Skip to content

Jacksons – AEG trial DAYS 53 and 55. KATHERINE JACKSON and DR. FARSHCHIAN

July 25, 2013

There is so much going on at the AEG trial now that it may look a bit strange to return to Mrs. Jackson’s testimony on Monday this week. However there are reasons for going back.


First of all I want to express my admiration for the sharp and combative way Katherine answered Putnam’s questions – this was something I never expected of a gentle woman like her. TeamMJ called her a lioness defending her cub and our reader Sina also applauded her for her courage: 

My impression of Katherine Jackson’s testimony is that she was fearless and stood strong against the tricks and twists of a shrewd lawyer who was out on her blood. I applaud her courage. It was not the strongest testimony, but considering her age, emotions, the pressure and many inappropriate questions, she did very well. She could have given a scripted answer when asked about waiving her rights on restitution, but she spoke from her heart and if you do there are no wrong answers. Most important, she was consistent, there were no significant discrepancies between her deposition and testimony and she was sharp on the questions that really matter: who hired Murray, who killed Michael and AEGs responsibility.

Well, to me Katherine’s testimony looks like a very strong one. Katherine opened up as a completely new person – at the age of 83, with all the memory and concentration problems that come with the age, and with only high school to her credit she indeed looked like a fearless lioness able to stand up to a seasoned lawyer like Putnam who wanted to confuse, trap, catch in a lie and coerce her into something he wanted to hear.

Katherine Jackson stood her ground no matter what, asked Putnam inconvenient questions like “What does it have to do with the death of one son?” and occasionally her testimony looked like it was she who was examining him. Her courage and ability to speak her mind were absolutely awesome to me, especially since I never expected to see this strong side of Michael’s usually gentle and humble mother.

Now we know who Michael inherited his strength from.

Monday July 22, 2013 DAY 53

Everybody must have read the second part of Katherine’s testimony by now but just for the record let me provide the ABC tweets again with occasional comments on my part:

  • Hello from the courthouse in downtwon LA. Day 53 of Jackson Family vs AEG trial just about to begin. This is Week 13 of the trial.
  • Michael Jackson’s mother, Katherine, is set to take the stand again today to resume cross examination.
  • Mrs. Jackson spent a few hours on the stand on Friday detailing the humble beginning of MJ’s life and how he rose to fame.
  • Session has not started yet. As a reminder, we can’t live tweet, per judge’s ruling. We’ll bring you all the coverage as soon as we can.
  • Our reporter Miriam Hernandez is in the courtroom. We are in the overflow room, where a lot of fans are.
  • The only witnesses remaining for the Jacksons are Kenny Ortega (who needs to come back for cross) and nanny Grace Rwamba.
  • They wanted to call Rwamba today, but they said she has a medical condition (lupus) that may prevent her from coming.
  • Judge Yvette Palazuelos asked AEG attorney Marvin Putnam again on Friday whether he intends to call Dr. Murray to testify.
  • Putnam responded on Friday he has no intention of calling him. Judge said there are several steps needed to bring an inmate to testify.
  • Judge told attorneys none of the steps have been taken yet, which means it’s probably very unlikely they’d be able to get Dr. Murray in.
  • Katherine Jackson back on the stand for cross examination. Session began at 9:55 am PT. Marvin Putnam, for AEG, doing the questioning.
  • Putnam explained to Mrs. Jackson about the discovery process, where both sides have to exchange documents related to the case.
  • Mrs. Jackson said MJ would give her money in cash, but she would not write down the amounts.
  • The matriarch has a secretary, Janice Smith, who works for her for anywhere between 15-20 years. She has an office in Encino, CA.
  • Putnam asking about the house in Gary, Indiana. It’s been 44 years since she left and moved in to the Hayvenhurst house.
  • Mrs. Jackson lives now in a gated community in Calabasas. Hayvenhurst house is under renovation.
  • It was a gift, Mrs. Jackson said about the money she received from Michael. Putnam asked if she reported/recorded anywhere.
  • My son took care of me, food, shelter, clothes, Mrs. Jackson explained.
  • When he gave me cash, it was a gift, I didn’t think I needed to report to anyone, Mrs. Jackson said.
  • Putnam asked again if there was any record of the money MJ gave her. She replied she didn’t think she needed to.
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson had a bank account back in 2010 when she filed her lawsuit. She said she doesn’t recall. 


  • Regarding Michael having money problems, Mrs. Jackson said : “My son made a lot of money, he had people working for him.”
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes, I’ve heard from some people
  • Putnam: Where you aware MJ was having financial difficulties when he passed away?
  • They have been saying it for 15 years, Mrs. Jackson said. “People were taking money from him also, stealing I should say.”
  • Putnam: Who did you hear that from?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Just different people
  • Mrs. Jackson testified she heard stories about it.
  • She also said MJ told her too that people were making deals on his behalf.
  • They were being offered money under the table, that’s what I heard from my son, Mrs. Jackson testified.
  • And Mrs. Jackson asked: “What does this have to do with the death of my son?”

Here is a quote from Mrs. Jackson’s testimony:

Q.        So your son Michael   Jackson had told you over the years, people asked for money under the table when  they were making deals with him? A.        Not with him. Making deals for him, and the people they made deals with came back and told him.

Let me interrupt it for a moment. One of those people who told Michael the truth could be Jack Wishna, the man who brought him back from Ireland in December 2006. He also said there were people around Michael who were cutting deals without him knowing about it and since Jack Wishna is dead his words sound like a sort of a testimony to us:

 “Michael has a lot of people around him that cut deals and sometimes Michael doesn’t even know what those deals are,” he added. “So many people have been around him. At every turn it’s like he’s his worst enemy because of the people that are around him.”

The ABC tweets again:

  • Putnam: You heard about MJ having money problems?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I heard for years Michael Jackson was broken and he wasn’t
  • Putnam: Did you ever ask MJ about having money problems?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No, because I didn’t believe it. Because he wasn’t.
  • Putnam asked about the damages Mrs. Jackson asked for in her lawsuit. MJ’s mother responded that he could ask her attorneys about it.
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson has been here most of the days over the past 12 weeks.
  • Putnam: Do you believe that your son is in any way responsible for his passing?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No I don’t
  • Putnam: You never believed your son had any part in his own death?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Correct!
  • Putnam: Do you believe your son MJ knew Dr. Murray was giving him Propofol?
  • Panish: Objection, calls for speculation
  • Putnam: Do you remember MJ asking for Propofol?
  • Panish: Calls for hearsay response
  • Putnam: Did you hear from the criminal trial that your son asked Dr. Murray to give him Propofol?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I have heard
  • Mrs. Jackson said she had not heard that MJ asked other doctors for Propofol. Putnam asked if that came to a surprise for her. She said yes.
  • Conrad Murray, even if he asked, he could’ve said no, Mrs. Jackson opined.
  • Putnam: Do you believe your son hired Dr. Murray?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No I don’t
  • Putnam: You heard testimony MJ hired Dr. Murray in Las Vegas?
  • Mrs Jackson: He had doctors for his children, I don’t know if it was Dr Murray
  • Putnam asked if MJ ever paid Dr. Murray. She answered it was to treat the children.
  • Putnam asked if she heard testimony from Prince saying he would give Dr. Murray stacks of money in a rubber band.
  • He didn’t say stacks, he measure with his fingers, Mrs. Jackson explained.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she doesn’t believe that MJ hired Dr. Murray because of what she’s been listening here in court.
  • She said from hearing the emails, AEG said they had hired him and that Randy Phillips went on TV saying they hired him.
  • Mrs. Jackson: I had heard they had hired and there was the doctor there so I thought MJ had hired him, not knowing the facts.
  • Putnam asked how she remembers it when she said her memory wasn’t very good.
  • I didn’t say I didn’t remember anything, I said I’m 83, I would ‘t remember everything, Mrs. Jackson responded.
  • Mrs Jackson said that’s all that’s been talked about in the trial and that she remembers emails, Phillips’ interview saying AEG hired Murray
  • Putnam: Do you recall why you said your son hired the doctor and that your son could’ve prevented his own death?
  • I don’t think he could’ve prevented his own death, Mrs. Jackson testified. “I just said I thought he hired the doctor. I do recall that.”
  • Mrs. Jackson said she can’t recall exactly what was said in the Dateline interview, but she does remember saying MJ hired the doctor.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she had not heard about Dr. Murray prior to MJ’s death. Her son did not discuss what treatments he was having with her.
  • Putnam: Prior to your son’s death, did you know your son had a doctor spending the night at the house?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No
  • Putnam: Did you ever have conversation with your grandchildren prior to trial about the doctor spending the night at the house? She said no
  • Putnam asked if Prince testified a doctor was spending the nights at the house.
  • Mrs. Jackson: I don’t remember him saying that
  • Putnam: Do you remember him (Prince) saying he (the doctor) spent 6 nights a week?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No, I don’t remember that
  • Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson’s search for the truth and if she thought it would be important to know whether the doctor spending the nights.
  • It would’ve been important but I told you I didn’t talk to my grandchildren about that, Mrs. Jackson responded.
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson talked to her grandchildren about Dr. Murray treating MJ in a locked, upstairs bedroom. She answered no.


  • Putnam: You do believe Dr. Murray has some responsibility for your son’s death?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Of course
  • Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson if Dr. Murray was convicted in the criminal trial. She said yes.
  • He asked if the doctor is now in jail. “I hope he is,” she responded.
  • Putnam inquired about Mrs. Jackson asking the District Attorney to drop the $100 million restitution against Dr. Murray.
  • Mrs. Jackson said yes, that Dr. Murray has children and has no money.
  • Putnam: You asked the DA to drop the $100 million restitution claim against Dr. Murray?
  • Because I felt his children needed him to take care of them, she explained. “He didn’t have any money.”
  • Mrs. Jackson: I asked them to drop it because of his children, he has quite a few children, 7 or 8, I don’t know.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she believes the DA may have dropped the $100 million restitution claim.
  • Putnam: Did you drop the restitution claim so you could file this lawsuit?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No

A quote from the testimony:

Q. And so when you learned he didn’t have any money, you asked the district attorney to drop the $100 million restitution claim?

A. I asked him to drop it because of his children. He had quite a few children, seven or eight, I heard. I don’t know.

Q. And after you asked the district attorney to drop the $100 million restitution claim, did the state of California then dropt that part of their claim against Dr. Conrad Murray?

A.Uhm, I didn’t find all that out, but I imagine they might have.

Q. Well, you were in the criminal court, weren’t you, ma’am?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And do you recall it being announced in the criminal court that you were dropping that part of the claim?

A. No, I didn’t hear it in criminal court.

Q. Okay. Mrs. Jackson, did you drop your restitution claim because of the effect it would have on this lawsuit?

A. No. I never gave it a thought.

This restitution point struck me as something terribly familiar. So it was in AEG’s perception of that story that the so-called fans who accused Katherine of being “greedy” were drawing their inspiration?

But look here, first of all it was the District Attorney David Walgren who made that restitution claim against Murray (and not Katherine) and second, she filed a lawsuit against AEG at least a year before Conrad Murray’s trial, so how could dropping monetary claims against Murray affect the suit against AEG made a year earlier?

And I absolutely believe that being a mother of nine children Katherine felt sorry for Conrad Murray’s kids who should not be held responsible for what their father did to Michael. This move to sympathize with them is very much in Katherine’s character.


The ABC tweets do not go over the next point discussed at a sidebar — the sum of the economic damages claimed, however it’s top important to look into it as it is the most fundamental question of the whole case.

All of us remember the hysteria the media went into over the sum of $40billion allegedly claimed by Mrs. Jackson. Now I realize that this hysteria was also instigated by AEG. It seems that those billions were some preliminary calculation made by Katherine’s lawyers which she did not even see and never signed. The judge agreed that Katherine had not seen it and could not testify about it.

Mr. Boyle for the Plaintiffs explained that all questions concerning the economic damages should be addressed only to the lawyers as they are the ones who are making the estimation. He compared questions he expected Putnam to ask about the damages with questions to a mother of a child in a medical malpractice case, “what are the factual things that the doctor did wrong  that”, or a in a products liability case, “what are the facts that is the defective design in the aviation cooling system?” Both questions require a legal conclusion and cannot be asked of a plaintiff.

This is why the Jacksons’ lawyers referred to a certain Rifkind vs. Superior Court case where the plaintiff was not a 83-year old housewife but a lawyer, but even in his case the court ruled that  the plaintiff should not explain the damages claimed and the matter should be left to outside experts only.

Putnam disagreed, so the judge decided to put off that discussion until both sides provided her with a brief on this point. This is why all questions about it were put aside and Putnam reserved for him the right to summon Mrs. Jackson once again.

To me as a layperson this sidebar explained that:

1)     Initially the Jacksons’ lawyer must have miscalculated the sum, however AEG immediately took advantage of it and trumpeted it all over the world as the damages claimed by that ‘greedy woman’

2)     that ‘greedy woman’ never signed that statement of damages and never even saw it

3)     all questions to Katherine Jackson about her not providing some financial documents during discovery are the usual AEG’s trick to misinform the jury because the plaintiff’s accountants were already subpoenaed for 60,000 documents to AEG regarding MJ’s financial condition. So we can expect a full picture of it disclosed to us in the future.

Here is the sidebar and please correct me if I misunderstood something here:

Q.           …I saw that in your attorney’s opening statements, he talked about the idea of it being between $1.5 and $1.7 billion?

Mr. Panish:         Your honor, first of all, that’s not what I said. And number two, this is improper questioning of a plaintiff under Rifkind vs. Superior court, getting into factual contentions of a plaintiff. If we need to go to sidebar, I have the cases. These are not appropriate question. Plaintiff can’t say how much money they’re asking for. Not something a plaintiff does. The jury decides that.

The judge:           Okay. Let’s go to sidebar and see the cases you’re talking about.

