Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[troubleman84]

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 .

The Jacksons' lawyer seems to be grasping on straws throughout his portion of the case.

 

[Tygger]

Thrill, Troubleman84: agreed. There is no importance to Tohme having power of attorney regarding the 50 shows because AEG did not have Tohme sign for Michael. There are NO written documents approving the show increase. It does not matter if Michael agreed or not to the 19 shows; what mattered was the increase had to be in writing to be valid.

Also, power of attorney ends with death. I believe AEG only allowed Tohme and Dileo to sign documents after Michael’s passing to protect themselves. AEG recognized Dileo as the manager so I do not see why Tohme’s signatures were necessary. Prince did 21 shows; 31 was more than enough.

Bouee, there is an importance to the 50 v. 31. The plaintiffs’ lawyers are showing a pattern: AEG will act as if when the appropriate documents are not signed. Michael was committed to 50 dates without the change being in writing. The preproduction cost soared past $7.5M without one document approving expenditures over the original $7.5M budget. Employees/independent contractors were working (implicitly) without expressed (signed) contracts. The jury will decide if the doctor was one of them.

we need to see the agreements. if for example production costs can be approved by "agents" of Michael then Tohme and/or Dileo could sign for him. If Murray's contract required Michael's signature no one can sign for him.

I agree with Ivy regarding Tohme/Dileo as agents. However, Trell, Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) for AEG said there was NO written documentation to increase the number of shows or the production costs and written documentation was necessary to make those changes valid. He also said there were those who worked without expressed contracts (they were not paid however). He called this employee(s) at will which was most likely implied employment. Only one was not paid after Michael passed while others were.

As far as the doctor receiving payment, AEG again, protected themselves, which is not the same as the right thing. I am suspicious that they were aware of something, what I am unsure of, which made them hesitant to pay the doctor. Gongaware lied today that payments were for work in London when the doctor’s contract was retroactive to May 2009. The civil trial would be far less complicated if AEG paid the doctor. Of course no one would choose that this murderous doctor receive payment but, the law does not protect morality oftentimes. If he is proven to be an independent contractor, what prevents the doctor from seeking his payment? Fans will not be able to see the family as blameworthy in that horrific scenario as restitution could not stop that. Restitution would only be for future earnings, not past earnings.

wait for Marcel Avram to take the stand

Ivy, thank you for posting this article. This witness may work against AEG I believe. Gongaware worked on this tour and testified he knew why it ended afterwards. The reason Avram gave for his suit was fresh then but, TII would be hindsight to Dangerous. There is also a full scale Dangerous tour rehearsal on YouTube. Even if that was one rehearsal, it was pretty thorough.

I am not in the courtroom but, some lawyers tend to be dramatic. Personally, the confusion, memory lapses, denials, deflections, and outright fabrications by some witnesses weigh heavier to me than the actions of either set of lawyers.

I truly wish the trial was televised. I would have liked to have seen if Gongaware or Phillips looked Michael’s mother in the eye when they admitted to signing documents characterizing her as an extortionist.

 

[LastTear]

Tygger.

Thrill, Troubleman84: agreed. There is no importance to Tohme having power of attorney regarding the 50 shows because AEG did not have Tohme sign for Michael. There are NO written documents approving the show increase. It does not matter if Michael agreed or not to the 19 shows; what mattered was the increase had to be in writing to be valid.

Exactly, so Michael was quite within his rights to refuse the extra shows, even after they were announced with no threat of being sued.

Does anyone know the schedule that Michael agreed to (the one that Gongaware testified about the colours), was that the 31 date schedule or the 50.

Yes I have also heard conflicting reports about what Michael said, I thought the 'I went to bed agreeing to 10 shows and woke to 50' came from a fan, I know Joe repeated it but I thought it originated from a fan. I may be wrong.

