject of Murray asking for so much money,one said 'Michael couldn't afford it' and the second said 'we couldn't afford it' - it can be very frustrating when we are hanging onto every word of a tweet.

ETA

Found them fromABC7

@ABC7Courts: "It was ridiculous," Gongaware said about the amount asked. "It was a lot of money for something like that and Michael could not afford it."

ABC's tweet are all over the place and most of the time really confusing. I trust AP's tweets a lot more.
 
^^^^ Yes I prefer AP as well. I just wanted to show an example of how difficult it is for us to get a clear and definitive idea of exactly what is said when we have to rely on tweets. It's no wonder we get confused. Lol
 
I'm want to know why the hell Tohme had a such a power to tell AEG MJ would do those shows and why MJ didn't decline or raised his voice about those dates. Certainly if he was in the position to say no, he would have voiced his disapproval.

It is whether MJ badly needed the money that those gigs, or Tohme did something that MJ couldn't get away from those dates.
But I wouldn't be looking into AEG being guilty of those dates, I would look into Tohme's direction, he delivered MJ's head to AEG on gold platter, and they are not that stupid not to take it.

1) mj did voice his concern to fans that were meeting him in LA. he told the fans he had no idea that they had added 19 extra shows. mj was allegedly very upset. remember one fan snitched and told the press in the UK who ran with that story. even a long time fan that met mj numerous of times made a thread about this on mjjc in 2009. i was not a member here then but ive read his story. its up to all of you if u wanna believe these fans. keep in mind that this was before 'this is not it' and before the fans strated to write letters of concerns to mj.

2) well imo aeg should have waited before announcing the 50 shows unless they had mjs signature as it was required. dr thome is a lot to blame i agree but aeg should have been professional and they failed big time.

As toTohme-Tohme, there is just no telling what he did behind Michael's back. I'm reminded of the 5 MILLION DOLLARS he "claimed" he was holding for Michael in order to purchase a home in Vegas. I mean, for all anybody knows, Tohme could have been holding 10 Million Dollars and after Michael died, he decided to keep 5 Million for himself. Who's to know - right Tohme!


this can be true. remember from Paris sworn testiomny where she said dr thome was back in the picture a few days before mj passed because he was gonna help them to find a house.

As to the 10 shows, there is no way that AEG and/or MJ would have put all of that work AND money into a show which would only be for 10 dates. No way! For that reason alone, I never scribed to the theory that the O2 dates were supposed to be for only 10 shows.

was never 10 shows. contract was for 31 dates. anu change required a written approval/signature.
 
I thought I remember that Randy Phillips said during the Murray trial that he talked to Michael about it being 50 shows and he agreed. Michael wanted to beat Prince's record. But 50 was the limit.
 
Can someone explain why the judge did not allow Murray's police statement regarding his employment to be admitted into the court? How can she argue that it is a something for the jury to decide--then go on to allow Gongaware, Phillips, Trell, Wooley, and God knows who else to talk about it, but not Murray--the guy who was hired in the first place? This makes no sense to me.

How can the jury make a decision when key evidence on the hiring issue is withheld from them???? Murray understood who hired him and how he was going to be paid. So the jury is going to decide what Murray's situation was, but Murray's own understanding of his situation is not allowed?

It's like everyone else is going to talk about what I know, but not me. Who knows better than I what I know? Oh, we are going to have a big, expensive discussion about what I know and then I will be told what I know.
 
^^Seems the Judge wants the jury to come to a conclusion based on the emails & the plaintiffs suggestions not on the talks between Michael, Conrad & AEG. I don't know if the judge can change her mind about Murray's testimony to the police, I hope it's possible & she changes her mind so this can be a fair trial.
 
I think she concluded it was hearsay and they could ask Murray if they put him on the stand.
 
Ok, Panish is such a clown. First he asks Philips if he thinks the proceedings are funny simply because he smiled, when Panish himself has been cracking jokes left right and center.

Then he repeatedly mentions that AEG has 6 lawyers until the judge had to admonish him. What exactly was the point of that? Putnam pointed out that Katherine has hired FOUR law firms.