Mr. Panish:         Yes. Sure

Mr. Panish:         First of all, I mean, for example, asking Mrs. Jackson these questions on discovery, have you provided documents, we already heard in the cross-examination of Mr. Erk about this 60,000 documents that AEG subpoenaed from all accountants regarding Michael Jackson’s financial condition. So now for them to keep going in with this 83-year-old witness, “did you have this document?” “did you have this document?” it’s not appropriate.

Number two, factual contentions of a party are things that a lawyer does, not what a party does, and that’s what the Rifkind case is. And we went through this in the deposition extensively with Mr. Putnam when he was asking questions, “give us the factual basis for this,” “give us the contention for that,” and that’s not appropriate. And the case is Rifkind vs. Superior court.

The judge:           I need to look at it.

Mr. Putnam:        Yes. The difference of the time, your honor, because

Mr. Panish:         I just wanted to give the citation of the case for the record.

The judge:           okay.

Mr. Panish:         22 1255. Rifkind vs. Superior court. 1994

Mr. Putnam:        And what the case makes clear, your honor we didn’t understand at the time how he could make a contention, couldn’t understand what the plaintiff’s factual contentions were. And so on the first day when we had her for a couple hours, they wouldn’t let her answer all of these questions. And I indicated, “you know what? I’m going to have to talk to the court so I can understand what the basis of her claim is.” And they said, “Rifkind, Rifkind, Rifkind,” and so we went off and read it and came back and explained to them that’s not what the case represents, your honor. What the case represents is not a very difficult idea, legally. I can’t ask for the legal basis. I can’t aks her what the legal contentions that you’re making here. I understand that, and I’m not asking those. What I’m asking of her, your honor, is something I’m very much allowed to do, which is to find out what her basis is factually. And in fact, your honor, if you recall, we had an argument about this very aspect that we’re doing right now, which is the aspect of her damages claim at the beginning of this case where you asked us to come in with briefings. Ms. Chang argued it. We came and talked about these things. And you ruled twice at that time. And I can give you the cites of the trial transcript if you like.

The judge:           That’s okay.

Mr. Putnam:        Okay. But no, of course you can go into that arena. They can ask counter questions, but we can go into that.

Mr. Panish:         You never ruled that.

The judge:           Let me see Rifkind.

Mr. Panish:         Sure. And, your honor, what he’s going to try to do now, I think, is get into the statement of damages, which she’s never seen.

The judge:           Sound like it’s dealing with depositions.

Mr. Panish:         Testimony.

The judge:           Trial?

Mr. Putnam:        No.

Mr. Panish:         Deals with the testimony. Same thing. Deposition testimony, trial testimony. I mean, this is totally inappropriate. It’s a lawyer’s work product of what is claimed, what are the contentions, what’s the complaint. That’s the lawyer, not the client. And I’m going to go next. If he finishes all this, then I’m going to go up on the stand, and we’re going to discuss it all.

Ms. Chang:          It basically stand for the proposition that someone who is a non-lawyer plaintiff cannot be asked the basis for bringing legal claims and why, and what her factual understanding is, for the same and simple reason that plaintiffs never know. And it’s like an unfair trap by a lawyer to say that they didn’t understand or whatever. And she, of all people, hired attorneys, trusted the attorneys to do their thing.

Mr. Panish:         “And what is your claim for negligence?” it’s the same thing. The plaintiff doesn’t know they

The judge:           That would be asking a legal question.

Mr. Panish:         But it’s the same thing. What is your claim for damages? That’s a legal basis.

Mr. Boyle:           Here’s the distinction, your honor. They try to get around this by saying, “oh, we’re just asking for her factual contentions.” If this were a malpractice case, that would be like asking the mother of the child, “well, what are the factual things that the doctor did wrong that” you know what I mean? Or if this were a product liability case, “what are the facts that is the defective design in the aviation cooling system?”

The judge:           that’s calling for expert.

Mr. Boyle:           Right.

Mr. Panish:         So is this damages. “What are your claimed economic damages?’ expert. Same thing. Legal conclusion. Interesting, Mr. Briggs wouldn’t answer any of these questions, saying “legal conclusion”, their expert. It’s asking for legal conclusion of a percipient plaintiff, a non-expert plaintiff. And that’s what that case interesting, in that case, the witness was a lawyer that was being deposed. And the court says it doesn’t matter if you’re a lawyer or what you are. That’s the work product and the legal contentions of the lawyer, not of the party.

Ms. Chang:          And I want to clarify. The argument that I made at the beginning of the trial was for them to be permitted to read from a document that was really not filed with the court. And the purpose of it was just to give noticed in the even of a default, and that it was never intended to be used as an affirmative pleading in the case. That’s what I argued and made a record of. And we overruled on that, and he was able to use that $40 billion on

Mr. Putnam:        and the reason, your honor, that it was overruled

The judge:           Let’s hear the question first.

Mr. Putnam:        is the case law didn’t support the argument. Yes, I can go through the case law.

Ms. Chang:          We don’t need to argue that.

Mr. Putnam:        It says completely the opposite of the arguments made. What I don’t understand is, we have had two different figures in this case: there’s the $42 billion figure, and now we have $1,5 billion that happened within a span of four months.

The judge:           What was the $40 million?

Mr. Putnam:        On December 3rd, 2010.

Mr. Panish:         It was a statement of damages that she’s never seen.

The judge:           Yeah.

Mr. Panish:         That’s totally inappropriate. So what they’re trying to say

Mr. Putnam:        that’s not inappropriate.

Mr. Panish:         Can I finish please? Well, the statement of damages she’s never seen says this, now it says this; therefore, something must have happened. Now they are getting into legal conclusions.

The judge:           If that’s where you’re going, that sounds like you’re asking legal questions about a statement of damages that the lawyers file.

Mr. Putnam:        But the lawyers

The judge:           that she doesn’t know anything about.

Mr. Panish:         It’s not even filed.

Mr. Boyle:           Not even filed.

Mr. Putnam:        What is says, the case law says about that very thing, okay? That because it is an element of what they’re saying they believe their damages claim is, and they are an agent of the person. If you look at it, it says, “Katherine Jackson hereby demands,” that’s what it says.

Mr. Panish:         She doesn’t sign it.

Mr. Putnam: and therefore I’m able to ask, “are you aware of this fact?” and that is clear. And the reason the case law says and makes it very clear why is because of the fact that if something is so out of whack this is what the case law says –

Ms. Chang:          It does not.

Mr. Putnam:        is so out of whack with reality, the jury is allowed to assess that.

Mr. Panish:         What case is that?

The judge:           Here’s what I’m going to allow you to do: you’re going to skip over this portion of your questioning, and I want a brief on it.

Ms. Chang:          Okay.

Mr. Putnam:        Okay.

Mr. Panish:         And I want to know the name of the case he keeps saying that says this. What’s the name of the case?

Mr. Putnam:        The one that you cited on the record.

Mr. Panish:         What is it?

Mr. Putnam:        If you will let me finish, I will. And if you look at what cited at the time of this argument with Ms. Chang, we went through

Ms. Change:        I cited the case.

Mr. Putnam:        and then we came back with other cases that were cited, and they were cited by Ms. Strong at the time.

The judge:           Okay. So, fine. I want a briefing on the issue. Let’s skip over this.

Mr. Putnam:        I’ll call her back.

The judge:           I’m sure you have a lot of other questions. But I want it in writing so I can consider it, okay?

Ms. Chang:          Yes.

Mr. Putnam:        I have one more thing for the record.

The judge:           And okay.

Mr. Putnam:        I also want to note for the sake of the record, Mr. Panish indicated several times he’s going to call himself in reference to that. And I’d like to note we’ve done actual research. Should he call himself in this matter, he does waive the areas he testifies about.

Mr. Panish:         Good. Looking forward to you cross-examining me.

The following proceeding was heard in open court, so the jurors must have heard all of it. Depending on the judge’s decision on the damages issue we may or may not see Katherine Jackson on the stand again.


I totally understand Katherine when she says she did not know what to believe about the so-called Michael’s ‘drugs’ – what the media trumpeted about was one thing, what her children knew or imagined about MJ was another thing and the truth was something totally different from the first two.

Sometime in the 2000s Michael relapsed into his dependency on Demerol again and was determined to fight it, however the help his family was offering him in this respect left much to be desired – it was rather blunt, inefficient and often misplaced. I think that the method of unannounced arrivals and cavalier attacks they practiced was even insulting for a man who knew of his problem and was seeking really qualified medical help to be able to cope with it.

As we know now from Dr. Farshchian’s deposition on July 24th Michael approached him for help and they were going through a well-planned program of 12 steps which stemmed from asking God to help him get strength to battle his problem:

  • Dr. Farshchian: Each of the steps is somewhat connected of asking God to help you get strength to battle addiction.

Imagine that you are meditating or praying to God for help and suddenly an unannounced crowd of people arrives to gaze at you together with “someone whom Janet knew” and who was not even a specialist in drug dependency problems, and you will realize what a shock it must have been for Michael to see them. Especially since they were evidently planning not just talk but grab him and place in some rehab.

The situation described by Putnam and Mrs. Jackson, when they arrived unannounced at Neverland in 2002 and found that Michael was fine, must have indeed been a tremendous embarrassment for both sides. I can imagine how upset Michael was by that intrusion and their total inability to understand him and the delicate way he needed to help with his problems.

Putnam questioned Mrs. Jackson about that intervention, but first he asked her about her conversation with Michael in 2007 in Las Vegas. The ABC tweets continue:

  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson ever saw MJ under the influence of any drug. She said no, that it’s something she never saw during his lifetime
  • She would show up at the house unannounced and said she never saw her son “loopy”.
  • Putnam: Did you ever speak with your son on the phone when he was out of it?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No. Out of what?
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson’s children told her MJ was under the influence of something. She said yes.
  • A couple of children came to me and told me they had heard about it, Mrs. Jackson said. She had conversation with MJ about it in Las Vegas.
  • Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson is she remembers her son’s criminal trial in 2005. She said yes, and that she attended the trial every day.
  • Putnam inquired if MJ left the country after the trial. She said yes. When MJ came back he lived in Las Vegas never lived in Neverland again
  • Mrs. Jackson spoke with Michael about what she heard of him using prescription drugs.
  • I’ve heard that something had happened to him, Mrs. Jackson described.
  • Putnam: When you said that, he denied it, right?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes he did
  • I was his mother, I imagined he’d deny it, Mrs. Jackson explained. “No child is going to admit it, if I heard something bad about them.”
  • Mrs. Jackson said she didn’t know MJ was taking pain pills, she couldn’t prove it, that’s what she had heard.
  • Mrs. Jackson: It didn’t surprise me, I’m the mother, he would not want his mother to worry about him.
  • Putnam: If you knew your son was going to deny it, why did you ask him?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I’m not answering that question. Because to me it doesn’t make sense. I didn’t know he was going to deny it.
  • It’s because he didn’t want me to worry, Mrs. Jackson said. “I just talked to him about it.”
  • Mrs. Jackson to Putnam: I don’t think it’s that serious that you have to drill it like that on me.
  • Mrs. Jackson: My child, he respected his mother he didn’t want to hurt if it was bad
  • Mrs Jackson: He was still my child, I’m still his mother and he wants to hold his respect for me
  • Putnam: He wasn’t a child but 50 years old?
  • Mrs. Jackson: You’re just trying to confuse me so that you can come back with something.
  • Mrs. Jackson: You do understand (the answer) and you keep asking the same question
  • Putnam: Has there ever been a time you believe your son was abusing prescription drugs?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No
  • I believe he was taking it, but I don’t believe he was abusing it Mrs Jackson said. “I just asked him the question, I wanted to make sure”

About the 2002 intervention:  

  • Even tough Mrs. Jackson didn’t believe MJ was abusing prescription drugs she was part of an intervention at Neverland.
  • She doesn’t remember all the siblings present, but probably Janet, Rebbie and Randy were there.
  • She said there was a person who came along that Janet brought specialized in intervention.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she doesn’t believe MJ knew why they were there.
  • Putnam: Do you recall this taking place in 2002?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes
  • Putnam asked if MJ was mad they came for an intervention.
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes, because when we got there, there was nothing wrong with him
  • We asked if he was okay, he got upset and we didn’t talk about it, Mrs. Jackson explained.
  • He didn’t deny anything, he was ok, Mrs. Jackson said. There was no deep discussion, we got there and he was ok, he was upset.”
  • Mrs. Jackson: It was kind of embarrassing, because they didn’t see anything.
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson saw him upset. “If I said he was upset, I did see it,” she responded.
  • Putnam: After he got upset, did he say to you “I’m not on it, I’m not on anything?”
  • Mrs. Jackson: He didn’t say that
  • Putnam played part of Mrs. Jackson’s deposition where she said she knew MJ was upset, by the way he talked, said “I’m not on it,” that’s all
  • Putnam asked if at the intervention MJ denied he was on influence of prescription drugs?
  • Mrs. Jackson: To tell you the truth, I don’t know
  • Putnam: Do you remember in your deposition you didn’t know whether to believe your son at all?
  • Mrs. Jackson said she was upset with Putnam during deposition. “I was just tired of you asking the same question 50 times in different ways”
  • I knew he was on prescription drugs, but he was not abusing it, Mrs. Jackson said.
  • After intervention at Neverland in 2002 Putnam asked if her mind changed about MJ abusing drugs. She said she didn’t know one way or another


Dr. Farshchian on Dr. Drew's program: "Michael Jackson was grossly misunderstood"

Dr. Farshchian on Dr. Drew’s program: “Michael Jackson was grossly misunderstood”  Youtube:

From Dr. Farshchian’s deposition we’ve learned that Michael decided to seriously address his problem after Blanket was born:

  • Dr. Farshchian said when MJ’s third child, Blanket, was just born, there was ‘a monkey on his back’, he didn’t want to do it anymore. Monkey on his back was Demerol use, Dr. Farshchian said.