 

[Bubs]

I was scanning the news headlines this morning, few samples
Jackson lawsuit 'is extortion bid
Michael Jackson lawsuit is extortion attempt, AEG Live CEO says
Michael Jackson's mother is money hungry: AEG CEO
AEG exec accuses Michael Jackson's mom, kids of extortion
Jackson death case is "extortion," AEG exec agrees
Promoter CEO: Michael Jackson lawsuit is extortion attempt by pop star's family

Take a wild guess which one is Alan Dukes :smilerolleyes:

 

[Petrarose]

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.

About the weaning him off ^^ one of the doctors who was discussing the case at the time, said that there is no "weaning off" procedure. You simply take the person OFF the prof. So Muarry's story about weaning him off and giving him less makes no sense because all he had to do was NOT give the drug the next night. It was that simple. that is why we cannot believe a lot of what Muarry said. Maybe he thought prof was like morphine & you had to give less and less dosages to wean the person off. Who knows.

 

[Bubs]

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.

I haven't heard that story. I thought that MJ told to some fans that he went to bed knowing 10 concert sold and woke up to hear 50 sold. I think MJ was either fooling with fans as he knew at least 31 dates, or something else?

I still ask, why MJ didn't go and tell AEG he is not going to do those extra 19 shows? As those dates weren't in contract, he wasn't obligated to do them? Maybe he didn't mind doing them whether they were written in the contract or not.

It is not like MJ to be quiet and let someone else to tell him what to do.
Somebody already posted links to old articles about MJ cancelling shows which he agreed to do with them, and despite him getting sued because of that.
So I cannot understand why he didn't say anything to AEG that he doesn't want to do them, it is so not like Michael. They couldn't sue him or anything because it wasn't in contract.

 

[bobmoo79]

About the weaning him off ^^ one of the doctors who was discussing the case at the time, said that there is no "weaning off" procedure. You simply take the person OFF the prof. So Muarry's story about weaning him off and giving him less makes no sense because all he had to do was NOT give the drug the next night. It was that simple. that is why we cannot believe a lot of what Muarry said. Maybe he thought prof was like morphine & you had to give less and less dosages to wean the person off. Who knows.

We already know the doctor was either completely incompetent or just didn't care that he was doing the wrong thing - he performed CPR on a bed FFS.


The CPR thing is one mistake where, in the heat of the moment, you might do something wrong and forget your training, but trying to wean somebody off propofol is less...believable, if we are to consider only the physiological aspects of stopping treatment. It is so easy to research things on the internet these days. He could have found out for himself that weaning is not necessary when you're dealing with propofol. HOWEVER, the psychological aspect adds a new dimension. IF MJ wanted propofol, and perhaps thought that he needed propofol to sleep, then it would be necessary to try and slowly break that mental dependency through weaning, or to fool MJ into thinking he was getting propofol when he wasn't. It could be for this reason that Murray was trying to wean MJ off propfol - to break MJ's mental 'addication' to the drug.

 

[Petrarose]

^^I don't think he had a "mental addiction" to prof. If we are to believe Muarry and he had prof for 6 weeks, what was his mental addiction to the prof doing all the times he did not have it prior to the 6 weeks. When he was in Ireland with the doctor, how come his "mental addiction" was not saying "hey I need prof to sleep right now so give it to me." I tend to not label more nonsense on Michael, sorry. You do not need to give Michael less and less prof to wean him off prof, even a mental addiction.

I will more go along with Soundmind that Michael was reacting to the benzos that Muarry was giving him.

 

[Bubs]

Panish: Neverland was his beloved home, right sir?
Phillips: Hard to answer, because of the things MJ told me


I wonder what Michael told him about Neverland.

As to the card to Mrs. Jackson and children, Gongaware said he's not good with cards, couldn't recall ever sending a condolence card.
"What I did, I tried to put the memorial show together," Gongaware said. "I think it was the best thing for me to do, commemorate his life."