Then he goes on and on about Lou Ferigno not having a contract and not being paid, even cracking a joke, only for Putnam to stand up and show Ferigno's contract.

Such a waste of time.
 
I've been thinking about Jacksons lawyer for a while and discussing with friends. Honestly some things he does seems to be interesting and if I was a jury would annoy me.

For example

He showed the letter sent to Estate about the costs but omitted to mention the footnote that said Murray's contract wasn't signed / executed - hence no payment for Murray was requested from MJ Estate. He also omitted the follow up cost documents did not list Murray as a cost.

He showed emails sent to Gongaware but omitted to say his personal email was closed and Gongaware never got / saw one series of "trouble at the front" emails.

He acted like Ortega and Lou Ferrigno worked / paid with no written contract but omitted that they both had signed written contracts and at least Ortega's was signed in April / when MJ was alive. (apparently there's no date on Ferrigno contract).

Witnesses might not remember everything (such as Trell not remembering Ortega's executed written contract) but lawyers should know it all as they prepped for the case. So if I was a jury and Panish argued for 20-30 minutes that Ortega didn't have a contract but then AEG lawyers show "here's the contract signed in April" I would get annoyed .
 
I thought I remember that Randy Phillips said during the Murray trial that he talked to Michael about it being 50 shows and he agreed. Michael wanted to beat Prince's record. But 50 was the limit.

didnt KF say that michael kept saying he didnt wanna do 50 shows? or was it someone else who said that? im sure someone did say that
 
I've been thinking about Jacksons lawyer for a while and discussing with friends. Honestly some things he does seems to be interesting and if I was a jury would annoy me.

For example

He showed the letter sent to Estate about the costs but omitted to mention the footnote that said Murray's contract wasn't signed / executed - hence no payment for Murray was requested from MJ Estate. He also omitted the follow up cost documents did not list Murray as a cost.

He showed emails sent to Gongaware but omitted to say his personal email was closed and Gongaware never got / saw one series of "trouble at the front" emails.

He acted like Ortega and Lou Ferrigno worked / paid with no written contract but omitted that they both had signed written contracts and at least Ortega's was signed in April / when MJ was alive. (apparently there's no date on Ferrigno contract).

Witnesses might not remember everything (such as Trell not remembering Ortega's executed written contract) but lawyers should know it all as they prepped for the case. So if I was a jury and Panish argued for 20-30 minutes that Ortega didn't have a contract but then AEG lawyers show "here's the contract signed in April" I would get annoyed .


Well, I am not on the jury of course--but I am VERY ANNOYED! This whole trial is a joke and I agree with Serendipity it's a waste of time (and $$). I mean it seems so ridiculous to be pouring over emails looking for the meaning of isolated words and phrases and yet the contract itself should be and is the central most important document--what someone said in an email does not have the same weight as a contract that was worked on and revised and discussed and finally presented!!! And the contract is totally clear that MJ requested CM and would pay for him. I have minimal respect for all this verbiage trying to re-write a written contract.

And when Karen of Arc is the central witness that will potentially decide this case instead of the facts--God help us!
 
didnt KF say that michael kept saying he didnt wanna do 50 shows? or was it someone else who said that? im sure someone did say that
The only person would matter saying that, would be if Michael said it. (not hearsay ) Michael didn't try to stop the shows and there is no evidence he didn't agree to them. (the fans stories about him claiming that are conflicting) Michael continued moving forward with the show. He may have questioned in his mind if he could do all 50, but none of that killed him and it doesn't have anything to do with the claims against AEG in this trial.
 
I thought I remember that Randy Phillips said during the Murray trial that he talked to Michael about it being 50 shows and he agreed. Michael wanted to beat Prince's record. But 50 was the limit.

I read that too. But I'm starting to think there's now truth that fans had rang the alarm that Michael hadn't agreed to it. They also could've told Michael's family that, which is partially why they're suing AEG in the first place, I think. But who knows, at this point, it's he said, they said. So who knows what was on Michael's mind at the time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top