Blanket was born on February 22, 2002, so it was evidently around that time that the anti-drug treatment began. And since the Jacksons arranged their intervention also in 2002 it must have been approximately the same time when Dr. Farshchian was already treating Michael.

He was Michael’s doctor in the period of 2001-2003. The treatment started with the doctor taking care of Michael’s sprained ankle, but already on the second visit Michael told him that he had a problem with Demerol and was trying to get off it.

The ABC tweets for July 24 DAY 55 when Dr. Farshchian testified say:

  • Dr. Farshchian treated MJ in April 2001 and stopped in 2003. ‘I was one of his doctors,” he said.
  • Dr. Farshchian said MJ was having an issue with his ankle, he was supposed to performed at MadisonSquareGarden, had to rehearse.
  • Dr. Farshchian:  And he had an ankle issue that was more like a sprained ankle that was not healing and he had to continue to dance on it.
  • He made an appointment like everybody else, Dr. Farshchian said.
  • Putnam asked if MJ wanted to get off drugs, if that happened at the hotel in a second meeting with the doctor. He said yes.
  • Putnam: Do you remember the first time he told you he wanted to clean himself up from drugs?
  • He was trying to get off Demerol, Dr. Farshchian said. MJ told him he had a problem with the drug.
  • Dr. Farshchian said MJ’s main concern was his kids, always his kids, I’d do for my kids, and to spend more time with his kids.
  • At that time, Dr. Farshchian said he wasn’t following MJ on the media. At that point, to me he was just a regular patient.
  • Dr Farshchian: When I got to know him I visited him at the hotel, read a little about him on the internet, then realized was ongoing problem
  • Putnam: Did MJ tell you he was addicted to Demerol?
  • Dr. Farshchian: Not in certain words
  • Putnam: Did he seek treatment with you?
  • Dr. Farshchian: Eventually
  • Dr. Farshchian: To treat Michael for that problem, I thought that because he travelled quite a bit he needed something to be on him.
  • I chose Naltrexone, Dr. Fashchian testified. The drug inhibits the effects of the narcotics, if you take it it stops giving you the euphoria
  • Dr. Farshchian said he implanted more than one patch of the drug in MJ. It normally lasts 60-90 days in the body.
  • MJ had patch implanted 5 times. Dr. Farshchian said in training in family medicine, he learned about psychiatry and drug dependency.
  • The doctor said carrying an implant in you, you carry a risk of infection. That could be a reason they don’t do it that much.
  • Dr. Farshchian said MJ’s skin would have allergy from the patch, he wouldn’t be very comfortable with it.
  • Dr. Farshchian: It’s usually placed in the abdomen lower than belly button, right or left side, and removed after 90 days.
  • 7/21/02 record — sent more information about Buprenex, since did not get any respond (sic) from him and his attempt to intervene
  • MJ had some sort of infection on his leg, he was going to Germany at the time, so Dr Farshchian went with him for treatment of his condition

Putnam evidently tried to compromise Mrs. Jackson’s testimony with the help of Dr. Farshchian’s deposition and one of the ways to do it was to ask the doctor about the intervention and its time – he wondered if it was in the spring of 2002. Dr. Farshchian said it could have been after or before and was not sure. He also recalled that he spoke to Mrs. Jackson in Neverland at Christmas time in 2002. He said she saw Michael’s implant and was happy about it:

  • Dr. Farshchian: Once at Neverland Michael showed his mother the implant. She was very happy about it.

Since the first implant was used sometime in October 2002 Michael must have shown the implant to his mother at Christmas time and not during the unannounced intervention Putnam was asking her about, so what she described to Putnam as an embarrassing situation must have been perfectly true – there was no talk then about any implants because all of them saw that he was fine.

Below are Dr. Farshchian’s records from October 2002 to July 2003 from the moment the serious treatment started up to the point when the patient “was sober for almost 9 months and was good with 12 step program”.

From these records we also find out the devastating news that that there must have been a necrosis to Michael’s nose and they had to take away part of his nose tissues. Goodness gracious, what terrible hardship Michael went through in his life… A mere fraction of it would be enough for a hundred people to go insane after so much suffering… And he had to endure it all alone …

In fact I half-expected something of the kind. Lupus patients are not recommended plastic surgery exactly for the reason that the wound would not heal and there is a huge danger of a necrosis. So first Hoefflin stretched his scalp for some 9 years or so, and got him totally dependent on Demerol as a result, and then Michael’s nose tissues also suffered because Hoefflin wouldn’t listen to Klein’s remonstrations about Michael’s lupus?

And as if all of it was not enough at the end of the anti-drug treatment Michael was arrested in 2003 on the bogus charges of child molestation. However even that did not make Michael resume drugs as Dr. Farshchian said, so this is how determined he was to get rid of them!

Here is a quote from his records according to ABC tweets:

  • 10/20/02 record — patient states he need some help him with his addiction problem.
  • Record: He does not wish to go to an outpatient rehab facility despite the pressure from family. Discussed with him option of Naltrexone
  • Dr. Farshchian said MJ was adamant about not going to rehab facility. He was concerned about his privacy and paparazzi.
  • 11/04/02 record — MJ’s weight was 128 — pre-procedure, cut the skin, insert implant chip of Naltrexone.
  • Dr. Farshchian used local anesthesia with lidocaine 1%, done as outpatient in doctor’s office in Miami.
  • 11/06/02 record — phone call, states he’s doing well tolerating minimum agitation, little insomnia
  • Dr. Farshchian said it was a 10 hour production to go from Neverland to Miami. MJ said he was going to see a psychologist.
  • MJ was very private with everything, Dr. Farshchian said. At the time, he was complaining of insomnia. He was seeing a herbologist for it.
  • Dr. Farshchian said MJ always had trouble sleeping. “To me his insomnia was caused, possibly, you have this area inside the nose called turbinates, if you reduced it’s called empty nose syndrome, to me that was the cause of that.
  • Putnam: Parts of his nose were missing?
  • Dr. Farshchian: Portions of his nose were taken out.
  • Two days later, MJ reported good nights.
  • 11/26/02 record — ankle wound is better, but he had taken the implant out by a physician at home, wishes to do another implant
  • Dr. Farshchian said Michael had a local doctor who didn’t know what the patch was and removed it. MJ would itch it, had some skin rash.
  • Michael really wanted to do this, he came back to get the procedure done, Dr. Farshchian said.
  • 11/26/02 record — second procedure of Naltrexone
  • 11/27/02 — no nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
  • Naltrexone implant: continue current treatment, patient sober x 20 days
  • 11/27/02 record: Abdomen implant well placed
  • 11/29/02 record — feels very good, sleeping well. No sign of opiate withdrawal.
  • Dr. Farshchian: My practice is completely orthopedic regeneration. He said he treats arthritis and orthopedic conditions.
  • Patient sober, now going over the 12 steps with him
  • 12/2/02 record — feel very good, sleeping well
  • Dr. Farshchian: Each of the steps is somewhat connected of asking God to help you get strength to battle addiction.
  • There was a period of time MJ stayed with Dr. Farshchian. He stayed over two times, the children one time.
  • He lives in North Miami Beach, BayHarborIsland. Grace Rwamba might’ve stayed at the house as well.
  • Dr. Farshchian said he converted his garage into a bedroom for MJ. He never treated MJ at the house.
  • 12/4/02 record: Narcan implant at its place. Exercised the 12 steps with him
  • 1/20/03 — patient returns for another implant, been sober for more than 2 months, states been following the 12 step program. Weight: 135 lbs
  • 4/3/03: patient returns for another implant, sober for almost 6 months following 12 step program at least once week with private social worker
  • 7/2/03 — patient returned for another implant, sober for almost 9 months, good with 12 step program
  • Patient can follow up with local physician at this point. Dr. Farshchian said he thought it was enough, the treatment was done.
  • The next time Dr. Farshchian saw Michael was the weekend after he was arrested.
  • Putnam: How was he doing?
  • Dr. Farshchian: Not too good
  • Putnam: Was he using drugs again?
  • Dr. Farshchian: No
  • Dr. Farshchian: There was an attempt intervention by the family but MJ was very difficult to get to, bodyguard, so it may not have happened
  • Putnam asked if the intervention was in the Spring of 2002. Dr. Farshchian said it might’ve been after or before, not sure.
  • Dr. Farshchian is not aware of MJ doing any other outpatient treatment.
  • Dr. Farshchian said when MJ’s third child, Blanket, was just born, there was ‘a monkey on his back’, he didn’t want to do it anymore.
  • Monkey on his back was Demerol use, Dr. Farshchian said.
  • Dr. Farshchian said he didn’t know why MJ became addicted or started taking Demerol. The doctor said MJ did not abuse other drugs or alcohol
  • MJ was seeing other doctors in CA.
  • List of other doctors:
  • Dr. William Van Valin — Dr. Farshchian doesn’t know him
  • Dr. Arnold Klein — yes, I heard about him through the media
  • Dr. Murray — Dr. Farshchian doesn’t know him
  • Dr. Steven Hoefflin — Dr. Farshchian doesn’t know him
  • Dr. Metzger– yes, heard being MJ’s physician in LA, might have spoken to him. Spoke about implants, what to do about it, how he should look
  • Last time Dr. Farshchian spoke with Mrs. Jackson was at the funeral. Before he spoke with her at a 2002 Christmas at Neverland.
  • He said he also had a phone call with Mrs. Jackson where she wanted to know about the implants.
  • Michael called Mrs. Jackson and Dr. Farshchian said he was treating MJ for addiction to Demerol.
  • Last time he spoke with MJ on the phone was in the Winter of 2004. His first impression was that he wanted to get better for the kids’ sake.
  • Did you understand Mrs. Jackson was concerned about his health?
  • Dr. Farshchian: Yes, I don’t recall the conversation, but once she understood the procedure he said she was happy
  • Dr. Farshchian: Once at Neverland Michael showed his mother the implant. She was very happy about it.
  • That was the end of the video deposition. Judge adjourned trial until 9:45 am PT tomorrow.

I mentioned Dr. Farshchian records because they are needed for understanding Katherine Jackson’s testimony and all those interventions attempted by the family. The fact that Katherine Jackson does not remember certain things should not be regarded as a sign of her being untruthful – she is an old woman with impaired memory and the events described took place more than 10 years ago.

As regards interventions Putnam claimed that there was one more, staged by the family in 2007, but over here he is completely wrong.


The ABC tweets tell us that the People Magazine published in September 2007 had an article speaking about another intervention on the part of the Jacksons:

  • Putnam showed a letter on People Magazine (Sept. 7, 2007) the family sent about MJ not addicted to pain killers and alcohol.
  • Mrs. Jackson: We were not trying to take away the business or anything like that. That’s a lie.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she never attempted to take her son’s business. Just because it’s in the magazine tabloids doesn’t make it true, she said.
  • There are lies, these are all lies, Mrs. Jackson said. “We didn’t try to take his business away.”
  • Tito, Marlon, Jackie, Jermaine, Katherine signed this letter. Putnam asked why she signed it if it wasn’t true, she said I wanted it to stop
  • Mrs. Jackson: As far as the tabloids, I didn’t waste my time because I know all they do is to try to make money
  • Putnam: Isn’t it true your son MJ asked you to sign this?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I don’t remember my son asking me to sign this
  • Mrs. Jackson said she doesn’t’ remember MJ being involved in the draft of the letter. She doesn’t know who asked her to sign it.
  • Putnam showed Mrs. Jackson Randy’s deposition saying MJ asked her to sign the letter. She said it doesn’t refresh her recollection about it.

The story about the People’s Magazine in 2007 faintly reminded me of something I had written earlier. It was a post about Jack Wishna bringing Michael to Las Vegas from Ireland on December 23, 2006.

People Magazine, September 17, 2007

People Magazine, September 17, 2007

The first thing I found when looking it up again was the People magazine article itself.

It was published on September 17, 2007 so the Jackson’s letter in reply to that article could not be written on September 7 the same year as Putnam claims it.

The second thing I found from that magazine is that the article referred to an intervention in the year 2006 (and not 2007 as Putnam claimed). This is what it said:

According to several sources, Rwaramba is preventing some Jackson family members from seeing him—and from helping him with what many sources claim is an addiction to prescription drugs. Jermaine Jackson confirmed to PEOPLE on July 21 that he’s worried about his brother’s health.

L.A. attorney Tom Mesereau Jr., who defended Jackson at his 2005 trial, says, “I was approached by the Jackson family” to stage an intervention for Jackson last year but did not participate. A source close to the family confirms the Jacksons did attempt an intervention in Las Vegas in 2006; three of Jackson’s brothers were there and sister Janet was on the phone. ”

Michael got pissed off and said he wasn’t on drugs,” says one family source. Several people interviewed also agree that because of Rwaramba most family members are “cut off—there is no communication with Michael,” says a source close to the family, who adds that Jackson’s brother Randy is afraid Michael will die just like Anna Nicole Smith.

At that time I assumed that the magazine made a big mistake by citing 2006 as the year of the ‘intervention’ and supposed that if it ever took place it could be only in 2007 – Michael arrived from Ireland on December 23, 2006, healthy, excited, invigorated, so there was absolutely no time or reason to arrange any interventions at that moment.

People Magazine spoke of an intervention in 2006. (By the way a closer look at the picture of MJ and the baby Blanket shows that the baby is sitting on the railing)

People Magazine spoke of an intervention in 2006. (Off topic: A closer look at the picture of MJ and Blanket shows that the baby is not ‘dangling’ but is probably sitting on the railing. Click to enlarge)

However now I know that formally the magazine was correct – the ‘intervention’ was indeed arranged immediately upon Michael’s arrival in Las Vegas in 2006.

There is one article I’ve overlooked previously which says that it happened exactly at Christmas time in 2006 and was actually no intervention proper but was a totally uncalled for intrusion into Michael’s life connected with his unwillingness to see his father Joe ‘more than once’.