To even question someone why they didn't send a card is bullying (Jackson's accusing the executors not attending to funeral comes to my mind). Not everybody are made of from same "wood" (saying in my country), and I know plenty of people who are very uncomfortable with those sort of things. I even know some people who might laugh at funeral, because funeral is something that they don't want to face or feel unfortable the idea of death.

 

[qbee]

IF MJ wanted propofol, and perhaps thought that he needed propofol to sleep, then it would be necessary to try and slowly break that mental dependency through weaning, or to fool MJ into thinking he was getting propofol when he wasn't.

You can't fool someone that they are getting propofol. Especially MJ who is very familiar with the drug. It instantly knocks you out cold. Remember it's used for surgical procedures. You also don't build up a resistance or tolerance to it. It knocks you out every time. Murray was trying to use other drugs to help MJ sleep but MJ had such a tolerance they would not work. MJ knew that and thats why he wanted and prefered propofol. He knew it would work every time. MJ was dependent on it to sleep while trying to prepare for his concerts. But I think Dr Murray contributed to that. Once it became a routine, every night thing, Dr Murray should have said no and stopped administering it. I agree trying to ween MJ off propofol as he stated was ridiculous and not the appropriate treatment. It was evident MJ needed help for his insomnia. He was desperate , but Dr Murray knew NOTHING in how to treat it properly. He was more worried about losing his position and $$$$$$$ to do what was ethical and right for Michael.

Sorry this is off topic .. I just wanted reply to the above off topic.
............................

@Bubs
I agree Panish is bullying the witness in asking if they sent a condolence card to the Jackson's. The Jury will soon grow weary of and dislike Panish for his arrogant irrelevant questions and they will start sympathising with the witness. Some people just don't send cards. I guess the beautiful memorial service to honor Michael wasn't enough for the Jackson's.

Does anyone know the schedule that Michael agreed to (the one that Gongaware testified about the colours), was that the 31 date schedule or the 50.

It was the 50 show because he further explained how many shows a week it averaged out to. how many weeks MJ would have off between the legs and then coming back in march do last 3 shows.

 

[Vici]

Tygger.

Exactly, so Michael was quite within his rights to refuse the extra shows, even after they were announced with no threat of being sued.

Yes I have also heard conflicting reports about what Michael said, I thought the 'I went to bed agreeing to 10 shows and woke to 50' came from a fan, I know Joe repeated it but I thought it originated from a fan. I may be wrong.

I haven't heard that story. I thought that MJ told to some fans that he went to bed knowing 10 concert sold and woke up to hear 50 sold. I think MJ was either fooling with fans as he knew at least 31 dates, or something else?

I still ask, why MJ didn't go and tell AEG he is not going to do those extra 19 shows? As those dates weren't in contract, he wasn't obligated to do them? Maybe he didn't mind doing them whether they were written in the contract or not.

Well to be honest. It would have been hard to cancel 19 extra shows just because Michael refuses to do them. When he just rescheduled the five first shows people went nuts. I was a member back then and I was affected when he rescheduled the shows. I lost money, although not as much as the ones who were coming from countries far away. People from all over the world had bought plane tickets and booked hotelrooms for the first five dates. Even if MJ had cancelled shows before this was different imo. The shows were only taking place in London and this time people would not only lose money they've spent on concert ticket but also flights and hotels and other transportations. On previous tours, people would've 'only' lose money they spent on the ticket. It was mayhem on the boards when the news hit about a rescheduling, people were flying in from Australia and China. I remember a thread a guy made, he was from China and had lost so much money when they rescheduled the first show.

Just ask Gaz, he created a sub-forum I believe to try help those fans out. It was not an easy situation so imagine the nightmare to have to CANCEL 19 shows.

AEG could also have said since Dr Thome had POA the verbal agreement was valid. Sure MJ could have refused I guess but it would have been a PR disaster. I agree that the best thing they could have done was to have wait for Michaels signature before adding the extra shows.

 

[Bubs]

^^ Thats true too, but that didn't stop MJ cancelling to shows before, even the ones he agreed with.

