I have said this in previous posts and I will say it again. Michael did NOT appear to be drunk at that press conference. There is no way that a drunk man would have walked out like that, gave the speech that Michael did, his actions, etc. When it comes to Michael, EVERYTHING is exaggerated. These bastards probably saw Michael take a drink of wine to relax him and now they are claiming he was drunk. I guess they forget about the FOOTAGE. These punks didn't have the balls to slap Michael, IMO.
Yes, but if it was that simple, RP would just have to say "I was only bragging, I never touched him".
The butt slap excuse is not good IMO , it means there WAS a slap, the problem is that it doesn't fit with the event pre conference as described in his e mails.
He mentionned Michael was drunk in the mails, and he also said that later to Karen, according to her.
Yet, Michael didn't seem drunk or under the influence of anything at that press conference, he only seemed nervous to me. If he was drunk or anything, we would have heard it from the way he talked.
And if he was so drunk he needed a slap to "wake him up" , how would he appear sober 2 hours later ?
Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, Michael being hugely nervous, "paralyzed" as RP put it. Maybe he had a glass of something and smelled of alcohol, which would explain why RP thought he was drunk.
At this point , we just need to wait , we'll hear more from this later on. I hope there are more e mails and / or other witnesses (other than Tohme, the kids and Phillips)
I understand you.
I think in reality this type of think happens a lot. I think a lot of times actors/performers party too much the night before, or take something for nervousness and when it is time for action they are still sleeping in bed. I think then the managers/assistants/family members rush over and do these things to alert them while screaming at them. In fact I saw a few "oldie" movies about this, especially with alcoholics or drug addicts who are not ready for the performance and they are screamed at and things are done to get them alert. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not and they have to cancel a performance or shoot the next day.
From working in the tourism industry for a few years, I've been around artists and sports teams a little bit. The scenes you describe do happen with artists. But the experience I had is different from what you describe. They very often have "nannies" or "baby sitters" (that's what they would call them), and these persons' jobs were to make sure everybody was ready on time. It made me smile the first time I saw that, i remeber I asked the first one I met "don't they have alamr clocks ?" She answered "yes, but......you know..."
When the artist was "difficult" he would have his own nanny or several nannies would help with the person. I have never personnally witnessed anything violent whatsoever. It was actually the opposite, they were very very patient, used persuasion and treated them like babies. At most the nannies were bothered, I never personnally saw anything going further.
I'm not saying this wouldn't happen, and I was not in their bedrooms, but I never saw anything that would lead me to suspect anything like that.
I am a bit behind on the posts in this thread....
I hope Panish will take time this week to ask Phillips why there was so much focus on covering possible losses with insurance towards the end of June. This additional coverage was being sought at the same time of the intervention meeting that will most likely be discussed in depth this week.
However, the rehearsals on June 23rd and 24th were supposedly great and many felt reassured or relieved by Michael's rehearsal performances. This is confusing to me because on the 24th someone (I cannot remember off-hand) testified Michael only performed two songs. I do not know or remember if anyone testified to the rehearsal on the 23rd but, it was said Michael never did a full rehearsal of the show.
Both of these performances were very close to the departure date for London. I am confused why AEG was so focused on hedging their bet so to speak. I understand protecting their exposure however, it sometimes feels to me as if they never really expected the (50) shows to be completed. I feel sometimes AEG would be surprised if the show went on.
Yes, i noticed that when I sorted the emails for the e mail thread. I included the insurance correspondance last week, and I noticed it became more pressing near the end.
I would like to know if it's standard practice not to be insured for illness less than 3 weeks before the shows. These things happen, unfortunately. Kylie Minogue had to cancel a tour when she was right in the middle of it when she was diagnosed with cancer. U2 had to postpone a whole leg of a tour when Bono fell and hurt his back a few years ago.
There was a case in 2009 in France of a singer who had an operation in Paris, then a few days after flew to LA. After a few days in LA he was rushed to a hospital, for a huge infection that threatened his life, it was related to the operation. The singer had a tour coming up, he is famous for his problems with alcohol. The tour had to be cancelled, and was insured, if I remember correctly.
I would assume you want insurance coverage ASAP, for everything possible, before spending money.
And not being insured + letting the costs go over the limits doesn't make sense. It would be good to know what assets Micheal used to guarantee the costs + advances, and what AEG knew about that.
About 23rd and 24th, Michael was a lot better, but I'm not sure you can say he was "great". Karen said he was still cold and repeating stuff on 23rd, and I think Alif Sankey said that he was still cold on 24th, and I think she or someone else said he was not as well on 24th, compared with 23rd. A video was shown showing Michael arriving at Staples Center wrapped in a blanket on 24th.
*big sigh*