Excerpt from the magazine

Excerpt from the magazine: 
Through his publicist Raymone Bain, Jackson denies taking drugs or being in poor health; Bain also says Jackson is fully in charge of his life. “Right now Michael is on the East Coast looking at houses and enjoying himself on vacation,” Bain told PEOPLE in July. “He’s talking on the phone every day. He is very engaged and active.” Adds the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a longtime friend and adviser: “I was with him [in July] and he was healthy, spry, effervescent. After all the pressure of the trial, it weakened him to some extent, but he bounced back.”

Michael was absolutely clean after Ireland in terms of drugs and even alcohol as his Irish friend Paddy Dunning in whose house he stayed for about 5 months said that he drank some wine only at dinner table, so Joe must have been completely mad if he assumed that Michael was on drugs when he arrived from Ireland.

Whatever ideas Joe Jackson had he called Jack Wishna, asked him to get Michael to call his mother Katherine because “it was Christmas” and she, according to Wishna “tried an intervention” and “all the kids were there for it”.  Unfortunately we cannot ask Jack Wisha as he committed suicide in November 2012, but this is the story he told to Norm Clarke:

He said family friction surfaced early after Jackson arrived in Las Vegas.

At Jackson’s Summerlin residence, his father, Joe, “would come to the gate, and Michael refused to see him more than once. Joe called me and said, ‘Get Michael to call his mother (Katherine). It’s Christmas.Katherine tried an intervention. All the kids were here for it.”

It wasn’t a drug intervention proper as there was nothing to intervene about, and all Katherine Jackson did was talking to her son and saying to him that she did not want to read in the news that he “ended up like the others”, but we can still imagine how insulting even that mild attempt was – Michael was living the cleanest living possible, and here again a crowd of people arrived suspecting him of something bad and insinuating things about him which he had stopped doing long ago.

Mrs. Jackson testimony is not much different from what Jack Wishna said about it. She said that she and her several children went to Las Vegas and she talked to Michael. A quote from her testimony:

Q.        So you had conversations with your children, and they said that they thought your son Michael Jackson  had a problem with prescription medications; correct?

A.        Yes. But they had heard it.

Q.        And as a result of their saying that to you, you had a conversation with your son Michael     Jackson about it; correct?

A.        Uhm, that was much later.

Q.        Okay.

A.        Yes.

Q.        Let me make sure I understand that.  So you had a conversation with your children where they indicated that they thought that your son had a problem with prescription medications?

A.        Uhm, I wouldn’t say, “a conversation.” I just heard.

A.        Couple of my kids brought it to me that they had heard it out there.

Q.        And I asked if, whether as a result of that, you had a conversation with your son Michael Jackson  about it.

A.        I talked to him about it, yes.

Q.        Okay. And did you have that conversation in person?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And do you remember that conversation taking place in Las Vegas?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Now, just do you remember when that happened?

A.        Not I don’t remember exactly the year or anything like that. But at that time he was living in Las Vegas.

Q.        So one thing you recall is he was living in Las Vegas at the time?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Do you remember where the where it took place? Do you remember where you were talking to your son when you had this conversation about the use of painkillers?

A.        Yes. It was I was getting ready to leave, and there’s a theater not too far from the door. And we stepped inside the theater, and that’s where I talked to him.

Q.        Let me ask a little bit about that.  When you say, “not too far from the door”

A.        Front door.

Q.        The front door of the house?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And what house was this?

A.        In Las Vegas.

Q.        Was this the Palomar house?

A.        No.

Q.        What house was it, ma’am? Do you remember where the house was?

A.        No. I don’t remember the street or anything.

Q.        Can you describe it? What was it like?

A.        Two-story house.

Q.        Uh-huh. Was it light?

A.        I don’t even remember the color.

Q.        Okay. Do you know if the children were living in the house at the time?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Do you remember approximately how old they were?

A.        No, I don’t.

Q.        Okay.  So you stepped out of the house, and there was a theater. Was the theater on the property?

A.        Yes.

Q.        So it was part of the house?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Okay.  And so you’re at the property, and you stepped into the door where the theater to the house was;  correct?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And you did this as you were getting ready to leave?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And this conversation was just between you and Mr. Jackson?

A.        Yes, it was.

Q.        And was this where you told him that you had heard that he was using prescription drugs?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And is this the only time you ever had that conversation with him?

A.        Yes.

Q.        No other time ever in his lifetime where you had that conversation?

A.        Only time.

Q.        Okay.  And is this the conversation that you mentioned on Friday where you said that you didn’t want him to end up that he would be like the others?

A.        That’s right.

Q.        What did you mean by that?

A.        I didn’t want to hear one mention that or one day that something had happened to him.

Q.        And when you told him this, that you had heard that he was using prescription drugs, he denied it, didn’t he, ma’am?

A.        Yes, he did. He didn’t yes, he denied it.


People Magazine, 2007. This is how Michael Jackson looked in April 2007 - a confident and vigorous man with a jaunty step

People Magazine, 2007. This is how Michael Jackson looked in April 2007, several months after the ‘intervention’ – a confident and vigorous man with a jaunty step

That ‘intervention’ was surely another of those embarrassing situations the Jacksons got themselves into and most probably later they wished they had not given in to Joe and to the dirty tabloid gossip about Michael. This is a big reason why tabloids should never be read – they lie like crazy and people tend to be totally misguided by them.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Michael at the time, he looked fine and was full of excitement for starting new projects in the US.

So when an article in the People Magazine appeared in September 2007 saying that the Jacksons staged an intervention in 2006 they probably thought it as their duty to make it up for Michael – there was indeed no intervention and all of it was nothing but a big embarrassment for all those involved.

So now the same crowd of people wrote a letter to the People Magazine saying that Michael wasn’t abusing anything and all of it was lies. Mrs. Jackson signed it too, and everything the letter said was sheer truth.

Putnam read out the letter to Mrs. Jackson trying to catch her lying but she indeed said only the truth – the poor mother is simply being forced now to answer for some people in her family who persuaded her to go to Las Vegas and speak to Michael in December 2006 for no reason at all.

A quote from the testimony:

Q.       Do you remember in September of 2007 there being publications that were reporting rumors of which the most troubling and heinous was that your son Michael Jackson was dependent on painkillers and alcohol?  Do you remember those publications?

A.        I had seen some.

Q.        Okay. So you had seen publications that had reported this.  And when I asked you why you talked to your son Michael Jackson, when he was living in Las Vegas, and talked about this being, perhaps, in 2006 to 2008, you’d  indicated that you had heard this information from your  children. Did you also get information from publications  that there were rumors that your son was using and  I’m sorry, dependent on painkillers and alcohol?

A.        It was out there in magazines and things. I never bought them and read them.

Q.        Okay, ma’am.

A.        And the reason I signed this paper, my children brought it to me. And some of this we weren’t trying  to intervene and take over his business and everything  like that. All these were lies.

Q.        So let’s talk about those. That’s the next  paragraph. It says: “people and other news organizations have quoted ‘sources’ indicating that our family has attempted a drug intervention and engaged in an effort to take over his business affairs because of this alleged drug and alcohol usage.” Correct?

A.        I see what you read, yes.

Q.        And is that what you’re saying, you never attempted to do that? You never attempted to take over your son’s businesses?

A.        No.

Q.        Do you think it would have been inappropriate for you to intervene if you thought your son had a drug  problem?

A.        Repeat yourself.

Q.        Sure. Please, ma’am.  I’m trying you just had a reaction to this idea of taking over your son’s businesses?

A.        No.

Q.        I’m trying that never happened; correct?

A.        No.

Q.        But you had attempted at least one intervention before, had you not?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And but what you’re saying is that what you didn’t do is that you never tried to take over his business affairs; correct?

A.        No.

Q.        And in the next paragraph, it says: “we categorically deny ever planning, participating in, or having  knowledge of any kind of intervention whatsoever. We strongly believe that these ‘sources’ and others, no matter  who they are, are making these  defamatory, inaccurate, and untrue  claims for monetary reasons.”  Do you see that, ma’am?

A.        I do.

Q.        Now, that’s not true, though; right? You can’t  categorically deny ever any planning, participating in,  or having knowledge of any kind of intervention;  correct? 

Mr. Panish:       I’m going to object, your honor.  It’s referring to the article, if you go back to the  time. 

The judge:         overruled. 

Mr. Putnam:         it doesn’t. 

Mr. Panish:       it does.

Q.      I’m sorry, ma’am.  You said “no” to that question?

A.        Just because it’s in the magazines, the tabloids, that means there’s liars in the world. Most of this letter is not true.

Q.        Most of it is not true. Some of it’s true, though; right?

A.        Plus I didn’t write this letter.

Q.        Excuse me, ma’am?

A.        They’re just talking about me, and it says my son and let me see the first paragraph.

Q.        I can show it

A.        Quite naturally, I’ll sign it because there are lies. These are all lies. Nobody planned to take over his business, or anything like that.

Q.        All right, ma’am.  Well, it’s those magazines may have published some lies, ma’am, but it wasn’t a lie that  you’d attempted an intervention before, was it, ma’am?  You had attempted an intervention, hadn’t you?

A.        Yes. At one time, I told you. My children wanted me to go along.

Q.        And you didn’t remember if your children tried at other times, had they not?

A.        I don’t know. They might have. I don’t know.

Q.        You don’t know.  Goes on to say that:  “Michael Jackson and the  Jackson family have endured years of  false accusations and misrepresentations. It’s time for the unfair and hurtful rumors for profit to end. Thank you.”  You see that, ma’am?

A.        Yes, I do.

Q.        Now, at the bottom there are a bunch of signatures; right?

A.        Yes.

Q.        One purports to be the signature of Tito Jackson; one for Marlon; one for Jackie; one for Jermaine.  And there’s yours at the bottom; correct, ma’am?

A.        Correct.

Q.        And you did sign this, didn’t you?

A.        That’s my signature.

Q.        And you said on Friday, when asked on your  direct, if you could recall signing, was asked that, you  said, “yes, I can recall signing.”  Do you recall signing this?

A.        I told you Friday I recall signing it?

Q.        Yes, ma’am.  “you know what? I don’t  really remember that thing, but I did  sign something.”  is this the “something” you’re talking about,  ma’am?

A.        Probably, yes.

Q.        And why would you sign it if it wasn’t true?

A.        I signed it because I wanted them to stop talking about things that weren’t true.

Q.        You also wanted them to stop talking about your  son?

A.        This is not a letter to sign something that is true. It’s a letter to sign something because it’s not true, and we want them to stop. But as far as the intervention, that’s the truth.

Q.        And, so, ma’am, it’s your understanding that this was done to try to get the press to stop talking about your son’s drug use; is that correct, ma’am?

A.        To stop telling a lot of lies.

Q.        And would it be a lie to say that there had been an attempted intervention of your son?

A.        No.

Q.        Because there had been; correct, ma’am?

A.        I told you, we went, and that was my first time  ever.

Q.        And is what you’re trying to tell me, ma’am, is  that you didn’t try an intervention in 2007? Is that  correct?

A.        I don’t remember. 2007?

Q.        Uh-huh.

A.        No.

Q.        And do you know if your children attempted any interventions at that time?

A.        I don’t know. I only know that I did one time.

This remarkable conversation about an intervention that never was was preceded by another sidebar where Ms. Chang confirmed that there was no intervention in 2007:

Ms. Chang: Here is the only thing that we have to  add. It’s not as drastic as you think.  The first paragraph of this indicates that  people magazine has “followed other publications in  reporting untrue and inaccurate information.”  we need that people magazine article, because  in order for this to make sense, it is a 2007 article,  and it was alleging that he was abusing it and that they  had an intervention in 2007.  So, therefore, this cannot make sense without  the people magazine article. It’s partial; it’s taken  out of context. And this appeared in people magazine‘s  editorial section. And she was questioned about it in  her deposition without the original people magazine.  She didn’t recall what it was referring she said her  publicist had her sign it.  But, in essence, it is true with respect to, there was no intervention that the family asked for in 2007.

As regards September 2007 or exactly the period when both the article and letter were published in the People magazine, Michael was staying at Frank Cascio’s house (August 19th – October 31st, 2007) and Frank who had seen Michael take some medication before noted that  there was absolutely no sign of Michael taking any sort of medicine:

We threw a surprise party for my mother’s fiftieth birthday in New Jersey on August 19, 2007. Later that evening, when the guests had gone, Michael appeared at the house. He had his three kids in tow, as well as his black Lab, Kenya, and a cat. My father called me in the city and said, “I think you should come home tonight, but make sure you come alone.” As soon as he said that, I knew Michael was at the house. … I was working in Manhattan, but I was back and forth to New Jersey frequently to see Michael and the kids. We celebrated Michael’s forty-ninth birthday, which fell ten days after my mother’s fiftieth, with a big family dinner. My mother cooked, and we also ordered in some pizza because Michael loved pizza. The time he’d spent in Bahrain after the trial had been a good break for him. He had needed time away, time for himself, and he seemed rejuvenated. He was alive and excited, getting back into being creative and free. He and Eddie were working in the studio during the day, and he was playing with an idea for an animated cartoon he hoped to produce. He was happy to be around my family, with whom he could be himself. There was no sign that he was on any sort of medicine. He was back to being Michael. (My Friend Michael, chapter 23)


The rest of Katherine Jackson’s testimony was about AEG. It was very well summed by Brian Panish:

  • “They knew he was having a problem,” Panish said. “He needed them for this concert. They could have easily told him, ‘Look, until you go see the appropriate doctor and come back, we’re not going on with the rehearsal.’ They’re the only ones that really had the ability to do something about it and they chose not to.”

This is absolutely true. AEG knew perfectly well that Michael’s health was deteriorating in front of their eyes but they chose to totally ignore it and didn’t allow others to offer him any help. And judging by the fact that they blocked Joe Jackson from coming to Michael’s home they prevented the relatives from helping Michael either though he was already on the brink of a catastrophe due to his total lack of biological sleep.