 

[Vici]

^^^Absolutely, Im just pointing out the difference between his previous tour and TII residency... this time poeple would lose a lot of money and it would have been a bigger PR disaster imo mainly because the media/public were already doubting him.

Imagine to cancel all 19 shows back to back... it was Ok to do so on the Dangerous Tour because everyone knew he was going to rehab, but what was the excuse this time?

 

[Bubs]

I was reading Anthony M article and comments below it. I had to post one comment that made me burst lol.

"This case is a pure extortion case and is all about $$$. Instead, they should put Justin Bieber on trial for impersonating a singer."

Admins can delete this post if they feel it is inappropriate to this thread, but I though we could use some laughs every now and then

 

[serendipity]

I was scanning the news headlines this morning, few samples
Jackson lawsuit 'is extortion bid
Michael Jackson lawsuit is extortion attempt, AEG Live CEO says
Michael Jackson's mother is money hungry: AEG CEO
AEG exec accuses Michael Jackson's mom, kids of extortion
Jackson death case is "extortion," AEG exec agrees
Promoter CEO: Michael Jackson lawsuit is extortion attempt by pop star's family

Take a wild guess which one is Alan Dukes :smilerolleyes:

LOL, i know. He is beyond transparent. I was actually checking to see if he wrote about Gongaware's cross, but not surprisingly he didn't and just went directly to Philips and even managed to once again mention Gongaware saying "I don't recall" and the jury laughing. LOL

Frankly anyone who wants $40 billion is an extortionist in my eyes. I still can't wrap my head around this. SMH

 

[Bubs]

^^^Absolutely, Im just pointing out the difference between his previous tour and TII residency... this time poeple would lose a lot of money and it would have been a bigger PR disaster imo mainly because the media/public were already doubting him.

Imagine to cancel all 19 shows back to back... it was Ok to do so on the Dangerous Tour because everyone knew he was going to rehab, but what was the excuse this time?

He cancelled many dates from History and Dangerous (check wiki for cancelled dates for those tours and some of them no reason given) as well Millenium thingy.

I agree with you, it would have been pr disaster, and fans being badly pissed off. They were calling MJ as c...t after few dates were pushed back.

I wonder if we hear from RP or Tohme about those 19 dates, or do we hear about what MJ himself thought of them ( I don't what to hear what Karen of Arc thought what Mj thought of them), I mean like email from MJ's assistant or something similar.

 

[Bubs]

LOL, i know. He is beyond transparent. I was actually checking to see if he wrote about Gongaware's cross, but not surprisingly he didn't and just went directly to Philips and even managed to once again mention Gongaware saying "I don't recall" and the jury laughing. LOL

Frankly anyone who wants $40 billion is an extortionist in my eyes. I still can't wrap my head around this. SMH

He is trying to manipulate people to think that AEG honchos called kids as an extortionists, which they never did, only the person who really is extortionist (on behalf of some family members). It is not the 1st time AD inserts kids into his text like AEG accusing them of something, thats one of the reasons why I cannot bother reading his posts anymore.

 

[Vici]

Does anyone know the schedule that Michael agreed to (the one that Gongaware testified about the colours), was that the 31 date schedule or the 50.

"He sent an e-mail to his assistant in March 2009 suggesting that she design a concert calendar for Jackson using light tan colors for show dates, while drawing attention to his rest days. "I don't want the shows to stand out so much when MJ looks at it. Less contrast between work and off. Maybe off days in a contrasting soft color. Put 'OFF' in each off day after July 8, as well. Figure it out so it looks like he's not working so much."Under questioning Tuesday, Gongaware said he "wasn't trying to fool him. I wanted to present it in the best possible light." (CNN)

It didnt specify when he sent the email, it just says March from the summary. I think it was for the 50 shows... but that doesnt prove anything imo. Michael could have said 'Yes' when he presented the calender with all those 50 shows, it doesnt take away what he really felt. Not saying he didnt wanted to, just saying we dont know if he felt pressured into doing these extra shows or not.