Katherine Jackson said that they watched him waste away and even waited for it, and I am inclined to agree with her.

And no matter what situation with Joe was like before, once Michael asked for him there should have been no force on the planet to block Joe from coming and seeing his son. It was absolutely none of AEG’s business to decide who was to see Michael and who was not.  Even though I am no fan of Joe Jackson if he had been there he could have at least brought a proper doctor to Michael and Michael would be alive now.

The ABC tweets conclude:

  • Mrs. Jackson: I had heard that, that Elizabeth Taylor had something to do about drugs but I don’t watch television that much.
  • Putnam: Were you aware your son MJ had gone to rehab before?
  • Mrs. Jackson said she did not discuss with MJ about it and had never heard MJ’s 1993 announcement he was going into rehab.
  • Mrs. Jackson: My children probably didn’t want me to know about it.
  • MJ’s mother said she never heard before tour had been canceled because of MJ’s rehab. She said it doesn’t mean it wasn’t but she didn’t know
  • Putnam asked about whether she shut her ears to bad things. “I may have said that but I don’t remember,” Mrs. Jackson responded.
  • Mrs. Jackson: I don’t like hearing bad news.
  • Mrs. Jackson wore black and white print long jacket with fuchsia flowers, with cranberry top and skirt.
  • Putnam asked about the attempted intervention in 2002. He asked about Dr. Farshchian treating MJ’s addiction to Demerol.
  • Mrs. Jackson said he doesn’t recall Dr. Farshchian and does not recall any phone call with any doctor about MJ’s addiction to Demerol.
  • Putnam showed Mrs. Jackson transcript of Dr. Farshchian’s deposition and asked if that refreshed her recollection. She said it doesn’t.
  • Putnam asked if  Dr. Farshchian testified he spoke with her because she wanted to know all the details of her son’s Demerol use.
  • I don’t remember who Dr. Farshchian is and I don’t remember treating Michael for Demerol, Mrs. Jackson said.
  • Putnam: Do you remember testimony about MJ having an implant to treat Demerol?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I don’t know anything about that
  • Mrs. Jackson said she doesn’t remember discussing the implant in 2002.
  • As to Louis Farrakhan — she met him, but doesn’t remember seeing him at Neverland.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she does not remember MJ showing her a Narcan patch.
  • Putnam asked if Mrs Jackson knows there were a number of doctors who testified in this case. She said she didn’t know, didn’t see deposition
  • Putnam asked if she recalls sitting down for interview with Oprah Winfrey in the fall of 2010. Mrs. Jackson said yes.
  • Oprah’s interview aired about a month after the the lawsuit was filed. She watched it when it aired at the Hayvenhurst house.
  • Putnam: Did you try to tell the truth in that interview?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes
  • Putnam: You said you believed your son was addicted to drugs?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I told Oprah that
  • Mrs. Jackson: I told you MJ was on painkillers, but I don’t think he was abusing it.
  • In Oprah’s interview, Mrs. Jackson said it was a long time before she knew MJ was addicted to painkillers.
  • She also said about the family’s attempted intervention: the children told her to take MJ to rehab and kind of clean him up.
  • Mrs. Jackson told Oprah she didn’t want to hear MJ had overdosed. MJ kept saying he wasn’t on it, and that his own mother didn’t believe him
  • Mrs. Jackson: I kind of believe it and didn’t believe it, hearing from my children, hearing from other people.
  • Mrs. Jackson conceded she denied this morning that her son was abusing drugs.
  • I didn’t know what to believe, Mrs. Jackson said.
  • Putnam: Do you think your son was abusing painkillers?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I don’t know
  • I didn’t know what to believe, she said. “I went to Neverland because my children kept asking me and I was concerned.”
  • Putnam: Was there a time you were concerned with MJ using painkillers?
  • Mrs. Jackson: I can’t say I weren’t concerned
  • Putnam: Was there any time during the criminal trial that you were concerned MJ was under the influence of something?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No
  • Mrs. Jackson said she never discussed with her son’s attorneys or managers about her concerns.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she had many conversations with Frank DiLeo and they were all friendly.
  • She remembers answering the phone when Frank DiLeo went back to work for Michael.
  • Mrs. Jackson wanted to know why people kept re-hiring people Michael had fired.
  • Putnam asked if it was someone other than MJ who hired DiLeo. “I think so, Michael didn’t want him back,” she said.
  • Mrs. Jackson: Michael and DiLeo told me he was back for the This Is It tour.
  • Putnam: Did you tell Mr. DiLeo you were concerned that your son was abusing painkillers?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No, since he had just come back
  • Mrs. Jackson said she never told AEG Live or Randy Phillips about MJ having drug problem.
  • Mrs. Jackson testified she was receiving money from MJ and also from Janet Jackson.
  • At first, it was not on a monthly basis, but it became that way, Mrs. Jackson explained. Janet sent her $10,000 a month.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she was receiving that amount when MJ died. The money went to her assistant Janice at the office.
  • Mrs. Jackson said she told Janet she didn’t have to continue to send her money after MJ died.
  • In re-direct, Panish asked if before MJ died, was he paying for everything?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes, paying for everything
  • Panish: Did you rely on him (MJ) for all necessities of life?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes
  • Panish inquired if Putnam asked during deposition personal question?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes, he asked ‘did your husband beat you’?
  • P: Were you upset?
  • Mrs. J: Yes
  • Panish: Farrakhan and Nation of Islam, does that have anything to do with your son’s death?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No
  • Mrs Jackson said she doesn’t know anything about computers, it’s not a lawyer or investigator. Her highest level of education is high school
  • Panish asked what she did to go about this case. “I hired your firm,” Mrs. Jackson said.
  • Why, Panish asked. “I wanted to find out what really happened to my son,” Mrs. Jackson responded.
  • Phillips and Gongaware never called/send card to Mrs. Jackson after MJ died, Mrs Jackson said. Kenny Ortega went to see her, she said.
  • Panish: Did you know your son was sleep-deprived for 60 days?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No, I didn’t
  • Panish asked if she knew Hougdahl wrote an email to AEG that MJ was deteriorating in front of his eyes?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No
  • Mrs. Jackson said she learned about MJ’s condition in court, that AEG never told her MJ was deteriorating, paranoia, losing weight, rambling
  • The could’ve called me, he was asking for his father, he was scared, he was asking for Joseph, Mrs. Jackson said, crying.
  • Panish: Did AEG ever tell you they called your son a freak?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No
  • P: And that it was creepy meeting your son?
  • Mrs. J: No (crying)
  • Mrs. Jackson: They were there, without calling somebody. My husband and I would have been there in a second (crying)
  • They watched him waste away and waited, I know they did it, Mrs. Jackson said, crying.
  • Panish showed picture of MJ in June 09 and asked if she ever saw her son like that. “Never,” said Mrs. Jackson crying, wiping her eyes.
  • Panish: Issue of restitution was the state decision and you told them not to do it, correct?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes
  • Panish asked if the figure for restitution was set by the state. Mrs. Jackson said yes.
  • In re-cross, Putnam showed a video where Mrs. Jackson said “It could’ve been prevented, he hired a doctor to take care of him.”
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson talked to her grandchildren about Dr. Murray in search of the truth.
  • I could, but I didn’t want to bring that up with them, Mrs. Jackson answered.
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson spoke with Sister Rose, the kids’ nanny.
  • She told me that MJ was very weak, and she told me that she talked about what went down at the practice, they had to hold him up she said
  • Mrs. Jackson doesn’t know why Sister Rose is called sister and Brother Michael is brother.
  • Putnam: Did I say anything improper in the deposition regarding the Nation of Islam?
  • Mrs. Jackson: You were asking me question about it
  • Putnam asked if Mrs. Jackson knows Gongaware. “No, but that shouldn’t have stopped him, to say I’m sorry what happened to your son” she said
  • Putnam asked if AEG put together a Memorial Service for MJ. She said yes.
  • Mrs. Jackson said AEG told her if she did the memorial service at the Staples Center it would be free (she wanted to do it at the Coliseum)
  • In re-re-direct, Panish asked: They still didn’t send a card, did they?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No. Thousands and thousands of people sent her card.
  • She’s a Jehovah’s Witness and there’s a difference between her religion and the Nation of Islam.
  • Regarding the interview, Mrs. Jackson said she just assumed, she didn’t know whether MJ had hired Dr. Murray.
  • Panish: Did Sister Rose discuss with you about AEG pressuring MJ?
  • Mrs. Jackson: Yes
  • Panish showed video of Phillips saying they hired him.
  • Panish: There was a suggestion in this trial you hired Kai Chase back so she can testify in your favor?
  • Panish: Did you hire Kai Chase so she would testify in your favor?
  • Mrs. Jackson: No, not at all. The children knew her, they wanted her, that’s why.
  • Mrs. Jackson: Kai Chase has been working for me not quite a year yet
  • In re-re-cross, Putnam inquired Phillips said ‘we hired him’ and Mrs. Jackson said ‘Michael’ hired him.
  • Mrs. Jackson: Like I said, I didn’t know who hired him at that time.
  • Putnam said one of them was not right in their interview. Mrs. Jackson answered: “I’m not correct.”
  • In re-re-re-direct, Panish asked: Who do you think it’s in a better position to know who hired the doctor, you or the CEO of AEG?
  • Mrs. Jackson: The CEO of AEG
  • Mrs. Jackson was then excused. She went home for the rest of the day to rest.
  • Judge told jury we are now moving to defendants’ case, even though plaintiffs have not yet rested their case in chief.

ALAN DUKE’S article:

AEG Live tries to show Michael Jackson had secret drug addiction

Los Angeles (CNN) — Michael Jackson “had a real monkey on his back” with a longtime drug addiction, his family kept it secret from the world and it led to his overdose death, a lawyer for AEG Live said. The concert promoter’s defense against the Jackson family’s wrongful death lawsuit began Tuesday and will include testimony from “all of the many, many doctors” who treated Jackson over the past decades, AEG Live attorney Marvin Putnam said.

AEG Live executive John Meglin, who is the CEO of the Concerts West division, returns to the stand Wednesday after testifying Tuesday that Dr. Conrad Murray’s request for $5 million to work as Jackson’s personal physician was a topic at a meeting of the company’s executive committee. Jackson lawyer Brian Panish said that was an important revelation that would help his case.

Panish pressed Meglin on the question of if he agreed with his boss, AEG Live President Randy Phillips, who testified that he thought Jackson was the greatest artist of all time. “I think that Michael’s very big in the pop world, but the Rolling Stones are bigger, or Led Zeppelin,” Megline said. “I’m a rocker.”

Defense witnesses will also include a parade of Jackson family members, including a return appearance by matriarch Katherine Jackson, who just concluded two days of testimony as her lawyers presented their case. “They kept his private world private as best they could and now they would like to blame somebody else for things that only they knew privately,” Putnam said.

Michael Jackson’s mother and three children contend AEG Live, which was producing and promoting his comeback concerts, is liable in his death because it negligently hired, retained or supervised Murray.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson’s death, which the coroner ruled was caused by an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol. The doctor told investigators he was using the drug to treat Jackson’s insomnia as he prepared for his “This Is It” debut in London.

Jackson, not AEG Live, chose and controlled Murray, Putnam argued. He said in his opening statements at the start of the trial 12 weeks ago he would show jurors “ugly stuff” about Jackson to prove that AEG Live executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments the doctor was giving in the privacy of Jackson’s bedroom.

Michael’s mom speaks

The appearance of Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson’s 83-year-old mother, as a concluding witness in her case gave Putnam a chance to probe what family members knew about Jackson’s drug abuse history. “There are a lot of enormous inconsistencies in what is being said and what the truth is,” Putnam told reporters Monday after he finished his cross-examination of Katherine Jackson.

She “reported to the world and to the press that he never had a problem with prescription drugs,” that he never entered drug rehab and that the family never attempted an intervention to stop his drug use, he said. “As we now know, Michael Jackson had a longtime problem with prescription drugs, so what had been told to the world during his lifetime wasn’t true.”

The Jackson family’s lawyer, Brian Panish, said AEG Live executives were “in the best position to help Michael Jackson” when they saw his health deteriorating in the last two months of his life.

Show director Kenny Ortega sent a series of e-mails to top AEG Live executives warning them that Jackson showed “strong signs of paranoia, anxiety and obsessive-like behavior” at a rehearsal. “I think the very best thing we can do is get a top psychiatrist in to evaluate him ASAP,” Ortega wrote. “It’s like there are two people there. One (deep inside) trying to hold on to what he was and still can be and not waiting us to quit him, the other in this weakened and troubled state.”

Production manager John “Bugzee” Houghdahl sent an e-mail to producers saying he “watched him deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last 8 weeks. He was able to do multiple 360 spins back in April. He’d fall on his ass if he tried now.”

“They knew he was having a problem,” Panish said. “He needed them for this concert. They could have easily told him, ‘Look, until you go see the appropriate doctor and come back, we’re not going on with the rehearsal.’ They’re the only ones that really had the ability to do something about it and they chose not to.”

Ortega testified this month that he thought AEG Live should have halted production on the show until Jackson was well.

Despite the e-mail evidence and testimony, Putnam insisted Monday that AEG Live executives knew nothing about Jackson’s failing health. “They had little interaction with Michael Jackson in terms of the production and promotion of that,” Putnam said, adding that the executives “certainly” did not know “that he was having any problems.”

But Panish said the executives should have known: “He was deteriorating in front of their own eyes.” “They watched him waste away,” Katherine Jackson testified.

Jackson testified in her first day on the stand Friday that she filed the lawsuit “because I want to know what really happened to my son.”

During cross-examination, the AEG Live lawyer played a clip from an interview she gave to NBC a year after her son’s death in which she said Michael Jackson had hired the doctor. In response, her lawyer argued she made the statement before seeing AEG e-mails indicating that the company hired him.

Putnam questioned her about a statement she and several of her children signed in 2007 accusing People Magazine of publishing “untrue and inaccurate information” about Michael Jackson’s drug use.

“We categorically deny ever planning, participating in, or having knowledge of any kind of intervention, whatsoever,” the statement read. Katherine Jackson acknowledged, however, that she participated in an attempted intervention with her son at his Neverland Ranch in 2002.

“I wanted them to stop lying,” she testified, referring to the magazine. “I was worried about all the lies they were telling about the family.” “Was it a lie to say your son had a problem with prescription drugs?” Putnam asked. “He did not have a problem,” she insisted.

Putnam later asked Jackson’s mother if she liked to “shut your ears to bad things.” “I don’t like to hear bad news,” she said.

Jackson appeared combative at times when Putnam cross-examined her, punching back at his questions. “What does this have to do with my son dying?” she replied at one point.

“I think she was badgered, but that wasn’t the first time,” Panish told reporters later. “In her deposition, she was asked questions like, “Does your husband ever beat you?'”

For the pretrial deposition, she was questioned for about 12 hours over three days. Putnam denied he was being overly aggressive in his questioning of her. “I just wanted to know the facts from her and there was no reason to be aggressive with her,” he said.

“She was combative, but you can’t blame Mrs. Jackson for that. None of us want to find ourselves in a situation where we’re having to confront the very public death of our child.”

Putnam refused to discuss why he asked Katherine Jackson in the deposition if her husband, Joe Jackson, ever beat her. “What occurred in those depositions was confidential at Mrs. Jackson’s request, therefore I am not at liberty to go into to the private matters that we went into in that deposition,” Putnam told CNN.

However, Katherine Jackson and her lawyer both brought up the question in court Monday. “I am not going to go into what we went into about the very tragic history Michael Jackson had with his parents and father over the period of his life,” Putnam said.

“That is something we did not go into on the stand because it is not relevant. I’m not bringing that up.” Testimony is expected to last into September, the judge told the jury.

The media now says that Dr. Farshchian’s testimony appears to contradict Katherine’s words about “no knowledge of Michael’s addiction”. Firstly I don’t see how it helps the AEG case (they considered Michael an addict themselves) and secondly, I disagree with the above idea in principle.

There is a very fine line to be drawn between addiction and Michael’s need to take prescription medication for legitimate medical conditions (of which he had many – a burn and injury to his back, for example), so what Mrs. Jackson testified to was her big confusion in matters whether the medications were indeed necessary or not, and if necessary, to what degree. She knew of Michael taking medication but she could not know at which point the abuse was starting and whether it had started at all.

She said that she knew he was taking painkillers but she did not know whether he was abusing them.

Can taking medication be considered abuse if Michael was indeed in constant pain from all his innumerable ailments? Who could tell that except a very qualified doctor? So how could Mrs. Jackson definitely know where was a legitimate reason for taking a painkiller and where was the addiction?

Actually the fact that Michael was seeking treatment and went for those implants spoke to his responsible attitude to whatever problems he had and his great determination to fight them. This isn’t the behavior of an addict, but this is the behavior of a responsible person who realizes that things are getting out of control and need correction.

Knowing that Michael was controlling the problem could only convince his mother that her boy was on the right road and there was no addiction. Yes, she knew that her son was taking medication, so what of it? She also knew that they were connected with his tremendous health issues…

And how can all this talk about Katherine help AEG anyway, I wonder?

Katherine Jackson knew about son’s drug issues, doctor says -exclusive

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

LOS ANGELES (KABC) — There’s a major development in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial regarding the singer’s use of drugs. Newly revealed testimony appears to contradict the recent testimony of Jackson’s mother, who claimed to have no knowledge of her son’s past addiction.

Jurors heard the most explicit details yet of Jackson’s treatment for addiction. It was 2002, seven years before Jackson’s death from the anesthetic propofol. Jackson’s youngest son had just been born. Dr. Alimorad Farschian said Jackson wanted off of the painkiller demerol.

“Blanket was just born and that was why he wanted to, what he phrased, ‘a monkey on his back,’ he wanted to just not deal with it anymore,” Farschian said in a video deposition.

In the video, Farschian states Jackson’s family was pressuring the artist. The doctor’s statement conflicts with the testimony of Katherine Jackson, who said under oath that she had no personal knowledge that her son struggled with dependency. The doctor said he talked to her directly about the singer’s detox treatment.

“I think she wanted to know all about it, what was going on,” said Farschian.

Farschian described implanting Michael Jackson with a type of demoral antidote. Naltrexone, also known as narcane, is a tiny tube inserted under the skin to block the euphoric effect of opiates. The doctor said he implanted Jackson five times over nine months and that he personally witnessed Mrs. Jackson examining her son’s incision.

“I remember that was in Neverland. Michael did show the implant to his mother. Just his mother was there. She was very happy,” said Farschian.

Katherine Jackson is suing AEG Live, alleging that the tour promoters hired and failed to supervise Conrad Murray, the physician linked to the singer’s propofol overdose. Her attorneys assert that Jackson’s health was deteriorating from anxiety and sleep deprivation in the two months before his death.

Jurors heard from Farschian that Jackson suffered from insomnia years earlier. The doctor’s theory is that it was linked to cosmetic surgery: a key part of Jacksons nose was missing.

“It is possible that you produce what they call empty nose syndrome and producing insomnia,” said Farschian.

About the plaintiffs claim that Jackson was emaciated, the autopsy recorded he was 136 pounds when he died. Farschian testified that Jackson weighed 128 when he treated him.

Dr. Farshchian’s video deposition is here:

And here is the full testimony of Katherine Jackson provided by TeamMichaelJackson:

View this document on Scribd
31 Comments leave one →
  1. July 26, 2013 3:30 am

    Helena, I have not yet read your post, so don’t know if you realized that:
    The video testimony of Dr. Farshchian is also an interesting piece for Michael’s exoneration in the 2005 case.
    According to the reports of Dr. Farshchian Michael carried the Naltrexone patch starting from November 2002 with the first implantation until at least June 2003, when the 5th chip was inserted. This means he carried the patch throughout the time Gavin Arvizo claimed to have been molested by Michael – between February 20 and March 12, 2003 (during the 3rd implantation). The patch was visible, according to Dr. Farshchian Michael showed it to his mother. It was placed “in the abdomen lower than the belly button” (right or left). Also, Michael developed a skin allergy from the patch with a skin rash.
    The Arvizo boys claimed Michael walked around naked once. Wouldn’t they have seen it? Wouldn’t Gavin have noticed it? Would Michael have shown himself voluntarily to somebody with this condition? Another proof for their lies!


  2. July 26, 2013 4:34 am

    “The video testimony of Dr. Farshchian is also an interesting piece for Michael’s exoneration in the 2005 case.
    According to the reports of Dr. Farshchian Michael carried the Naltrexone patch starting from November 2002 with the first implantation until at least June 2003, when the 5th chip was inserted. Wouldn’t Gavin have noticed it? Would Michael have shown himself voluntarily to somebody with this condition? Another proof for their lies!” – Susanne

    Susanne, thank you for writing about it. I wouldn’t have even mentioned it because to me the Arvizos’ claims are a complete joke. The moment they said that “molestation” started after Bashir’s film, when the whole world was already looking at Neverland, the matter was decided for me once and for all – it was a big and a totally insane lie.

    But for those who participated in this mass Arvizo insanity and believed it you are right – those implants are another irrefutable proof that they could never see MJ naked and he would have never shown his abdomen to anyone at all for fear of showing the implants. The implant is not a patch, it must be a kind of a capsule visible under the skin. And visible all the more so as it was accompanied by a rash.

    You are confusing the implant with patches of painkillers given to Michael by doctors when they were growing a balloon on his head. Those patches must have been placed on Michael’s lower abdomen too (so that no one could see them) and they were there exactly at the time when Jordan Chandler was allegedly ‘molested’ in 1993. We know that they were there because the operation to cut his scalp was done on the eve of the third leg of Dangerour tour, in August 1993 and the patches were put before that and stayed there for months while they were stretching his skin.

    So how could Jordan Chandler NOT notice those patches of painkillers on Michael’s body? He also claimed that he saw him naked when they allegedly “took a bath together” in Monaco, in May 1993. No, none of it ever happened, all these things are crazy lies and the fact that these patches and implants are unexpectedly fully exonerating Michael is a sort of a miracle.


  3. July 26, 2013 5:37 am

    Susanne, you’re right. I’ve looked up the tweets again and Dr. Farshchian does speak of the patches. So he placed an implant and covered it with a patch. All the more visible then!


  4. Sina permalink
    July 26, 2013 9:14 am

    Helena thank you for the updates and the transcripts , they are very insightfull.
    Here is what I found on the Rifkin vs Superior court case that KJs lawyer was referring to.
    “Legal contention questions are perfectly appropriate for interrogatories ( questionnaires parties send to each other pre trial) but entirely inappropriate at a deposition when a party is represented by counsel.”Legal contention questions request the basis for a legal conclusion and those are improper at a deposition “. In other words a layman does not have to answer questions of this nature and can refer to his counsel and that is exactly what KJ did when asked about restitution and damages.

    About family interventions, there is no winning, whatever they do.
    Some say they were covering up for Michael ,others say they did nothing to help.
    If a family hears alarming stories about their brother/ son, they should be concerned, doing nothing is not an option. Especially if the source is someone close to Michael.
    It was Frank Cascio ( from his book) who called Michaels family around the time of his 30th anniversary concerts, which was September 7 + 10 2001 and maybe at other times. In his book he wrote that he spoke to Randy Tito and Janet .
    >>>Not to Katherine because” it seemed wrong to burden a mother of a certain age with such distressing news about her beloved son’ <<<
    He went on to say : “the family took my words seriously and a couple of days before the show they met with Michael and talked to him about it. But ofcourse Michael told them there was no cause for concern. He had barely acknowledged himself that he had a problem.”
    Later Frank said Michael( not knowing that he was the instigator of the intervention), told him that his family tried to talk about his medicine but he thought they were out of line. ” Im sure his family persisted , Janet and I spoke several times after the special, but Michael simply pushed them away.”
    This unfortunately made the family’s actions look embarrassing and made Frank Cascio the perfect witness for AEG.

    By the way, an intervention is always unannounced , confrontational and very uncomfortable for the addict. Reason why it is often rejected, no matter how carefully planned( re Britney Spears).
    I don’t know if the Jackson intervention was a professional one, the problem being the delicacy and risk of a media leak. Remember, this was not 1993 when Michael still had a lot of public support and could publically announce his addiction and going to rehab. Here is information on intervention

    There is a saying : cut off your ties and you are free, cut off your roots and you are dead.
    I think this is what literally happened.
    Despite their strained relationship, as per Prince and KJ Michael asked to call his father but somehow never got through or vv or Joe was deliberately blocked.
    I keep thinking what would have happened had Joe had access to Michael and found Murray in the house poisoning him. I think no one would have blamed him for intervening.


  5. alice permalink
    July 26, 2013 10:42 am

    Hey Helena…

    Thanks again for a great update.
    Just something unrelated to this post if it’s okay (I only felt it best to draw my latest question to the latest post rather than return to the original) – but I thought I’d drew your attention to a little point I’ve just noticed in Phillip’s testimony back on June 10, when he was being cross-examined by Panish about the emails. I’m sure you already picked it up when you read it but this section here contained an interesting name-drop for me.

    “Q: Well, how do you know your home phone number wasn’t on it? (a business card Philips says he may have given to Murray with his number on it – he won’t specify whether it is his home or mobile even though initially he admitted it was his home, then changed his story)

    A: Because I generally don’t use it that much and don’t give it out.

    Q: You gave it out to Dr Murray, didn’t you?

    A: It’s very possible that I left a message for him on his machine, if that exists, or Frank Dileo gave him my home number to call me. I’m not sure.”

    Phillips goes on to say he can’t remember who gave Murray his number (he won’t specify whether it was his home or mobile, probably because admitting it was his home would look like too much of a connection between he and Murray), even though he initially said he gave it to Murray hand-written on the back of his business card, and that it was also on the production list which everybody had.
    He first said this production list had everyone’s home numbers on it, then he withdrew that specific comment when Panish was incredulous about that fact (‘everyone’s home numbers?’), and he admitted that no, probably just their mobile numbers. Which begs the question, why would Murray also need a card with an additional number written on the back if he already had this production list?
    Phillips then withdrew entirely from being the one to give Murray the production list and suggests he didn’t even know if Murray was given one or who by (probably, again to look like they weren’t very involved together but also probably to detract attention from the idea that Murray was being included with Production – and, ergo, considered as part of the Production team/costs/crew/employees etc).
    Then he said he made a mistake and didn’t remember about either of those things.
    And then, he admits to Panish that yes, he DID give his card to Murray with his phone number (he doesn’t specify which) written on the back. This fact is what certifies to me he definitely gave Murray his HOME number. Because surely the business card would already have his mobile number on the front of it?
    But my question is – what do you think about his specific reference to Frank there, earlier in Phillips’ vague ramblings? Just to refresh, this is looking back on the email/phone call/meeting chain of events on June 20th, 2009 – the 25 minute phone call which took place with Phillips and Murray. Why would Phillips mention Frank as a possible person to pass on Phillips number?? Is he being deliberate here by trying to insinuate that the only way Murray could have gotten Phillips number was via somebody on Michael’s camp? Ie, he had to ask Michael’s manager for the number of Michael’s doctor? Is this a way for AEG to distance themselves from Murray? Or is Phillips making a genuine slip-up by mentioning Frank and letting us know that Frank was also in conversation with Murray and perhaps, by mentioning this connection, we could wonder if Frank was talking to Murray and was included in the meeting with MJ on that same day? And maybe what he saw and heard was what made him a target for AEG post-MJ’s death?

    Above all, it’s this specific mention of Frank and a supposed link between Murray and Frank that bothers me. What do you all think?