I believe they wanted to add the 19 extra shows when they saw the demand when people just signed up for the pre-sale registration. I remember recieving my pre-salecode one day before the pre-sale. It was so hard to even register, the site crashed numerous of times. Around 2 million people tried to get a pre sale code within 20 hours or so. I remember Randy Phillips saying when they saw the demand they went to ask to add more dates.

Pre sale registration: March 5 - 13
Pre-sale was for two days: March 11-13
General sale: March 13

You could buy tickets for all 50 shows during the pre-sale (march 11-13). So probably they asked Dr Thome before the pre-sale..

 

[Big Apple2]

Does anybody recall exactly when Murray RELOCATED to California?

I mean, had he been traveling back and forth from Las Vegas (or Texas), or did he move lock, stock, and barrel?

 

[Justthefacts]

IMO, the Jacksons lawyer will have a harder time with Phillips.

 

[qbee]

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 .

I don't think MJ wasnt given injections of those other drugs in high quantities for any long period of time. Maybe not at all while he was given the propoful. Murray started using the Lorazapam and midazolam injections the last 3 days or so while trying to ween MJ off propoful. But MJs tolerance to those types of drugs made them not have the desirable effect of putting him to sleep. So yes he was given higher quantity at that time and it played a part in his demise according to the Autopsy report. But there was never any suggestion from the medical experts that MJ was addicted in any way to benzos, Lorazapam or midazolam. I don't understand why you are saying as a fact by that time he was addicted to those drugs and needed intervention? at least post it as speculation on your part not as a fact. You have no way of knowing that.

 

[CherubimII]

Randy Phillips is the ultimate corporate liar.
AEG will soon begin attacking Michael's children.

 

[Justthefacts]

Oh I did not know you knoew on a personal leval

 

[bouee]

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.

As was said before, the judge said it was hearsay to her. She wants Murray on the stand to confirm that, or not.

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!

The trial is about negligent hiring, supervision, and retaining.

There weres previous questions in this thread 2 days ago to explain the claim.

To sum it up roughly with simple words, or at least what I understood:

Hiring is clear, Murray was hired as an independent contractor. That is not an issue.
The jury will have to decide if it was AEG, Michael, or maybe both who hired Murray.

If they decide AEG hired Murray, or co hire Murray, they will have to decide about supervision and retaining.
We know that supervion can not be about "medical" stuff (ie choice of treatment, manner) because Murray was a doctor at the time, AEG can't be exepcted to supervise this kind of things.

That's why you have all this stuff (e mails, testimonies) , coming from both parties, and the judge allows that. I wouldn't question the competence of the judge and the lawyers.

Whether what both parties bring up is convincing or not is actually a matter of opinion, but most of it is relevant.

Murray's contract will be brought up. So far the only one that has been brought up was not the latest one.

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 .

Both sides are equally annoying to me. When Gongaware testified, Putnam spent a lot of time asking questions that PG had already answered clearly.

As far as the doctor receiving payment, AEG again, protected themselves, which is not the same as the right thing. I am suspicious that they were aware of something, what I am unsure of, which made them hesitant to pay the doctor. Gongaware lied today that payments were for work in London when the doctor’s contract was retroactive to May 2009. The civil trial would be far less complicated if AEG paid the doctor. .
.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Especially when it is clear AEG can not be held responsible for Murray's "treatment" , they could put the blame on Murray.

Tygger.

Exactly, so Michael was quite within his rights to refuse the extra shows, even after they were announced with no threat of being sued.

Does anyone know the schedule that Michael agreed to (the one that Gongaware testified about the colours), was that the 31 date schedule or the 50.

Yes I have also heard conflicting reports about what Michael said, I thought the 'I went to bed agreeing to 10 shows and woke to 50' came from a fan, I know Joe repeated it but I thought it originated from a fan. I may be wrong.