    Sorry if this has already been discussed! Like I’ve said, I am still spending hours each day reading back over posts to catch up.

    Hope everyone is well and I would love to know your thoughts on the nurse’s testimony today.


  6. alice permalink
    July 26, 2013 10:50 am


    Great point about the patch. Helena, I’ve just finished reading over your post about the mention of Michael’s having an affair with June Chandler – via that letter in response to Scott Thorson’s ludicrous claims. What are your thoughts about this patch revelation of Susanne’s, in terms of June Chandler giving a physical descriptions of Michael to Jordan? Would the ‘in-the-dark’ version of things have prevented her being able to pass this detail on to her son, IF we suppose for the purpose of this hypothetical that the affair occurred? Or does this idea discredit the notion since it wasn’t mentioned? Or maybe they left it out of their description on purpose in case they thought there was the likelihood the patch had been removed by that stage, thus discrediting their statement?

    Again, all speculation, but something I’d love to hear your thoughts on.
    Thanks again.


  7. alice permalink
    July 26, 2013 11:12 am

    Hey again Helena,

    I keep finding more weird references from Phillips to ‘oh maybe Frank gave Murray that information. It certainly wasn’t me.’

    “A: But he (Murray) didn’t agree with Kenny and John’s… observations.

    Q: You never gave him (Murray) those emails, did you sir?

    A: Who? Dr Murray?

    Q: Yeah

    A: I may have read them to him. I don’t remember

    Q: Well, sir, you don’t know what you talked about with Dr Murray so how could you say you might have read them? You have no idea what you talked to Dr Murray about during that lengthy conversation do you?

    A: No. But Frank may have sent them.”

    Ooooh, I can’t wait until we hear what’s on that laptop – if there’s anything.


  8. alice permalink
    July 26, 2013 11:45 am

    Just something I always return to for a laugh when I need it (hearing such horrible things said about MJ day-in and day-out can be emotionally bruising)

    This is my favourite part from Phillips June testimony, always gives me a laugh:

    “Q: You didn’t know anyting about Dr Murray’s qualifications at this time, did you sir?

    A: No. I had nothing to do with hiring him.

    Q: Pardon me?”

    🙂 Haha. You can just picture Panish’s expression: ‘um, and what has that statement got to do with my question?’

    Phillips sounds so desperate lol.
    As though denying what he’s being sued for will miraculously acquit him.
    ‘I didn’t do it’.

    I think we could call this the Bart Simpson testimony.


  9. July 26, 2013 11:46 am

    “What are your thoughts about this patch revelation of Susanne’s, in terms of June Chandler giving a physical descriptions of Michael to Jordan? Would the ‘in-the-dark’ version of things have prevented her being able to pass this detail on to her son, IF we suppose for the purpose of this hypothetical that the affair occurred? Or does this idea discredit the notion since it wasn’t mentioned?” – Alice

    Alice, we don’t know how far that romance with June went. If we assume that it went rather far then my thoughts would be that the alleged ‘molestation’ described in the Chandlers’ lawsuit is very much different from the affair a man in a condition like Michael’s would have with a woman.

    By his condition I mean a balloon stitched into his scalp and a patch with a painkiller somewhere on his abdomen. Frankly, after learning all those details and the effect opiate painkillers have on the sex drive I begin to doubt that MJ was interested in sex at the time at all, but just to answer your question I will proceed.

    You remember that the lawsuit was very graphic and described Jordan actually seeing MJ doing this and doing that. And in his conversation with Richard Gardner, the psychiatrist, Jordan even claimed that he ‘masturbated’ MJ which involves seeing him too. There was also talk about “taking a bath” together and things like that. Even if we forget all the mistakes Jordan made given Michael’s condition at that time I consider all those things totally impossible.

    However in an affair with a woman all those ‘seeing’ stages can be perfectly omitted. In fact you don’t have to be even naked to have sex with a woman. I don’t claim that MJ had it with June, but his condition did not preclude him from having an affair with her, while all those ‘molestation’ scenes with Jordan begin to sound even more insane than they were before.


  10. July 26, 2013 12:41 pm

    “Or is Phillips making a genuine slip-up by mentioning Frank and letting us know that Frank was also in conversation with Murray?” – Alice

    First of all, Phillips is not the person to make any slip-ups. Everything he says has a reason for it, and your summary of the way he tried to explain why he gave Murray his home number (and it was his home number) and why Murray called him on June 20th, and why they talked for almost half an hour and Phillips doesn’t remember what about – all of it is the best illustration how AEG bosses tried not to answer inconvenient Panish’s questions and what terrible contradictions and gaps were in their stories.

    In comparison with that Mrs. Jackson’s true answers about not recalling the events of along ago look like innocent baby’s talk.

    As to Frank Dileo, during Murray’s trial we saw a transcript of the retrieved voicemail from Frank Dileo saying that he was away and could not attend a meeting in MJ’s house on June 20th but was asking Murray to take Michael’s blood before that meeting to see “what he was doing”. The implication is that all of them thought Michael to be taking drugs, so by the time everyone assembled Murray was to show them the results of MJ’s blood tests.

    So it is clear that Phillips and Frank Dileo discussed those panicky emails from Bugzy and Kenny Ortega the night before, and discussed them in connection with drugs.

    I think Mrs. Jackson suspects that Frank Dileo was never rehired by MJ and was imposed on Michael by AEG. This is quite possible. Another person she is probably suspecting of the same is John Branca. Over here I am not sure but I hope we will eventually find out.


  11. July 26, 2013 12:58 pm

    “By the way, an intervention is always unannounced , confrontational and very uncomfortable for the addict. Reason why it is often rejected, no matter how carefully planned( re Britney Spears).” – Sina

    I am sure that this was not the method to be practiced with Michael. Any intervention could have been done solely through a person whom Michael trusted, who was an authority to him and could understand him like a real friend – like Elizabeth Taylor for example. It should have involved a long talk with going into details of his ailments and treatment they involved, separating the medicine still needed for keeping him going and the drugs that were in excess.

    However it is clear that at some point Michael’s siblings lost touch with Michael and did not know a thing about him. Well, none of them even knew that he had vitiligo and Jermaine – as far as I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) – even suspected that he was betraying his race. This shows a huge personal gap between them and Michael, and having an intervention by people whom he distrusted or was not able to confide in was useless.

    I think that an intervention is an extremely delicate matter and should have been handled very delicately too. Not by a crowd of people suddenly arriving at his door and taking him away.

    Frank Cascio found the necessary arguments – he reminded Michael of his children, and this is when he realized that he needed help and took measures himself. Michael was a responsible person – he simply had too much weight on his shoulders and was overwhelmed by all the problems he had.

    As regards the so-called intervention in 2006 this was a complete insult to Michael. Why did they go there at all? Michael was absolutely fine and it only distanced him from his family even more.


  12. July 26, 2013 1:25 pm

    “There is a saying : cut off your ties and you are free, cut off your roots and you are dead. I think this is what literally happened. Despite their strained relationship, as per Prince and KJ Michael asked to call his father but somehow never got through or vv or Joe was deliberately blocked.
    I keep thinking what would have happened had Joe had access to Michael and found Murray in the house poisoning him. I think no one would have blamed him for intervening.” – Sina

    There is nothing constant under the sun. Relations in the family evolve and change, and what was bad in the past is often forgotten and turns into big love and friendship. I very much believe in people getting wiser with time and relations between them changing too.

    That is why the situation in 2009 was different from what is was before. If Michael actually asked for Joe to come and help him to stand up to AEG, no one on the planet should have stopped him from doing it.

    AEG did not provide help themselves and blocked others from doing it too. They didn’t allow Joe in, they didn’t allow Karen Faye or Alif Sankey to help Michael, they didn’t listen even to Kenny Ortega who was closest to them and labeled his worries as ‘hysteria’. This is totally outrageous.

    It looks like they were keeping Michael as their hostage or even prisoner, considered themselves the only ones to decide on his fate and by their negligence and bullying were methodically driving him into his grave.

    P.S. Michael didn’t need an ‘intervention’ in 2009. He needed qualified medical help to get him out of the state of the chronic lack of biological sleep. His whole body was exhausted due to that, and his thinness was only one of the grave signs of his near-fatal state. If Michael’s relatives had known of the situation they could have at least shown Michael to a good doctor. They could have brought Dr. Metzger for example.


  13. Sina permalink
    July 26, 2013 1:42 pm

    Helena I am not an intervention specialist, and I will never claim to know what would work for Michael. But Im sure out of the three of us his family would know him a little better than you and I dont you think?
    Frank called them because he said Michael would not listen to him either , why else would he call them. And Jermaine was not even involved.
    Elisabeth was an authority on addiction because she was a chronic addict herself.
    I dont have a high opinion of her influence on Michael , but this is not the place for it.

    Back to the trial . AEG calling witnesses to give evidence of his alledged drugabuse and secrecy is not answering the question at hand ,but a way to attack Michaels character. But it will not do them any good. If they knew all this, they should not have entered into a business relationship with him. When they wanted to engage him they didn’t care about his medical history or that RP had to slap him to go on stage and make the announcement or what Murray was giving him as long as he did ‘what was expected from him ‘
    Did n’t RP say they check everyone …. except….. the main act, who was their core business.
    Are they serious?
    Their witnesses, including AEGs staff are debunking each others lies. Fournier imo ended up being a perfect witness for the plaintiff.
    The impression I get is that AEG is a business full of macho bullies who couldnt care less about the artist his art or quality ( re Prince’s O2 rant against AEG) .
    As long as they can score the hottest artist by any means necessary, including manipulating and misleading them with false figures and maybe get a bonus for it.
    There is footage of RP saying only one time in your life you witness greatness and that was what Michaels gig was for him. He went as far as to say that if he had to do it all over again would he do the same : ‘hell yeah ‘he said.


  14. Sina permalink
    July 26, 2013 2:15 pm

    “It looks like they were keeping Michael as their hostage or even prisoner, considered themselves the only ones to decide on his fate and by their negligence and bullying were methodically driving him into his grave.”– Helena

    Heartbreaking as it is, that is the sad reality we are learning now. Its almost surreal.


  15. permalink
    July 26, 2013 8:06 pm

    I admire your stance in this article. Buy br HONEST, kj was given latitude others would never have been given. She LIED, as she DoD a year ago when she wad taken by children, but we need not rehash that again. To me, she showed she has NO business as the legal guardian of the Mj3. She is a greedy, liar who will never be satisfied until she completely destroys the personal life of Michael Jackson and let’s things exposed that need to be put to rest or not known, which is not my or your readers business. Before this is over the real paternity of these kids will probably be revealed. I am not stupid, blind or delusional. Paris needs to be stay ad far away from that mess as she can. Debbie Rowe, again profitted by selling Paris photos to TMZ, what a pig, who Paris needs to run from too.. ‘My daughter’. Rowe’s words, make me puke. Religious, kj, her testimony this week made the case for aeg. Why can’t you admit Mj, unfortunately, was a successful, superstar drug addicted …he and his sidekick Murray are responsibility for his death. Stop it with this BS…

    Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.


  16. permalink
    July 26, 2013 8:06 pm

    Also, o hope the IRS comes after kj!

    Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.


  17. alice permalink
    July 26, 2013 9:32 pm


    Hi Rebel. I’m sure Helena will offer a more educated response to you than I can, but I would appreciate some clarification and further evidence from you on the various claims you make for my own peace of mind. This would probably certify your own statements beyond their current merit as well – thus being of benefit to you and your own credibility.

    “Before this is over the real paternity of these kids will probably be revealed.”

    In my view, this claim is both irrelevant to the case between Jackson v AEG and inconsequential to the vindication of Michael Jackson. We have no personal right to this information in either the duration of this trial or otherwise – unless, miraculously, some evidence suggesting the paternity of Michael’s children should somehow have played any role in his wrongful death.

    “To me, she showed she has NO business as the legal guardian of the Mj3.”

    In my view – unfortunately, it is not our position or right to make judgments like that about Mrs Jackson. Besides, she shares guardianship with TJ Jackson. Neither have sole guardianship.

    “She is a greedy, liar who will never be satisfied until she completely destroys the personal life of Michael Jackson”

    In my view and from the evidence we have so far, Mrs Jackson is not the one bringing up damaging and unrelated character testimonies and hearsay into the trial or into public for the purpose of influencing the trial and general sentiment towards Mr Jackson in a negative light – that is, those acts which are seemingly designed to besmirch Michael’s personal life (or ‘destroy’ as you phrase it), instead of offering credible facts and coherent, succinct answers that do not differ in stance more than four times from their original depositions.
    However, we can better perceive that kind of behavior to be happening on AEG’s side – and their attorneys – both in the open court and possibly through the media. AEG are the ones who show connections with the majority of ‘media leaks’ from money-hungry people such as Wade Robson, and others.
    When you can give us evidence that Mrs Jackson has suddenly become explicitly linked with the majority of tabloid press and news media for the purpose of slandering her son, the same media who were blatantly responsible for the destruction and distortion of Michael’s personal life while he was alive, and you can offer credible evidence she is potentially involved in this behavior for an illegitimate purpose, please do let us know.
    When you can come up with an explanation as to how destroying and defaming her son’s personal life, character and behavior will assist her case (and why would it, if this is what the opposition side are presenting?), please let us know this as well.
    It is true Mrs Jackson has answered questions in her testimony, both from Panish and in cross-exmination, about Michael’s life and time growing up in their family. A lot of which gave good insight into his relationship with his mother and his children – which may, we can suppose, be later used by Panish as a means for the jury to decide (if they find AEG guilty) just how much of a loss Michael’s death means to the family. All part of the case’s terms.
    If this is the part of Mrs Jackson’s testimony you are referring to, please explain also how this destroys his personal life?

    “he and his sidekick Murray are responsibility for his death.”