No, we don't, unfortunately, that would be important to know. Also, reading PG's testimony from another website, the insurance broker also thought the schedule was an issue (back to back shows).

About Michael complaining about the 19 extra shows, I read it from fans who said they were there. There was an issue at the time, some said they had seen the video on youtube showing Michael complaining, and when they tried to find that video again, after Michael's death it was not there anymore.
There was also an issue about interpreting what Michael said : was he complaing, or was he actually happy to see that he was still so popular.

The issue wuould be to know WHEN Michael was informed of those 19 extra shows, if they were already sold, it was problematic for him to cancel.

About AEG, if they have no signature for those 19 shows, well it is problematic for them, in the context of the trial.

I haven't heard that story. I thought that MJ told to some fans that he went to bed knowing 10 concert sold and woke up to hear 50 sold. I think MJ was either fooling with fans as he knew at least 31 dates, or something else?

I still ask, why MJ didn't go and tell AEG he is not going to do those extra 19 shows? As those dates weren't in contract, he wasn't obligated to do them? Maybe he didn't mind doing them whether they were written in the contract or not.

It is not like MJ to be quiet and let someone else to tell him what to do.
Somebody already posted links to old articles about MJ cancelling shows which he agreed to do with them, and despite him getting sued because of that.
So I cannot understand why he didn't say anything to AEG that he doesn't want to do them, it is so not like Michael. They couldn't sue him or anything because it wasn't in contract.

93 is a totally diffeent situation : he had to cancel for health reasons, it was not about what he wanted to do, or Michael being lazy, he had no choice.

About the weaning him off ^^ one of the doctors who was discussing the case at the time, said that there is no "weaning off" procedure. You simply take the person OFF the prof. So Muarry's story about weaning him off and giving him less makes no sense because all he had to do was NOT give the drug the next night. It was that simple. that is why we cannot believe a lot of what Muarry said. Maybe he thought prof was like morphine & you had to give less and less dosages to wean the person off. Who knows.

Maybe a cardiologist doesn't know everything about propofol, but any doctor knows about benzos and pain medication, and Murray was trained in mild sedation (with certain benzos).
He knew what he was doing with benzos.

If he was weaning him off anything, it was from the benzos he gave him.

We already know the doctor was either completely incompetent or just didn't care that he was doing the wrong thing - he performed CPR on a bed FFS

The CPR thing is one mistake where, in the heat of the moment, you might do something wrong and forget your training, but trying to wean somebody off propofol is less...believable, if we are to consider only the physiological aspects of stopping treatment. It is so easy to research things on the internet these days. He could have found out for himself that weaning is not necessary when you're dealing with propofol. HOWEVER, the psychological aspect adds a new dimension. IF MJ wanted propofol, and perhaps thought that he needed propofol to sleep, then it would be necessary to try and slowly break that mental dependency through weaning, or to fool MJ into thinking he was getting propofol when he wasn't. It could be for this reason that Murray was trying to wean MJ off propfol - to break MJ's mental 'addication' to the drug.

CPR was a show for Alvarez, MJ was already gone, and he knew it. There was an ambu bag in the room, and flumazenil was used on june 25th, they found some in the tube. I think Murray tried to ressucitate him, realised it was too late and panicked.

Last Tear made a good remark last night : Murray claimed MJ was having withdrawal from demerol, which made sense with all those weird symptoms. Shafer confirmed it was a possibility. But we know Michael did not have enough demerol to create that. Murray knew what it was (benzos) and said demerol to put the blame on Klein.
He could have told that to AEG, or tell both AEG and Michael it was anxiety.

You can't fool someone that they are getting propofol. Especially MJ who is very familiar with the drug. It instantly knocks you out cold. Remember it's used for surgical procedures. You also don't build up a resistance or tolerance to it. It knocks you out every time. Murray was trying to use other drugs to help MJ sleep but MJ had such a tolerance they would not work. MJ knew that and thats why he wanted and prefered propofol. He knew it would work every time. MJ was dependent on it to sleep while trying to prepare for his concerts. But I think Dr Murray contributed to that. Once it became a routine, every night thing, Dr Murray should have said no and stopped administering it. I agree trying to ween MJ off propofol as he stated was ridiculous and not the appropriate treatment. It was evident MJ needed help for his insomnia. He was desperate , but Dr Murray knew NOTHING in how to treat it properly. He was more worried about losing his position and $$$$$$$ to do what was ethical and right for Michael.

Sorry this is off topic .. I just wanted reply to the above off topic.
.

Not really off topic, as it relates to Michael's state of mind + declining health .

I don't think it was clear cut, it doesn't have to be either propofol or benzos. Murray kept buying both of them.
It could have been a little propofol at the beginning (with the smaller vials)+ benzos after propofol dissipated, and then later gradually change the proportions as Michael was becoming tolerant to benzos.
You don't OD as easily on benzos as with propofol, that made Murray's job easier.
As for tolerance, it was shown that Michael had a tolerance to pain medication, but it was not said about benzos. We have no idea of his level of tolerance, or even if he had any, before Murray's "treatment".

 

[qbee]

Does anybody recall exactly when Murray RELOCATED to California?

I mean, had he been traveling back and forth from Las Vegas (or Texas), or did he move lock, stock, and barrel?

I believe he was just staying with a girlfriend while in LA. Why are you asking? Is there something related to this trial we are discussing or something seems off to you about when he moved?

 

[Big Apple2]

So I guess it's pretty clear now, that ALL Mother's side has as so-called evidence are the emails they received FROM AEG, nothing more.

They "may" be saving the best for last, but I have to admit, I was expecting more from Mother's side, a WHOLE LOT more.

Just a note: I "love" the way Mr. Panish ask Mr. Phillips whether he thinks these proceedings are a joke (or words to that effect), when he is the one who has constantly been making jokes himself. Just yesterday he said something about AEG not paying The Hulk, which brought laughter to the courtroom. SMDH!

I, personally, don't see the humor and I really wish he would knock it off!!!

 

[Korgnex]

Didn't expect anything else. The plaintiffs' case is as weak as Murray's defense was, it won't work with judicious jurors.

 

[Big Apple2]

I believe he was just staying with a girlfriend while in LA. Why are you asking? Is there something related to this trial we are discussing or something seems off to you about when he moved?

Thanks for responding qbee.

I was just thinking about the COST of relocating and who picked up that tab. Was he in town because of Michael, or was he in town because he wanted to be with his girlfriend? In any event, he was in LA, and not in Texas/Las Vegas working with his regular patients. So I'm thinking that he gave up his practice(s) even before the contract was fully signed. I mean, why didn't he stay put while the negoitations were going on.

I work at a law firm, we recruit attorneys from all over the country. If they have to relocate, the firm picks up that cost and provides any other services that may be necessary, BUT none of that happens until their contract is fully executed.

It will be interesting to see who was financing Murray while he waited for his contract to be fully executed. We know it wasn't AEG. Maybe the "instrument" was back on the POLE, and she was Murray's financial backer. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[Vici]

"Another document that defense attorney Marvin Putnam showed Gongaware was Lou Ferrigno’s contract. Ferrigno’s three-page contract designated him as an independent contractor. It was signed by AEG accounting exec Julie Hollander. (AP) Putnam showed independent contract agreement with Ferrigno fully executed. Julie Hollander signed on behalf of AEG effective April 27, 2009. (ABC7)

Then it was Brian Panish's turn again. He said there isn't a date on the contract showing when Julie Hollander signed Ferrigno's agreement. (ABC7) Panish questioned Gongaware about whether Ferrigno’s contract may have been signed after Jackson’s death."

I dont get it. Putnam showed the contract with the date on it, but Panish says there isnt a date on the contract. Huh?

 

[CherubimII]

Could AEG representatives be reading this board as they prepare their defense?