    In my view, it’s somewhat reckless to make statements like this until this trial – and perhaps even subsequent ones which could follow – are concluded. That’s the whole point of this trial – to ascertain to the best of the court’s knowledge with the evidence, such as it is, provided to them. Consequently, this statement is up to the jury to decide in the court of law, not you, – and in the meantime and after the event, also free for those who are openly assessing the court happenings in relation to other knowledge and evidence at our reach what may be the whole truth in terms of the bigger picture.

    I look forward to you clarifying and certifying these points.
    Thanks 🙂
    – alice


  18. alice permalink
    July 26, 2013 9:40 pm


    “AEG calling witnesses to give evidence of his alledged drugabuse and secrecy is not answering the question at hand ,but a way to attack Michaels character. But it will not do them any good. If they knew all this, they should not have entered into a business relationship with him.”

    An excellent point, and one that clarifies what I was trying to explain and ask of @rebeljenne. AEG are the ones attacking Michael’s character – though I’m not personally sure how or why this has any impact on the case at hand. What does trying to introduce someone’s claim he was not honest at one point in his life have to do with presenting this hearsay as some kind of credible evidence that AEG was not negligent in their hiring of Dr Murray etc?


  19. alice permalink
    July 27, 2013 12:40 am

    Hey everyone,

    Hope you are all well.
    Something I think I am beginning to see in AEG’s ‘defence’ with their latest witnesses Dr Saunders and Nurse Fournier is that they are not actually offering any evidence as to whether AEG did not hire Murray or were negligent in their involvement with him & their care of MJ. Rather, they are using years-old hearsay from past doctors to try and offer the interpretation that MJ intentionally lied about being clean from Demerol in the past and somehow they expect this supposition to lead to a conclusion by the jury that he still was seeking strong pain relieving drugs in 2009 for the sole purpose of getting high and therefore he was seeking them from Murray and pressured him into giving him Propofol et al for this purpose? I fail to see, firstly, what this has to do in supporting AEG’s argument in terms of the case and secondly, what relevance it has as legitimate evidence and how we can consider it all as facts. For example, I do not feel Fourniers personal claim that MJ lied to him years ago is somehow an irrefutable fact or example of MJ’s character or, indeed, that he hired Murray. First, what is the connection of this to the case argument and secondly, how does the claim of a man who MJ supposedly did not speak to again after the supposed surgery incident carry any credibility? Maybe this should have been stricken.
    However, I am reserving my views on Dr Saunders though, as I feel his testimony in deposition was relatively honest and it was somewhat clear that he valued MJ as a person and friend. But in a professional sense, I find it weird that he did not specify to the hospital doctors in the foot situation that MJ was not to be given Demerol before Saunders ‘left to go home’. What? If a doctor has to physically assist his patient into a hospital, is it not within his obligation to take the patient into the doctors themselves and pass on all relative details as to the injury and what he considers appropriate medications for them to use? MJ is not a doctor. He is not going to or is he able to disclose every single bit of his medical history and medication history to any random doctor he comes across. He is pain and needs medical care in that instance. He would not know what bits of this would be relevant for the new doctor unless the doctor asked him specifically. I know I do not disclose my entire medical history to every doctor I see. And not every doctor asks what you are allergic to, either, even though I expect this is their obligation to. And if MJ had a med bracelet certifying an allergy to Demerol (technically not an allergy but a justified personal aversion to taking it) surely this should have given them some indication not to use it? Irrespective of this, if Saunders knew MJ did not want to take Demerol and did not give him Demerol himself for this reason he had an obligation to tell this to the hospital prior to abandoning MJ for the hospital doctors to take over. He also had an obligation to tell them he disagreed with their use of Demerol after he learned of that fact. He claims he then gave MJ a dose of it himself, before later learning that MJ had had a dose previously. Why did Saunders do this if previously he had known MJ to express he did not want to take it? Why did he not question it? If MJ was the one to ask for it, why did Saunders not question his sudden desire for it after specifically requesting to go off it? Or, if MJ did not ask for it and did not even know what he was being given it beforehand by the doctors, why did Saunders not check before giving him a dosage of what MJ had been given in hospital? If he did not do this, he was negligent. If he did check and still went ahead with the dosage, he was still negligent.
    But this is by the by. It does not affect the point of whether AEG pressured Michael, ignored the signs of his situation, refused to consult or accept outside help, and continued to push an incompetent doctor onto MJ all for the purposes of their own financial gain.
    I am merely asking all the questions about our latest witnesses to try and understand their credibility and purpose for even being called to testify.
    Love to hear everyone else’s thoughts on this and please do correct me if I have gotten anything wrong or otherwise.


  20. July 27, 2013 3:04 am

    “I am not stupid, blind or delusional.” – rebeljenne

    No, you are not stupid – you’re simply speaking for AEG here. You attributed to me things I never said and never meant. However if this is how the post looks, I will probably have to rewrite the whole thing then.

    You and me are poles apart.

    You hate Katherine Jackson – and I love, respect and even admire her, especially after her testimony at the AEG trial.

    You think KJ ‘has no business as the legal guardian of the MJ3’ – and I think that she is the only person who is able to more or less replace the kids’ father. She is the one who raised him and made him what he was, and she is able to raise his kids in the same way.

    You say KJ is ‘greedy’ and a ‘liar’ – and I know that Katherine is absolutely truthful and deserves many more billions from AEG than even the $1,5 billion estimated by her lawyers. AEG drove into his grave the greatest performer on the planet and a person whose human traits are impossible to calculate in money terms.

    How much money did Michael’s life cost? Much more than Phil Anschutz has, so ALL the money Anschutz has should be paid to Michael’s mother and kids. In fact AEG Live owes to the whole world now – we would want Michael to live because his life made all the difference in the world to millions of us. THIS IS MY STANCE.

    And it isn’t Katherine who is “destroying the personal life” of Michael Jackson. It is AEG who are trying to character assassinate him. If this is all they can say in their “defense” it makes them even more guilty than they were before. A murderer is trying to paint their victim dirty to justify the fact that they murdered him. But even if the victim were a mere nobody or a junkie or whoever, it does not justify the murder anyway.

    It is cheap, vulgar, criminal logic. The person is second-rate, so we can do to him whatever we want. NAZI logic.

    The reason why I wrote the post is because I am after the truth and am not here to idolize the Jacksons family. Just like all of us they made some mistakes in life and that ‘intervention’ in 2006, for example, was totally uncalled for. They realized the mistake and tried to correct it by writing the letter. They weren’t lying there as Putnam suggested – they were simply making up for the mistake made.

    As to Putnam, AEG and all the rest of them, they are evidently reading this blog if they repeated after me the supposition I made in an earlier post. It was I who thought that the Jacksons had a intervention in 2007 because I believed the People magazine but thought they made a mistake in the year. I knew that 2006 was impossible and supposed that it was 2007. So it was probably after me that Putnam repeated the same thing to Mrs. Jackson.

    As to Joe Jackson – after reading of the way he treated Michael when he was a child I am no fan of his, but he is still Michael’s father and he definitely did not want anything bad to happen to him. And if Michael WANTED to see his father it was no AEG’s business to block him from coming. In fact it was none of AEG’s business to isolate Michael from anyone, Joe included.

    What AEG essentially did was creating a concentration camp for Michael Jackson. And now they are trying to character assassinate their prisoner to “justify” themselves for keeping him in the fetters. However there is no justification for that. History has already brought its verdict for AEG.

    Not only liable but guilty too. GUILTY LIKE HELL.


  21. alice permalink
    July 27, 2013 4:55 am

    Beautifully expressed, Helena. You are saying what I’m definitely thinking in your reply.
    & I don’t think for one minute you need to rewrite your post.


  22. July 27, 2013 6:06 pm

    So, I hear Dr. Murray is getting out of prison this October. What a shame.


  23. Sina permalink
    July 28, 2013 4:31 pm

    Conrad Murray will be granted an early release because of the overcrowded California jails and for good behavior.
    That is ridiculous. He could not misbehave in jail because he was in solitary confinement , but his behavior from inside jail to the public is utterly repulsive and a slap in the face of the victim and his family.
    He mocked the man he killed with his singing performance on a worldwide medium(Anderson Cooper) and had the audacity to compare himself to Michael.
    He publically addressed the victims child who suffers from severe psychological problems, and deliberately added to her pain.
    He is making threats from inside jail against plaintiffs and defendants of a lawful civil trial that he basically caused , hence making threats against the justice system.

    I dont know if its possible for the family to object against his early parole or if that is only in case of longer sentence. But its disturbing that this man will walk free in a few months. Meanwhile poor Paris has been struggling for 2 months to get her life back out of the prison CM created when he killed her father.


  24. alice permalink
    July 28, 2013 8:57 pm

    @krisheywood, @Sina

    Oh my goodness. This made my stomach drop & my heart freeze.
    Though I do find it interesting that nearly every media site/tabloid source that holds this story each have run a literally a copy-pasted version of each other. They only differ in one or two lines being left out – no new information can be obtained or varies from the other site. Which makes me ask, who leaked this release to these media outlets? And are the so-called ‘responses’ from the Jackson family legitimate?
    I wonder what La Toya’s thoughts on where we are at so far in the trial and media are.
    Not that we have a right to know, I would just be personally interested that’s all.
    Hope everyone is well.


  25. alice permalink
    July 28, 2013 9:00 pm

    Hey Helena, just a quick note to let you know there may be a technical problem with the link-up between this blog and those subscribing actually getting notified of new comment responses and new posts. Though I’ve subscribed to the blog and always click ‘notify me’ in both checkboxes below every comment I add, I never receive updates via my email. Not sure if anyone else is experiencing this problem, but I thought it might help to draw it to your attention. Hopefully it’s just something on my end!


  26. July 28, 2013 10:42 pm

    Well, none of them even knew that he had vitiligo and Jermaine as far as I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) – even suspected that he was betraying his race
    Well, when Jermaine was writing that stupid song Word to the Bad, he was speaking about Michael changing his color figuratively. He was trying to imply that Michael forgot where he came from. This was an immature attack stemming from Michael going into isolation mode.

    Also, the family knew about his vitiligo but they didn’t feel it was their place to tell the world about it. Katherine said they weren’t going to tell his business. Still, you are correct in what you’re saying about the family losing touch with him. Their relationship came to a point where they didn’t know the status on him nor he them. Many of his siblings went years without speaking to him. His security guards from 2006 or 2007 even said that Michael didn’t know that Janet had a movie coming out, plus they also said they saw no signs of drug abuse.


  27. July 28, 2013 10:54 pm

    Katherine Jackson is suing AEG Live, alleging that the tour promoters hired and failed to supervise Conrad Murray, the physician linked to the singer’s propofol overdose

    Really ABC, linked? It should be worded the physician responsible for the death of the singer.


  28. Mariam permalink
    July 28, 2013 11:29 pm

    Alice, and Helena, you both answered my question you explained it very well. Helena, I do follow up all the testimony and then every time when I need clarification, I always check your pages and always got the answer or better clarity. I feel like I talk to someone and feel better after. You are doing wonderful job here.
    Alice, Dr. Saunders deposition for some reason, I had hard time to believe him. He doesn’t seem a friend of MJ to me, it just my inner self rejected him. Maybe he was. However, as you mentioned it, in a way he was almost killed him for Demerol overdose.
    Over all, what I observe from all those doctors testimony is :that MJ was not drug seeker so that he was not drug addicted, also was not abusing it because 3 of them(Dr. David, Dr. Farshchian , Dr Saunders ) testified that MJ did not want to use Demerol. In fact they all said he tried to avoid taking it instead of wanting to have it. However, According to their testimony, I understand that he was depending on those pain killer medications, because he needs it. pls correct me if I understood it wrong because English is my second langue so I might missed it.
    The other thing is, why everybody saying, especially AEG lawyers that MJ had to tell everybody his medical history, that he has pain here and there as result he is taking pain killer, that he had Vitiligo, that he has cosmetic procedures, who does that? Are every entertainers or artist disclosing all their medical history to entire world? Shouldn’t it be private? Why they think MJ needs to tell them, because he didn’t, that make him bad or secretive, I don’t understand that.
    I hope the jury will see it honestly and not manipulated by AEG lawyers. if you do not put yourself in that person shoes and if you are not honest to yourself, you will never understand what is going on in that person mind and emotion and you will not able to give honest opinion or judgment about that person.
    One thing I would like to say is, if AEG knows in fact MJ is hopeless drug addicted, why they do a business with somebody like him to begin with? Ok, let assume that they did not know at the beginning that MJ is drug addicted, why did not stop later when they see him out of it or loopy and can’t focus, when he missed rehearsal a lot. Why they did not stop there? What I think is, AEG knows everything what was going on, but they were just driven with $$$ and they didn’t expect MJ would die or maybe they knew and they want him to die, who knows? Money is evil if you don’t know how to handle it. If the money control you , not you control it, that is dangers. We lost this precious, precious man for their greediness. He was helping a lot of poor’s in Africa millions; I will say he was a father of the poor’s if you agree with me. His millions of dollars donation feed a lot of poor people. That is the man we lost. He would help more if someone give a little care or pay little attention to him. Just a little simple action, giving him a little time to recover or a little to rest could save him. For few people, maybe he is nobody but for a millions of poor people he was somebody very important, there is a millions out there who needs his help, so the lost is huge. He will never be replaced but will never be forgotten. My kids and grandkids will know how great humanitarian and musical genius he was.


  29. July 30, 2013 5:16 am

    I did not know that Jack Wishna also died. Taking he ages and deaths of people involved with MJ. 2007 or 6 to 2010, what does statisics say?


  30. July 30, 2013 5:41 am

    “I did not know that Jack Wishna also died.” – kaarin

    Jack Wishna not only died but committed suicide too – only recently, in November 2012. Died of exhaust fumes in his custom-made Bentley.


  31. July 30, 2013 8:47 am

    They knew everything. Who told T Barack of Colony Capital to speak “fluff” with Michael when TB and TT went to his home in LasVegas.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: